The object of fire safety is to prevent ignition in the first place.
Given that we seldom know how to do this, we assume ignition and specify requirements for flame retardant (otherwise flammable) materials and fire enclosures. We assume that these measures will slow the fire growth and maybe lead to the fire dying before it escapes the product. Fire of any source produces toxic gasses, some visible (smoke and other airborne particulates) and some invisible. (This is why we have chimneys and furnace flues, and why firefighters have breathing apparatus.) Depending on the material, some gasses are more toxic (poisonous) than others. The fact that flame-retardant chemicals decompose and are given off as gas and particulates is slightly more dangerous to breathe in than the other combustion gasses and particulates. Best regards, Rich From: Peter Tarver <ptar...@enphaseenergy.com> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 4:25 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Do We Need Flame Retardants in Electronics? Not quite so long ago as high voltage vacuum tubes, I am aware of one incident where a small "fire" (more accurately, smoke escaped and the enclosure melted) occurred in in a TV. IIRC, this was a case where the production of the molded plastic yielded material too thin, but this was on the order of 25 years ago. On another front, there is an area where flame retardants are the enemy of compliance: in "other spaces for environmental air." Flame retardants emit copious amounts of particulates as they resist ignition. This can cause the opacity and density of smoke in the test chamber to exceed proscribed limits. If a fire enclosure is not needed (e.g., LSP or LVLE or similar are all that's involved) and a metal enclosure is not a cost effective option the best approach is to use a lower flammability classified material with low doping load of flame retardant and possibly a high percentage of inorganic fill material (e.g., glass fibers, etc.). Peter Tarver From: Ted Eckert <000007cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org <mailto:000007cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 1:56 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Do We Need Flame Retardants in Electronics? I seem to recall that long ago, when televisions had vacuum tubes, high voltage and high power, fires were an issue. I'm not positive, but I thought that the requirements for flame retardants came from investigations of a number of fires of plastic enclosed televisions. I believe that the basis for the requirement is sound. It's been decades since flammable plastics were commonly used for IT and A/V products. The fact that there have been few issues may be due to the effectiveness of flame retardants. Ted Eckert Microsoft Corporation The opinions experessed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Pete Perkins <00000061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org <mailto:00000061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 1:46 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Do We Need Flame Retardants in Electronics? Rich, et al, Like many issues we see raging around us this is one which got caught up in political correctness before it had a large public face. I personally felt that the science of flame retardants is well understood and making a change involved adding in risks which were not well understood therefore bad practice. Thanx for bring this around again. :>) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant PO Box 1067 Albany, Ore 97321-0413 503/452-1201 IEEE Life Fellow <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> p.perk...@ieee.org Entropy ain't what it used to be From: Richard Nute <ri...@bendbroadband.com <mailto:ri...@bendbroadband.com> > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 1:32 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] Do We Need Flame Retardants in Electronics? <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scien tificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fdo-we-need-flame-retardants-in-electronics%2F& data=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C6f8624a753274fc2dda608d73ae6f790 %7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C637042635984040539&sdata=ub7Kt AnUqaUapbaX027V6wPDQk2RvtChpLUtsSzI0so%3D&reserved=0> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-need-flame-retardants-in-el ectronics/ ".there has never been any valid statistical demonstration that flame retardant chemicals of the types and concentrations used in consumer products have resulted in death or injury reduction," says <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scien tificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fdo-furniture-flame-retardants-save-enough-live s-justify-environmental-damage%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com% 7C6f8624a753274fc2dda608d73ae6f790%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C 1%7C637042635984050495&sdata=k0o04eDHG0IbRIzN9hu559U5Pt3dlddOXHZngjKEt2c%3D& reserved=0> Vytenis Babrauskas. The article is more than 5 years old. Nevertheless, thought-provoking. Enjoy! Rich - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
