Toxic Hot Seat (2013) - full transcript

♪

WOMAN: Everyone has

a fear of fire, right?

No one wants to burn

up in a fire.

And if you can stoke that

fear, it's easy to leave

a law in place.

To convince somebody

that something that you've

been led to believe for all

these years is protecting

you, isn't protecting you?

And if you change it,

children are going to burn up

and die horrific deaths.

Who wants to change that law?

♪

[Vehicle engine revving]

[Siren]

MAN: I loved every day

I went to work.

[Truck beeping]

Every time you go out that

door, you're going out

there for one reason,

and that's to help somebody.

[Siren]

And there's no better

feeling in the world.

I distinctly remember

the smell of the soap when I

washed my hands,

the smell of the turnout coats

with the smoke when I

entered in this firehouse,

looking out the back

windows in the dormitory

at nighttime, hoping that

I was going to get a fire.

I know it sounds sort of

strange, but I wanted to

test my skills.

[Siren]

Being a firefighter,

you don't think

about the negative

aspects of the job.

You keep yourself in shape.

You get sort of a... a feeling

that you're infallible.

I mean you... you just...

There's nothing that

you can't do.

You're not gonna get sick.

You take care of yourself.

You eat right.

But I got bit in the

ass, to put it bluntly.

It was January the 5th.

It was a winter morning.

I was out for a run.

♪

About the last mile,

I got to the point where I

couldn't run anymore.

And that had never

happened to me before.

I actually stopped and I walked.

I felt really bad.

Got back into the gym,

went to the bathroom,

and started urinating.

I was peeing just blood.

And within a week I had

a CT scan and was told that

in my right kidney, I had

transitional cell carcinoma...

A rare form of cancer,

normally found in one

in 100,0000 people,

and normally found

in people that work in

the chemical industry.

♪

I was referred to

a doctor at UCSF.

He asked me what my

profession was, and I told

him I was a firefighter

here in San Francisco.

And he goes, "Do you

realize that you work

in the chemical industry?"

And I said, "Well, I've

never really thought of it

that way, but I guess I do."

When you walk into a room,

there could be 100-130

different toxic

chemicals in the air.

You're dealing with flame

retardants that are used

on just about everything...

Clothing, textiles, furnishings.

In the old days,

that stuff didn't exist.

♪

During my treatment

and recovery, another

firefighter here at

Station One came down

with transitional

cell carcinoma.

And then a third firefighter.

And during this period

of time, too, it seemed like

every month somebody

else would be diagnosed

with some form of cancer.

Every month we'd be

going to another funeral

of somebody else that had

contracted it that had

retired and died.

So, it was...

It was an eye opener.

I mean, the realization was

there that we were faced

with a major problem.

♪

[Ship horn blows]

♪

MAN: If you're going to

change the standard,

that the standard

should be changed to

require more chemicals.

You can't get from A to Z

because they've left out...

What do they have to do

with an arson...

Why would you have to...

WOMAN: The 2008 Pulitzer

was for a series

we did called "Hidden Hazards,"

which was about

deadly baby products,

dangerous baby products.

Anything from cribs to this

Godzilla back here

with lead paint on it.

♪

At the end of that story,

a lot changed, thankfully.

It was the biggest

reform movement

in the country to protect

children and their products

in a generation.

It was exciting to see

that kind of result happen.

♪

We were working on

a completely unrelated story

that had to do with chemicals

but not flame retardants.

And I often, when I'm

interviewing people,

will ask at the end,

"So, what didn't I ask you?"

Or, "What's interesting?"

And almost everyone we

talked to said, "Well,

what you really should be

looking at is flame retardants."

All couches seem

to be different.

ROE: Virtually every

American home has flame

retardants in their couch.

And when you talk to

people, people are surprised

that there's flame retardants

in couches and chairs.

You know, they're just

surprised by that fact alone.

And, you know, these are

chemicals that aren't

measured by parts per

billion or parts per

million in a couch.

It's measured by

pounds and ounces.

♪

CALLAHAN: It was

the late '90s that

the first studies were

coming out raising alarms

about flame retardants in

terms of flame retardants

accumulating in

people and wildlife

in places around the

world that you would never

in a million years

think flame retardants.

[Bird caws]

Suddenly, they had

become controversial.

And they weren't before.

I don't think they were before.

It started in Sweden,

with scientists finding

that these chemicals were

building up in breast milk

and then being passed on

to the next generation.

They were out there,

and nobody really knew much

about them or what

they were doing

in the environment.

And I think, it was

a problem in general

for environmental health

researchers initially is,

why a lot of people didn't

want to touch flame

retardants is fire.

People dying in fires.

The idea that, shouldn't

we do whatever we can to

prevent people from

dying from fires?

And it's hard

to argue against that.

♪

♪ Better things for better

living through chemistry ♪

♪ Or the finer world we want ♪

♪ Better things for better

living through chemistry ♪

♪ That's the promise of Dupont ♪

♪ Every day that we are

living is such a thrill ♪

♪ That we can't

stay nonchalant ♪

♪ Better things for

better living... ♪

That mindset. This

is the world we live in.

This is one of the

consequences of modern

living is having all

of these chemicals in our body.

And if we want, you know,

all of these conveniences...

If we want safer houses,

if we want nonstick pans,

if we want jackets that

repel water, all these

different kinds of things...

There are side effects or

there are consequences that

we just have to live with.

And, you know, in

terms of one school

of thought, just

because they're in our

bodies doesn't mean that

they're causing any harm.

And, yeah, you'll hear that.

I don't see people whose

arms and legs are falling

off, so, therefore

what's the big deal?

♪

CALLAHAN: There's

one thing to say that

flame retardants are

building up in the environment.

They're building up in people.

And that is alarming.

They're building up

in breast milk?

I mean, that's alarming, right?

But, again, it's if

they work, well, then it's

a little bit of

a different... if they're all...

You know, if there is truly

a huge threat of fire that

we all face, and they're

protecting us from that

threat on a daily basis,

then it's sort

of a different story.

When we waded

into this topic, you know,

at the outset it did

appear very complicated.

And sometimes you do feel

like you're a referee.

Because, you know, you have

the industry on this side,

you have some

activists on this side.

There's allegations going

back and forth, and you do

feel like you're going

in there and saying,

"Wait a second.

I'm just trying"...

You're trying to

figure out the truth.

We weren't out to get

the chemical industry

by any means on this.

You know, we're not advocates.

We're not.

We're not on one side

or another here.

We were trying to get to

the bottom of this question

and this legacy, really,

that's been

around since the seventies.

And why do we have

these chemicals in our lives?

Why do we have them

in our furniture?

Why do we have them

in our bodies?

♪

There we so many layers,

it was like peeling

an onion, you know, there

were so many layers to this

and...

and so many of them

were just rotten.

♪

MALE VOICE ON TV:

This is human tragedy.

10 minutes ago, we were

looking at a football game.

I now look at the sad

and tragic site...

DIFFERENT MAN, VOICE-OVER: Once

a fire starts, people have no

clue how fast it is.

MALE VOICE ON TV:

And look at that.

Oh, the poor man.

Oh, this is awful.

I mean, I remember

there was a soccer stadium

fire in Bradford, England.

It happened to be televised.

The cameras were in

the exact opposite end

of the stadium.

They were televising the match.

They weren't seeing anything.

Some stupid thing happened...

Probably someone dropped

a cigarette, maybe

dropped a match.

Who knows what happened.

But after seeing the

video many times, I know

exactly when the fire started.

MALE VOICE ON TV: That looks

very nasty indeed.

And from that moment

until the entire stadium...

A massive, big stadium...

Was on fire was 8 minutes.

It takes 8 minutes for

a massive stadium to be

completely engulfed in

flames from a tiny little fire.

MALE VOICE ON TV:

But what I can't tell you

is how many people are injured.

My fear is there may even

have been somebody dead.

I work with the chemical

fire retardant manufacturers.

I mean, in case...

You didn't ask me that,

but it's a well-known thing

that I work with them.

And, well, here we already

have flashover...

you see them

extinguishing the fire.

HIRSCHLER: I believe

in fire safety.

We kill a lot of people in

this country from fires.

[Sirens]

[Emergency radio transmissions]

♪

Upholstered furniture?

We have a serious problem.

Let's say a fire

starts in the upholstered

furniture sofa here.

♪

And you see the temperature

rises and rises and rises

until you reach

a certain point when

the temperature has risen

enough that suddenly

everything in that room,

in that compartment,

is burning.

♪

And from that moment,

all bets are off.

There's nothing else that's

gonna be able to save

anything inside

that compartment.

That moment, that is

the moment of flashover.

♪

90% of the paddings...

Maybe even higher...

Of chairs are polyurethane-

foam-based.

Polyurethane foam is very

flammable on its own.

It burns very quickly.

It burns very fast.

Well, if we put flame

retardants in there, we get

the insulating

capability of the foam

and fire safety.

♪

I was the first

person ever to get

a Ph.D. degree in Fire

Protection Engineering.

♪

Back in the late 1980s,

I was working

for the federal government,

and I did a very

extensive study on

a comparison between

goods that did or did not

have flame retardants.

They did ones that were

completely non-fire-retardant...

The typical run-of-the-mill

that you find in most

households...

And ones that

were well-fire-retarded.

The really, uh, proof

of the pudding is how does

the furniture item

burn in full scale?

♪

HIRSCHLER: What

they found is that the

safer furniture, the safer

products, gave 15 times

more time to escape.

It was massive.

I'm sorry. I mean,

I'm an old man, and I've

run a lot of fire

tests in my life.

And flame retardants,

in my view, should be

one of the...

One of the solutions.

And something that

just bans them out of hand

is just wrong.

MAN:

Look at the size

of the flame there.

MAN: With great

pleasure, I welcome

one of the giants in

the prevention field,

Andrew McGuire.

[Applause]

You know, it's hard

to know what happens

to a life or my life

if you change

a central event.

♪

When I was 7,

on my birthday, I went

in the kitchen,

and I turned on the oven.

The hem of my flannel

bathrobe ignited.

My sister, who was 4,

saw the flames

coming up my back and screamed.

And then I turned,

saw the flames,

and then I screamed and ran.

Like this. There you go.

So I was on fire about

8, 9, 10 seconds

at the most, and had

third-degree burns on my

legs and back, hands and head.

What clicked for me was all

of those burns that I had

seen in the burn center

were totally preventable.

My burn would have

been preventable.

I don't want someone else

to go through that goddamn

experience if it

doesn't have to happen.

Let's just do the

right thing here.

♪

In 1978, I found out,

anecdotally,

that cigarette companies

can make cigarettes

self-extinguish and

not cause fire deaths,

not cause fires.

And the number of fires from...

And deaths from cigarettes,

it's the leading cause

of fire death in America,

in the world.

ROE: I've got to say,

when we first started

working on this topic,

the idea that big tobacco

had a role in why we have flame

retardants in our households...

That was really interesting.

I mean, it was surprising.

Who would have thought

tobacco had anything to do

with your couch, right?

COMMERCIAL: ♪ You can take Salem

out of the country but ♪

♪ You can't take the country

out of Salem ♪

CALLAHAN: These were the days

when a lot of people smoked.

I think 40% of

the country smoked.

A lot of people smoked indoors.

You know, offices,

newsrooms were just a big

cloud of smoke back then.

And people were dying

in furniture fires.

MALE VOICE ON TV:

Federal investigators said

today that a discarded

cigarette was the likely

cause of this Hilton Hotel

fire in Houston, March 6,

that killed 12 people.

CALLAHAN: There's

no question about it.

It was happening commonly.

It was happening

all over the country

at a regular occurrence.

So, there were efforts

afoot to try and change

the cigarette because that

was what was igniting most

of the fires.

FEMALE VOICE ON TV:

In the last 10 years,

significant steps have

been made toward developing

a federal fire-safe

cigarette safety standard.

CALLAHAN: Up to that point,

the industry

response had been,

"We just can't do it.

"We can't make a cigarette

that anyone's gonna want to

"smoke that will

extinguish on its own.

It's just not feasible."

They had a very successful,

very lucrative product.

And they were very

leery of changing it.

...where we're taking on

the major cause of fire death,

the major cause

of fire injury...

McGUIRE: I was there.

I testified.

The cigarette industry said,

"It's not our problem.

You should make furniture

cigarette-resistant."

They said that in hearings.

The homes of America are filled

with furniture that had

not been treated to reduce

its flammability.

In fact, I can report that

we have developed a method

for applying a flame

and smolder retardant

in the home.

McGUIRE: They had

a flame retardant that you

could go and spray

everything in your

environment with this

flame retardant to prevent

cigarettes from igniting it.

Fire retardants can save you

thousands of dollars

and possibly save

your life.

McGUIRE: That was

their solution in 1983...

The tobacco industry's

solution...

To fires caused by cigarettes.

All right, so, page 23.

I started kind of

noodling around

on the tobacco

document sites, where

there's this phenomenal

repository of documents

that the tobacco

industry turned over to

settle lawsuits.

There's 13 million

of them online.

It's just an investigative

reporter's dream.

This issue of making

a fire-safe cigarette was

gaining some traction,

and they were

worried about it.

They said, "Neither

industry response has been

"particularly effective in

offsetting fire scarred

"victims interviewed by

the news media and paraded

before legislative committees."

"Fire scarred victims."

That's what they feared.

We are not here as freaks

parading before you for

sympathy, but as burn

victims who could have

been any one of you

but for the grace of God.

McGUIRE: These companies,

they don't want

their product associated

with burn injuries or

fire deaths.

That's a very tough

marketing problem.

MAN: You start tampering

with the cigarette, it is

a very highly technical

and complex undertaking.

CALLAHAN: The

tobacco industry was

repeatedly trying to

shift the attention to

the furniture that was

going up in flames.

What they realized,

though, early on is they

realized they lacked

credibility, right?

They were the tobacco industry.

Tobacco was... kind of wrote

the playbook on this.

They called it

third-party defense.

If we lack credibility,

let's get someone else

who's much more credible

to do the arguing for us.

The Tobacco Institute,

they bring in

a guy named Peter Sparber.

They hire him, and he's...

He's given the position

of Vice-President,

Tobacco Institute.

Peter Sparber comes in in 1982.

And all of a sudden,

within a couple years of him

being there, he helps organize

a new group on the scene

in America called The

National Association

of State Fire Marshals.

National Association of

State Fire Marshals.

Sounds credible, doesn't it?

You organize a National

Association of State

Fire Marshals.

They're the senior

firefighting officials

in the states.

And Peter Sparber was able

to, to a certain degree,

infiltrate this organization

of fire marshals.

We've clearly

demonstrated that what we

have done has significantly

reduced fire deaths.

MALE VOICE ON TV: The National

Association of State Fire

Marshals believes more

lives can be saved.

It wants tough federal

standards for all

upholstered furniture

sold in this country.

CALLAHAN: It was

extraordinarily cunning

and, to a certain

degree, brilliant.

Who would have thought

that firefighting...

Fire officials would be

sort of speaking tobacco's

talking points, and winning?

That's what really...

That's what really got me.

♪

What they were arguing

was, you know, the better

way to do this is to

fireproof furniture.

The better way to do this

is to fireproof furniture.

Focus on the fuel rather

than the ignition, the fuel

being the furniture

that's going up in flames.

Everyone believes that you

can't take on the

tobacco industry...

It's too big, it's too powerful.

And probably that's

the single leading cause

in nothing happening,

is that people don't think

it's possible.

And I do.

♪

McGUIRE: There

is one regulation.

It's called

Technical Bulletin 117.

It took effect in the state

of California in 1975.

It's the only

regulation in the world...

No other state, no other

nation in the world has

this standard.

MAN: "All upholstered

furniture sold

"or offered for sale by

a manufacturer or

"a wholesaler for use in

this state," et cetera,

et cetera, "shall

be fire retardant

and shall be labeled

in a manner..."

I was a government

regulator for 30 years.

And so it's almost

like in my genes...

And I was responsible for

safety, and I was trying to

do the best job

I could for safety.

MALE VOICE ON TV:

Gordon Damant is in charge

of the California Bureau

of Home Furnishings.

For our program, Damant

set up 10 miniature

overstuffed chairs made of

a cotton batting stuffing,

and covered with

a cotton velvet fabric.

Conceivably, it could be up

to a period of 30 years

until we have

an entire population

of furniture which

is, in fact,

cigarette-resistant.

DAMANT, VOICE-OVER:

There was a lot

of politics involved.

On some of the early

versions of the standard

that I wrote,

I specifically indicated

that if any flame retardant

chemicals of any type

had to be added

to products in order

to achieve compliance with

the standard, that there

should not be any

negative effect in terms

of adverse health impacts.

That was removed

from the standard.

♪

McGUIRE: So, it was

a solution from 1975

in California, and it

went totally below

the radar screen.

No one knew this happened.

The only people who knew

that it had happened was

the furniture industry.

And they ultimately went

along with it because it

was just California.

But eventually, after the

years went by from 1975 on,

they had to do it for

the rest of the country.

They had to do it for Canada.

Because it was too

difficult to make furniture

for California with poison in

the foam, and then storehouse

furniture for other

states and countries

with no poison in the foam.

So they just said, "Let's just

put poison in all the foam."

McGUIRE: Because

the California market is

so huge, it's in all your

furniture throughout

the country.

WOMAN: It's called

Technical Bulletin 117, TB117.

And if you go home and look

at your couches, you will

probably find TB117

labels on your couches.

And it's not

a very good standard.

It says that the foam

inside your furniture won't

burn when exposed to a

small flame for 12 seconds.

So if you do a thought

experiment and you think

about what happens if

you drop a candle on your

couch, what burns first?

AUDIENCE: Fabric.

BLUM: Fabric.

And when fabric burns,

do you still have

a teeny flame?

You have a big flame.

And then the furniture...

The foam burns in

maybe 2 or 3 seconds.

And when foam burns in the

presence of organohalogen,

it gives off way more

carbon monoxide soot

and smoke.

And what kills people in fires?

AUDIENCE: Toxic gases.

BLUM: Toxic gases.

So we have the standard...

FEMALE VOICE ON TV:

Arlene Blum, age 33.

A biochemist at the

University of California

at Berkeley,

she studies environmental

chemicals that may cause cancer.

Organizing the first

major all-woman American

expedition to the Himalayas

has been her dream

for 6 years.

BLUM: I had a choice

between going to try to be

the first American woman

to climb Mount Everest,

or writing a paper about

the toxic chemicals

in kids' pajamas.

So, I had a lot of indecision.

So, what would you do?

How many of you would

go to Mount Everest?

How many of you would

stay and write the paper

about the kids' pajamas?

Well, I did both.

[Laughter]

So the chemical is called

brominated Tris.

And this was in

the mid-seventies.

And we found a little girl

who had never worn

Tris-treated pajamas.

So we put her in the

pajamas, and we collected

her urine.

And the next day, there

were Tris breakdown

products in her urine.

Does that sound good?

AUDIENCE: No.

BLUM: And they were cancer-

causing chemicals that we

were finding in this

little girl's urine.

♪

BLUM: I flew my Tris

flag at about 24,000 feet

and sent my paper by mail

runner back to Berkeley to

be published.

It's unusual.

But it worked.

3 months after we wrote

the paper, Tris was removed

from kids' pajamas.

However, today, chlorinated

Tris is the most commonly

used flame retardant in

our furniture

and baby products.

So, here we got it

out of kids' pajamas

in the seventies, but it's back

today in our furniture,

our baby products.

♪

So now I can understand how

they wouldn't want to

speak at the hearing

because there will be

hooting and hollering.

SAME MAN, VOICE-OVER: What we're

doing is we're testing all

of these mattresses and nap

mats for toxic chemicals.

So, this is the kind of

thing that my daughter

Gigi is sleeping on

today at preschool.

So, she sleeps on this and

it's soft, and the reason

it's soft is it's got

polyurethane foam in it.

Here, it's cut out

because we had to test

the polyurethane foam.

That's how we know it has

these toxic chemicals in it.

Now, if you think about

when you squeeze a nap mat

and some of the air comes

out, that air contains

a vapor of a carcinogen,

and it's right

in the breathing space

of the child that just

squeezed it by putting

their head down.

That's crazy and horrifying

for a guy whose 4-year-old

daughter is probably

in nap time right now

at preschool.

♪

WOMAN: If you've

ever sat with the light

coming in, just right

into a window, and you see

someone sit down, when you sit,

there's a little poof

of dust that comes up.

And the flame retardants

are a part of the foam,

but they're not

bound very tightly.

These chemicals come out of

the foam, and they like to

attach to dust particles,

which then eventually come

back down and either,

you know, form a film

on your couch, or on

the floor, which is

where most kids spend

most of their time.

They're getting more

exposure because they're

touching everything

and then putting their

hands in their mouth.

And they have been

linked to a number

of heath problems.

♪

BLUM: This is one

of my favorite slides.

It's an ad in the fifties

for DDT wallpaper in Walt

Disney designs.

And what that fifties mom

who's lovingly tucking

in her little baby

doesn't realize is her little

baby's chance of breast

cancer is much higher

because of the DDT wallpaper.

And that's the thing

about organohalogens.

It's not like they give

you a burn or a rash.

It's they go into

your body, they stay.

And over the course of

your life, they can cause

serious health problems.

And the very same

thing that makes

them desirable to chemical

companies as a flame

retardant, in many cases

is the very same thing that

worries people who study

environmental health.

They can be kind of volatile.

They can travel widely from

where they originally,

you know, start out at.

And they also often

can bioaccumulate,

and they're toxic.

It's like a trifecta

of concern with flame

retardant chemicals in

this country today.

♪

BLUM: So, I have one

little chemistry lesson.

If we look at that molecule

on the top, you have

a polybrominated diphenyl ether.

PBDEs.

PBDEs. They're found in over 90%

of Americans' bodies.

They're found in breast

milk and blood and urine,

and even in amniotic fluid.

And they accumulate

up the food chain.

And way at the top of

the food chain is

a nursing baby...

Marine mammals and

nursing babies.

So, our children have

3 times the level of adults.

So, these are chemicals we have

about a pound in your house.

Women with higher levels

take twice as long to

become pregnant.

Children, when

they have higher levels

at birth, have 4 to 6

points less IQ permanently.

There's a number of studies

trying to relate them to autism.

There are literally

thousands of papers showing

harm from these

flame retardants.

JANSSEN: Increased

rates of childhood learning

and behavioral problems.

Increased rates

of birth defects.

Adulthood cancers,

like testicular cancer.

And there is some good

evidence that flame

retardants are contributing

to the increased rates

of cancer in our firefighters.

Because the flame

retardants in their

chemical structure,

when they're burned

and when they are

volatilized or vaporized

into the air, they form

these toxic chemicals,

specifically things

like dioxins and furans,

which are known

cancer-causing chemicals.

And fires that have flame

retardants actually turn

out to be more toxic than

fires that don't have

these chemicals.

STEFANI: I know when you

guys took the job, and I

know when I took the job,

I didn't give a damn what

we were coming in contact with.

When we went into

a building on fire,

the object was to knock

the fire down as fast as we

could in the city,

and if there was life

involved, to save a life.

Tom, what do you think?

I think it's...

I think it's

important that we

realize that these fires

that we're going to now

are just an absolute

toxic soup,

the environment

we're entering into.

It's Three Mile Island.

It's... you know,

it's Love Canal,

and it's on fire.

And those chemicals

are sticking

on our equipment.

Those chemicals are

sticking on our skin.

We're seeing more

and more breast cancer

now in the female

firefighters, and we have

the highest percentage

of female firefighters

in the United States,

if not in the world.

[Radio transmissions]

WOMAN: All right.

Do you remember this one?

"I watched the rig disappear

"around the corner.

"I know what my firehouse

"family will do.

"When they get to the fire,

"they'll put on their air masks

and grab the hoses."

Many of our women were

getting breast cancer.

And I mean, there were...

I remember thinking,

"Wow. Is this...

"is this a high number,

or is this just normal?

Is this what just

happens in our lives?"

DIFFERENT WOMAN: My first

fire was on 45 Yosemite

Avenue in San Francisco,

off Third Street.

You go up the stairs,

I look right.

There's nothing. It's dark.

But I... there's no more heat,

there's no sound.

I look left. I see orange glow.

It's loud.

Oh, we're going that way.

My officer taps me on the

shoulder and he goes...

KERR STONE:

When Alison got sick,

her partner was pregnant.

And I remember I helped gather

the exposure reports.

The stations were great.

Everybody helped me

gather the report.

They went through

all the journals.

And I was...

I was really blown away

by all the toxins

we were exposed to.

[Radio transmissions]

KERR STONE: Alison's

death was probably

the biggest event

in my adult life.

She was my colleague.

And it really hit home.

It hit home about what we're

exposed to and that you

can get really sick...

and be this vibrant,

healthy, powerful person,

and have all the fight in

you you want, and not live.

It changed my perspective

on my job.

It didn't change my

love of the job.

It changed my realization

about what the job was,

and how much I was exposed to.

And I remember at the same time,

I had learned a little

while before that there

were toxins in breast milk.

I had talked to Tony.

I asked about that and

he said, "Oh, there is

"research on it, and

they are finding it from

flame retardants."

And I thought, "From

flame retardants?"

Here I was. I had breast-fed

my first child.

I thought I was giving

him the healthiest thing I

could possibly give him.

Going back to work and

still breastfeeding.

And I thought,

"What did I feed him?"

Maybe they're going too fast.

KERR STONE, VOICE-OVER:

Now I feel like, well, all I can

do, at least now I know that

117 exists and that I

should read the label.

But most people have

no idea, then.

They have no idea.

And they think the

same thing I do.

They think, "I've got

this nice safe car seat,

this nice safe stroller,

this great breast pillow."

All right.

What are you

thankful for today?

I'm really thankful

for the pasta.

[Chuckles] That's a good one.

KERR STONE, VOICE-OVER:

It seems like something's wrong

with this picture.

If it was banned in kids'

pajamas decades ago, why is

it still in so many products?

Because it's a lot less

likely that my child is

going to catch on fire when

I'm breast feeding than it

is that they might get

exposures to toxins.

It doesn't take a scientist

to figure that one out.

"They'll put out the flames..."

ROE, VOICE-OVER: You have sort

of an untold public health

threat that's in

everyone's home.

It's in everybody's home.

You know, the industry

has worked really hard to

downplay that health risk

and to promote this idea

that flame

retardants are working.

But if the science shows that

these chemicals don't

really even work the way

they're used, then why are

we getting the potential

risk and none of the benefit or

the purported benefit?

The people who make these

chemicals don't really want

people to ask that question.

[Machinery rumbling]

[Vehicle beeping]

FEMALE VOICE: Flame

retardants are also

an important part of

the fire safety toolbox.

Yet they go unnoticed

and in some cases

are misunderstood.

The major reason

for the reduction

of the fires is the fact

that flame retardants have

been incorporated into so

many materials in the home.

We first contacted

the American Chemistry

Council and asked them

for, you know, proof that

flame retardants work.

We just wanted to know.

This is very early on

in our reporting.

And they gave us the

government study by

Vito Babrauskas.

One of the findings was

that flame retardants would

give people in maybe a

residential home a 15 times

fold escape time in a fire.

If you had flame retardants

in your home, you would

have 15 times more time

to escape if those things

caught on fire.

That's what the industry said.

That's not what the study said.

That's... that was completely

wrong, and it was easy to prove

because we went to the

main author of that study

and said, "Here's what

they're saying your study says.

Is that true?"

And he said, "Absolutely not.

They're distorting it."

There was something very narrow

and specific and specialized

about that study.

All of the products we

tested were cost no object,

state of the art materials.

The items that were

tested were not tested

under real-world conditions.

These items had NASA-style

flame retardants

added to it.

They used the most potent,

expensive flame retardants,

and they put these

in these experimental items.

And lo and behold,

it proved that flame

retardants work.

But that is not the furniture

when we go into

a retailer and say, "I want

a new living room sofa."

And so the industry said, "Look.

"This study shows that you get

15 times fold escape time."

But no, not unless your

furniture is made by NASA,

you won't.

Now, California and TB117

is basically the opposite

extreme of the scale.

They put in a very small

amount, on the order

of 3% to 5%.

And once you do that,

you get the worst of both

possible worlds.

♪

BABRAUSKAS: These pieces

of foam are tested

naked, just a piece of foam.

Now I know absolutely

nobody who has in his

living room a piece

of naked foam that they sit on.

♪

It's just plain old...

This is from my house, actually.

We redecorated.

My wife said I

could have this one.

What we've got here is a

piece of foam that we took

out, and it was tested,

and it has the penta in it,

which is a pentabromo

diphenyl ether.

Let's see if we can make a

piece that we'll cover up

with a piece of fabric.

LUCAS: What we've found is that

when the fabric catches fire,

if it catches fire,

you can end up with a much

bigger flame.

And when you have a really

large flame, we found that

the materials used, even if

they've been treated with fire

retardants, can burn.

In fact, when they do burn,

they can produce smoke that

can be more toxic than

untreated materials.

That's a pretty intense

fire, a lot of smoke

coming off.

MAN: And that foam was...

This foam passes TB117.

BABRAUSKAS: You get

maybe a slight benefit

of a few seconds of

ignition time, something

like that, from a fire

safety point of view,

but you do get great gobs

more of noxious chemicals

that are put out in the smoke,

and they are going to

be toxic to human beings.

CALLAHAN: Vito Babrauskas,

he explained to me

that by the time

the fabric cover burns

and the flames reach the

foam inside that's treated

with flame retardants,

what he said to me was

the fire just laughs at it.

ROE: That was a study

that was sort of easy to

disprove because the

author himself, after many,

many years, came out and said,

"No, they're distorting it,

and I want them to stop."

So, they manipulated

your research

to suit their needs?

Well, in an exceedingly blatant

and disgraceful way, yes.

And they wouldn't stop.

They just kept going.

It made me think that some

of these other studies that

they've been using over the

years, you know, might have

similar problems.

Then they came up with the

Simonson study, saying that

the study out of Sweden

proved all these things.

There have been several studies,

particularly in Sweden.

The Swedish National

Research and Testing Lab SP,

with Margaret Simonson

and her group

at SP found, is that you

have orders of magnitude

better environment

from the point of view

of toxicity, when you have

materials that are...

Products that are

more fire safe.

It's just incredible.

And if you drill down on this

study, you'll find that

the foundation of all

those broad claims are

an obscure study...

So obscure that it's only

available in Swedish.

[Woman speaking Swedish]

ROE: It's a government report

out of Sweden 15 years ago

that has nothing to do

with flame retardants.

And the study is so

obscure, the industry

doesn't have a copy.

You can't find it online.

It's not published anywhere.

And we had to go

to the only library

in the world that I could

find that has a copy of it,

the National Library of

Sweden, to get a copy.

And then we had it

translated in English.

And what you'll find is

that all these broad claims

that they've been

making are based

on 8 TV fires

that occurred outside

of Stockholm in '95 and '96.

Well, that logic is so

fundamentally flawed

because it's such

a small sample.

But once they made that claim...

That because of those

8 TV fires, flame

retardants work...

They used that finding

and that logic to do

other studies.

So, then they could say,

"Well, it reduces pollution

"because there's fewer fires.

"It saves society millions

of dollars because flame

"retardants work.

It saves money."

Basically, that's the main

study that they highlight.

I thought there

would be a lot of studies

that support that flame

retardants work, that

the industry would have more

in their... they'd have more

ammunition than what they had.

They basically had two,

and both of them...

Both of their

arguments were really

fundamentally flawed.

♪

With a normal cover...

CALLAHAN: As far

as furniture goes, when we

looked into it we found

that government scientists

and independent scientists

have looked at this over

and over again and have

found they provide no

meaningful benefit

for consumers.

And so it's, you know,

they don't work.

♪

Now, the good news

is: fire-related

deaths have decreased

significantly, not only

in this country but

throughout the western

world because we have

rightfully required that

all new construction have

sprinkler systems and smoke

alarms and that cigarettes

self-extinguish.

So, we've changed the way

we deal with fire risk already.

The second thing is there

are ways to mandate that

the fabric meet a certain

weave and thickness standard

with no chemicals

added that makes it

resistant to fire caused by

small flames or cigarettes

even it helps with

the cigarette problem,

and all of that has

nothing to do with chemicals.

My view is today,

you can have fire safety

without the use of

fire retardant chemicals.

So, again,

then why are we requiring

that products be made with

these potentially and known

dangerous chemicals?

STEFANI, VOICE-OVER:

When I contracted cancer,

I got to the point where I

had run out or was close to

running out of my sick

time, my vacation time.

I got to the point where

there was going to be

no money coming into my house

for my family, my two sons.

At that time, I was a captain.

There was approximately 200

officers that were able to

donate time to me.

And just about every single one

of those 200 that had time

donated time to me so I

could continue to go

through my treatment,

recovery, and put

a paycheck on my table.

I called every single

one of those people up

and thanked them

for what they did.

But... I didn't

think it was enough.

And then a crazy thing happened.

I was involved in a pretty lousy

cycling accident.

I was out getting

some exercise, and got hit

by a pickup truck.

My doctor at UCSF told me,

"Tony, you're here

for a reason."

It was in the back of my

mind, and I said,

"You know, doc, you're right.

"I'm going to try to put

a non-profit foundation

together, and work

toward preventing cancer

in firefighters

here in the city."

What are you hoping

is going to

happen today?

What are you looking forward to?

Well, it's the first time our

foundation has actually had

a sit-down roundtable conference

with researchers

in the cancer field.

We're hoping to get a pla...

A game plan together

here in San Francisco

to look at the problem

we have with

both the men and the women

in this department

contracting cancers at

pretty alarming rates.

We are fully aware of

Technical Bulletin 117

that has been

put in place since the 1970s

here in the state of

California that has to do

with flame retardants.

We know that it's

an outdated standard.

We know that the chemicals

they use are carcinogenic.

We know that the off gas

during a fire,

that off gas is

furons and dioxin.

WOMAN: I mean, this is

a fundamental shift for us.

Like, how many of you

have walked into the station

and you can smell smoke

and you go [inhales],

"They had a fire last night"?

We've all done that.

When I hear all this,

I want to either go,

"La la la la la, because

I like my job, la la la la,"

or run out of the room.

You know, one of the challenges

we face in doing advocacy work

is, you know,

the chemical industry,

which would like

to continue to create

these chemicals,

are requiring or trying

to sell the fact

that we need

incontrovertible evidence

to take steps to

regulate these chemicals.

We are... you can't

experiment on human beings.

The closest we do is

what we do to you, really,

which is we send you

into a bunch of

really toxic environments,

and you come out

and we see what happens.

And we don't even look that

closely at what happens,

and we should.

And I think that's

part of what we're

trying to say here.

But we're never... even if we...

KERR STONE: I've had

co-workers die in fires.

And I've had a lot

more die of cancer.

It seems important

that we do something.

Before I joined

the Fire Department,

I was in research,

working at UCSF.

And so I ended up

learning from Tony

that they could use some help.

Tony's starting to do

research to try and link

the specific chemicals

that are released

at different kinds of fires.

I thought, "This is...

I would love to do this.

"This is fascinating. I can

"cross-reference it online,

and try and find out

what's out there,

and make this a little easier."

Not to stop what we do,

but to educate us.

We have to make sure we're

safe so that we can then

take care of other people.

Years ago,

when Tony and I started this,

in order to get

attention for it, we put

a pair of boots out on

the steps of City Hall

for every firefighter who

died with their boots off.

We wanted the world to know

that a lot of firefighters

die in a hospice,

they die in a hospital bed,

or they die at home.

And they don't get

the folded flag,

and they don't get the hero's

ceremony, but they should.

And this is the first time

since Tony and I

have started this

that I feel like someone's

listening to our call for help.

So, I wanted to thank you

very much for doing this.

We have a problem.

We're contracting cancer.

We can do so much

to protect ourselves.

But if we could eliminate

the problem to begin with,

the problem would

no longer exist.

Here we have this

unique situation.

California is, in a sense,

causing poisoning of...

Of the country and Canada,

and maybe the world,

when we should stop it

here in its tracks.

And so, how do you stop that?

BLUM: You know, there is always

a chance it could get

through the Assembly.

If we don't try,

we'll never get anywhere.

LENO, VOICE-OVER:

We were working...

Trying to work with the

industry over the... somewhere...

5, 6, 7 years ago.

One of my staffers

suggested that I go to

Berkeley on a Sunday night

for a dinner party that

a chemist from UC Berkeley

was hosting at her home.

This would be Arlene Blum.

And that there would

be some other

community activists there,

and the subject matter was

the proliferation of

brominated and chlorinated

flame retardants

in consumer products.

And that Arlene was

going to suggest that

I author a bill that would

ban these chemicals

from these products,

and begin to mitigate

some of the damage that's been

done to the environment.

I think there's

a snowball rolling here.

So, maybe we might

need to adjust

this myth a little bit

to reflect

the great burden thing head on...

There's gonna be above them

agencies who are

gonna have to...

Is there fewer fire deaths,

it's because of

fire sprinklers

and smoke detectors

and not flame retardants.

We need to organize

the key people

who should be

interested in this.

Putting these pieces together,

calendaring out what

the next couple months

to a year is going to look like.

MASCARENAS, VOICE-OVER: If

we show that you can prevent

these chemicals

from being out there,

that you don't have

to go to the store

and try and be a chemist,

and look at every single

label, and, you know,

spend more money, or just

not know if you're buying

the safest thing

for your family.

If we can change that on

the front end, that's what

I'm dedicating my time to.

BLUM: Welcome, Don.

We were just talking about you.

Oh, look what he brought...

His nursing pillow.

He's got a new baby.

And there's

chlorinated Tris

inside.

LUCAS: In a way, I fault

the scientific community

for not being

more vocal in talking about

these sort of things.

And so, to me, the more

scientists we get involved

in the combustion

aspects of this

and the health aspects of this,

the better the answer

that we're going to get.

So, Dr. Vito Babrauskas,

we're very pleased

to have you here today.

BABRAUSKAS, VOICE-OVER: I felt

a ethical obligation that

I really don't want my

profession to do harm

in the name of

promoting fire safety.

CALLAHAN:

The group that was lined up

in support of changing

Technical Bulletin 117,

it wasn't just a few

environmental activists.

You know, it was firefighters

who had been sick.

And it was nursing moms.

And it was public

health advocates

and it was scientists.

It was a diverse group.

Ultimately, here's what

it all boils down to.

My work of 40 years

boils down to this.

Either you have people

behind you or money behind you.

And we don't have the money.

[Birds cawing]

Boat mail today.

We're getting

boat mail today.

WOMAN: This is

an island of 350 people.

Literally you

have to be involved

to live in this town.

WOMAN: Aww.

I don't want to kiss that baby.

PINGREE, VOICE-OVER: So,

I grew up with the sense that

if you want to fix something,

everybody has got

to pitch in and help.

Wait. Let me see on...

I think I had

a cell phone

for her somewhere.

WOMAN: I would like

to introduce the Maine

Speaker of the House,

Representative Hannah Pingree.

Welcome to the State House...

PINGREE, VOICE-OVER:

I think I was... 2003, 2004,

I was a freshman legislator.

And a group of folks who work on

environmental issues said,

you know, "We're thinking

"about putting forward

this bill to ban

"the group of brominated

flame retardants.

"And we need a legislator

who's kind of willing

to take on a fight against

the chemical industry."

And for some reason,

they decided

that a 25-year-old legislator

was the right choice.

And, of course, you know,

I was up for big fights,

and I was like,

"Let's go for it."

When they first came to me,

you know, even the name

of all the chemicals...

Penta, octa, deca...

I mean, it was like

chemical soup.

But the more I learned

about the issue,

the more I thought, "This is

absolutely outrageous that,

"you know, our entire

environment is filled

"with these chemicals

"and no one's really

talking about it.

No one's really

taking action on it."

I had my own body tested

in 2006 for toxic chemicals.

I said, "I'm

willing to do this."

I was one of 13 Mainers tested.

I said, "I'm willing to do this

"for the stake of, you know,

good public policy and science.

Sure, you can have my hair,

blood, and urine."

I always thought,

you know, here I am.

I grew up on this

beautiful island

off the coast of Maine.

You know, I spent a few

years living in cities,

but I've mostly lived

on this island

or in this very clean place.

So, when I had my body tested,

I assumed I would be better

off than most of the people

who lived, you know,

even in more industrial

areas of my state.

But when the results came

back, and I saw that I had

all these chemicals

in my body, including

flame retardants, including

mercury and arsenic

and, you know, BPA

and phthalates at levels

that were high enough

to impact my health or

the health of a developing,

you know, child, I suddenly...

You know, I went from being

a policy maker

who cared about this

to a person who was,

you know, really angry

about the fact that this

could be impacting my health.

It's one thing to say

to the chemical industry,

you know, "More Americans

"have these flame retardants

in them compared to Europe,

where they've started

to phase them out."

And you can make

a real technical argument.

But when you can say,

"I have these flame

retardants in me."

And, you know,

it makes me angry.

You know, Maine doesn't

require flame retardants

to be in our couches

or computers.

This came from, you know,

the state of California

and that's now impacting me

all the way

on the other coast, in Maine.

You know, it's a good

lesson in public policy,

but it's also something

that should make

a lot of people angry.

♪

I ask you to consider today

that the real motivation

of our opponents is to sell

more fire retardants

at any cost, including

the health and safety

not only of our

kids, but of every

human generation hereafter

through genetic mutation

and lingering poisons

that have contaminated

our homes, our waters,

our wildlife,

and even our mothers' milk.

AB706 provides

a robust framework...

LENO, VOICE-OVER: The first time

that we introduced a bill

on the subject,

the chemical industry

spent over $6 million

on a multimedia,

multi-million dollar campaign

of full-page color ads

in newspapers up and down

the state of California...

Radio commercials, robocalls,

mailers to households,

and television commercials...

Urging voters

to contact their

state legislator

to vote against this bill.

FEMALE VOICE ON TV:

The California legislature

is considering a bill that

will endanger our children.

We cannot afford to take

our safety for granted.

The furnishings inside

the average home

will contribute to most

of the flame spread

and fire spread.

So those furnishings

need to be protected

by a fire retardant material...

They ran television commercials

on TV in Maine for weeks,

saying that Maine legislators

were trying to ban

this flame retardant

that would literally cause

people's homes to burn down.

They spent hundreds of

thousands of dollars to try

to convince the Maine people

that the Maine legislature

was about to do

something very dangerous.

And the entire campaign

was based on fear

that your house will burn down,

your child will die of flames.

I care about flame retardants

and fire safety

because I see what happens

to burn survivors every day

and I go though it

myself every day,

and as a result of that,

I cannot support

legislation which threatens

to remove flame retardants

from fabrics and other

things that protect our people.

FEMALE VOICE ON TV:

Say no to laws that put

our children in danger.

This whole campaign of TV ads

and newspaper ads

and, you know, hiring an army

of lobbyists, I mean,

that's not something

Maine sees very often.

I mean, that happens

maybe more often

in New York or California.

That never happens in Maine.

LENO: Why would we want

to tie ourself

to something 35 years old,

and close our minds

to any possibility that

we might know more now,

and there might be a better way

to address fire safety?

CALLAHAN:

There was a bill in California

that would have changed

Technical Bulletin 117.

I went to that really not

knowing what I was going to see.

You're going to hear a lot of

conflicting testimony today,

and what I'd like to do

is just to remind you...

CALLAHAN:

And there was a group called

Citizens for Fire Safety

that was fighting it.

And I was really curious about

Citizens for Fire Safety,

really curious.

MAN: Mr. Chairman, members.

Joe Lang, representing

Citizens for Fire Safety

Institute...

CALLAHAN:

You know, rumor on the street

was that Citizens

for Fire Safety

was the chemical industry.

But I didn't see evidence

that proved it.

Was it really a front group?

That was... you know, that was

one of the questions.

And I have to be

able to pin it down.

I have to be able

to document it.

It's not just

rumor and innuendo.

You got to prove it.

And I think what fascinated me

about Citizens for Fire Safety

from the get-go

was... their website.

It had this picture of these

5 smiling children holding up

a banner that said "Fire Safety"

with a little heart

dotting the "I."

And behind them is

a red brick fire station.

You know, it could be on

any corner in America.

It was very...

This very wholesome,

Americana kind of picture

of "We're all

about fire safety."

OK, so what they said

was that they were

"a coalition of fire

professionals, educators,

"community activists,

burn centers, doctors,

"fire departments,

and industry leaders,

"united to ensure that

our country is protected by

the highest standards

of fire safety."

We already have the highest

fire safety standard of

any state in the country.

To change that standard,

and yet somehow not

compromise fire safety,

it's just...

It's not logical,

it doesn't make sense,

and it can't be done.

You know, right from the start,

lots of chemical industry

people showed up and told us

that all the science

that had come out was false,

and everything we were

saying was baloney.

So, clearly, they had

a lot at stake.

I mean, this young legislator

in this tiny state of Maine

was taking on a chemical that

was making a lot

of money for them.

Flame retardants are important

to do the job to save lives.

Thank you.

STEFANI: My name

is Tony Stefani.

I'm a retired captain

with the San Francisco

Fire Department...

STEFANI, VOICE-OVER: I spoke

on behalf of Senate Bill 147.

And I watched the state senators

on the subcommittee

actually not even

pay attention to the testimony

that was being given

by experts, scientists

that say that this

technical bulletin

has to be changed.

There are safer products

out there that can be used.

But I did see them perk up

when they had people there

from the chemical industry talk.

It was pretty discouraging.

That if we continue

to ban chemicals

that are developed

before they're used,

we won't have any

chemicals to use,

and you won't be able to create

the new jobs that people want

to create here in California.

And I do want to point out,

once again, that as I was

surrounded by this opposition,

I was the only one

at this table that was

not receiving dollars

from the chemical industry.

AstroTurf organizations are

a phenomenon that's

from the, you know,

sort of the mid-to late

20th century,

where corporate America decided,

"Oh, there's ways to create

"phony groups that appear

to be consumer groups.

But what they do

and work on is our agenda."

So, what do they do is,

quote unquote,

"Citizen non-profit

doing fire prevention."

They give grants

to fire departments.

They worked their way in

with their line of BS.

They donate money to different

funding activities

that a fire department

might be doing.

But the the back lot activity

is sort of sickening.

A couple partners called and

asked us about flame retardants.

They were all communities

of color, and they had

been contacted by

Citizens for Fire Safety

because Citizens for Fire

Safety was saying that,

"Your community is

affected more by fires.

"Therefore, this legislation

in California is going to

cause more fires and deaths

in your community."

Tim Martinez, Hispanic Chamber

of Stanislaus County.

We oppose the measure.

MALE VOICE ON TV: Thank you.

MASCARENAS: They convinced them

that these are

crazy environmentalists

and all they want to do is,

you know, all they

want to do is protect

the environment, not people.

WOMAN: My name is Kiki Vo,

I'm a burn survivor, and I

greatly oppose this bill.

We were, are outraged.

It's exploitation.

It's manipulative.

Imagine hearing someone you love

say, "I love you,"

and that might be

the last time that you will

hear them say that.

So please vote no on SB 772,

and keep us safe from fire.

WOMAN: Thank you

for your testimony.

So, when you look into

Citizens for Fire Safety,

here's what you find.

You know, people think that

investigative reporting is,

you know, meeting with

mysterious tipsters

in parking garages,

and mostly it's just

looking through

really boring documents

and finding little

puzzle pieces, little gems.

So this is one of the gems.

So this is the 2010

franchise tax report

that they filed with

the state of Delaware.

And you have to list

your headquarters,

your principal place

of business.

And sure enough, when I

looked up this address

in Reno, Nevada, it's just

a mail forwarding service.

It literally is 24-hour access

at a prestigious

California Avenue address

in tax-free Nevada.

So, its headquarters,

according to this form,

is a mail forwarding service.

That piqued my interest.

But again, I still didn't have

who are the members?

There's still a chance

that they could be truly

a broad coalition, right?

So, sure enough, good,

old California form 602.

You have to list

the number of members

in your association.

It says, "Check

appropriate box."

So they check the "50 or less."

Well, in parentheses, it says,

"Provide names of all members

on an attachment."

So you would think there would

be an attachment there, right?

This is all online.

If you look at that document,

there's no attachment.

There was no list.

So I asked the Secretary of

State's Office in California

to go through their archives

and find that list.

It's a public record.

It's not like I was

asking for a favor.

It's a public record.

It should've been in there.

So, sure enough, the day

that this arrived,

it was a very,

very big day for me

because here is the list of

the Citizens for Fire Safety

Institute member list.

Take a look.

Is it a broad coalition? No.

It is the 3 largest makers of

flame retardants in the world.

And ultimately,

one of my colleagues

flew over

the plant where they make

their flame retardants.

And it's not a

red brick fire station.

It's an industrial

compound and everything

you would imagine

a chemical company would be.

This was one of

those moments, though,

in the reporting where had

they showed up and said,

you know, "We are the chemical...

"we are the voice of

the chemical industry

and here are the reasons why

we think this law is wrong,"

I might have walked

away from it at that point.

But that's not what they did.

They were lying.

The group was presenting itself

as something it was not.

And it was presenting

itself to the public,

it was presenting itself

to firefighters,

it was presenting

itself to state legislatures...

as something it wasn't.

[Dog barking]

♪

PINGREE, VOICE-OVER:

Chemical industry

had a huge amount of money,

lots of scare tactics.

They were doing

everything possible.

They spent hundreds of

thousands of dollars

to try to influence Mainers

and Maine legislators.

And they had so little

impact in the end.

I mean, we had pregnant women

and public health groups

and firefighters

all coming to say,

"This chemical is bad

for people's health.

There are safer alternatives.

It needs to go."

We ended up, I think, passing

nearly unanimously.

I mean, we had people on

both sides of the aisle

deciding that this was

the right thing to do.

As soon as I took on that

one first bill, I think

I sponsored 4 or

5 more after that.

♪

[Chatter]

PINGREE, VOICE-OVER:

Maine had this great system

of clean elections.

I could run for the

House of Representatives

with $5,000, and literally

just knocking on the doors

of my neighbors.

I didn't have TV ads.

I didn't have

anything like that.

See ya!

PINGREE, VOICE-OVER: I also

think people in Maine don't

appreciate a lot of

out-of-state money coming in.

And they knew from these TV ads

that were very slick and very

extreme that the wool...

Some kind of wool was being

pulled over their eyes.

Clearly, despite spending

a lot of money, the public

didn't call after

seeing all those TV ads.

They didn't show up and protest.

They said, "Good for you,

Maine legislators.

Like, I don't trust

the chemical industry."

It didn't pan out

that way in California.

♪

I'm wonderfully naive when

I jump into a subject matter.

I had no clue the kind of opposition

we were going to be facing.

To determine the safety

of chemicals used

to meet California's...

LENO, VOICE-OVER:

The first year, we just wanted

an outright ban.

Get these chemicals out.

And the industry

easily defeated us.

So then we decided

we'll take another stab at it.

We're talking about cribs

and strollers and backpacks...

Again, items that children

have the most daily

and intimate contact with.

Federal government has

determined no fire risk.

In fact, I have...

LENO, VOICE-OVER:

We were defeated by

the chemical industry yet again.

But so then we thought, "OK,

we'll address it another way.

"What if we allowed for

some other method of meeting

"the fire safety standard?

Let the consumer decide."

When you hear these

business interests arguing

against deregulation,

I think there is

some irony in that.

"Regulations working

just fine for us.

Government, stay

out of our lives."

I would ask for your "ay" vote.

Yet another time.

Neurological and developmental

impairments,

reduced IQ, endocrine

disruption, and cancer.

We were defeated yet again.

♪

One of the unfortunate aspects

of the business

in which I find myself as

a lawmaker is that we have

a symbiotic relationship

with the lobbying industry.

What I think a lot of

voters don't understand

is that the very lobbyists

who may be in my office trying

to convince me that

their point of view

on a particular issue is

the point of view that

I should hold so that I will

vote in a particular way

is the very same individual

that I may be calling from

across the street

3 days later to invite

to my quarterly fundraiser

and asking for a contribution.

And it could look

very crass and quid pro quo.

And I'm not blaming any of

my colleagues for anything

because it's not a good

system at its core.

WOMAN: Whether it's

lead, mercury,

or flame retardants,

the assumption is that

somebody's minding the store,

and that somebody is trying

to prevent harm

and prevent exposure.

And we have this burden

of proof to show you

that we've been harmed.

That's a standard that is

very difficult for many

communities to meet.

And they rely on you to

protect them from this.

And their assumption is

that somebody is preventing

these chemicals from

getting in the environment

and getting in our bodies,

and leaving a legacy

of contamination

for our grandchildren

and nephews and nieces.

Thank you.

♪

MAN: People assume

the government is

keeping us safe

and protecting us from

this kind of behavior,

but that's actually not true.

It's not true, and why

should a small nonprofit

with 25 staff have

to do something to protect

people from companies

that have literally

billions of dollars

and thousands

or even tens or hundreds

of thousands of employees?

That's just not right.

HAWTHORNE: Whenever

I hear that the EPA is

this awful, you know,

Nazi-like organization

that is coming

down hard on businesses

and whatnot... we've got this

very perverse system right now.

There's 84,000 chemicals

being used in commerce.

84,000 chemicals... almost

none of those have been

tested adequately for their

health impacts.

HAWTHORNE:

This law, the Toxic Substances

Control Act from 1976...

Most of the chemicals that

were already on

the market were just

rolled in and said,

you know, "Everything's fine."

How one agency can then do

the science on 84,000 chemicals

with another thousand or so

being invented each year

and say, categorically,

"This one's safe, this one's

not safe," on the budget

they have is just ridiculous.

Especially in an era

when Congress is cutting budgets

and saying that the EPA

should do less.

♪

HAWTHORNE, VOICE-OVER:

I think the best thing

I've ever heard about this

is from a researcher

at NYU who said

that we are in the middle

of a giant uncontrolled

experiment on American children.

It's not just with

flame retardants.

It's with scores of these

toxic chemicals that are

in our baby products,

that are in our toys,

that are in

our furniture, our TVs,

basically everything

that's in our homes.

Most of the chemicals

that are in those products

haven't been tested or

if they have been tested,

it's very difficult to do

anything about them

if those tests found

that they cause harm.

GREEN: There is going to be

eventually some change,

and the reason there is

going to be some change

is the system is

so profoundly broken that

sooner or later,

something will give.

♪

[Chatter]

In our series, we called this

a decades-long

campaign of deception.

We talked about how

they distorted science.

We talked about

Citizens for Fire Safety

being a front group.

Those are not words I throw

about trivially.

Those are words that we

back up with documents

that show deception.

ROE: Some editors

read through it.

Our lawyers read

through this material.

Everything has to be

completely factual.

You have to have

every nuance correct.

Because you don't want,

at the end of the day,

someone picking up the

newspaper and saying,

"Well, you missed

this little fact."

You don't want to...

You don't want to

make one little error.

Because if they say,

you know, "He got this wrong.

Imagine all the other things

that are wrong in here."

And so, I mean, that

means everything to us.

♪

You never know.

You never know when

you write a story

what's going to

resonate with people.

So you kind of put it out

there, and hope that people

are going to read it,

and hope that

someone's going to read it

and it's going to empower

somebody to try

and solve a problem, right?

♪

The science doesn't reach people

the way journalism does.

But there's got to be ultimately

national, over and over

media coverage

for this issue to rise

to the level it should be at

in the public consciousness.

And when the public is educated

and knows about it,

then our advocacy efforts, our

lobbying efforts with no money

in state capitals or

the federal level, have power.

MASCARENAS, VOICE-OVER: It

seemed like it just wasn't gonna

happen this year, and that

we should instead redirect

our focus on the governor.

And this has been working out.

The governor issued

an amazing press release,

which he wrote himself,

that was so accurate

on the lack of

fire safety benefit

and all the harm from

the flame retardants.

♪

[Telephone ringing]

The first regulation in '75,

that's a reform.

But what I found

is that every reform

at some point needs a reform.

And there's been resistance

because you have a reform,

someone figures out

a way to satisfy it,

fix the foam up, fill it

full of chemicals,

make lots of money,

so why change?

It's very hard to make

these changes, but when

the science reaches a point

where, "Wow, that's not good

and it's peer-reviewed and we

know it," then we take action.

We're here today. In June,

the governor directed the Bureau

to review and revise

our current upholstered

furniture flammability standard,

currently known as TB117.

LENO: Of course I want to thank

Governor Jerry Brown,

who has changed the course

of this discussion

once and for all,

that we can do better.

We want to bring

Technical Bulletin 117

into the 21st century.

I'm Arlene Blum. I'm...

BLUM, VOICE-OVER: I have to say,

you know, I've been talking

about this for about 5 years,

where I've just felt

like this boring lady

where you want to kind of move

away from her at the dinner

party because all she does

is talk about flame retardants.

And I had really wondered

if I would go to my grave

being the boring lady ranting

about flame retardants.

And then suddenly,

after the "Tribune" article

and the governor's press

release, people like

Dick Durbin, who's the Majority

Whip in the Senate,

were ranting about flame

retardants, and were really mad.

[Cheering and applause]

We need to protect these

children and these families

when it comes to

toxic chemicals.

Let me tell you what

the bottom line is.

The "Chicago Tribune" series

made it clear

that over a span of

decades... decades...

There was a campaign of

marketing and deception.

Makes no difference

whether your grandbaby is

a Democrat, a Republican,

or an Independent.

We need to stand together

as families across America

to protect these kids.

Thank you for being here today.

[Cheering and applause]

MALE VOICE ON TV:

Health advocates

and the chemical industry

are facing off

in Washington this week.

It's a move to update

safety standards

for chemicals used

in everyday products.

Today Barbara Boxer's

Senate subcommittee

met to discuss the overhaul of

the 1970s federal

chemical regulation.

The Safe Chemicals Act

would allow the EPA

to require proof

that they are safe

before they're

put on the market.

Among those testifying is

a San Francisco firefighter.

[Camera shutter clicks]

STEFANI, VOICE-OVER:

I was contacted by

Senator Lautenberg's office

and asked to go back

to Washington, DC

to testify before

a Senate committee

in favor of the

Safe Chemicals Act.

♪

I've been in enough

situations in my life

that dealt with

life or death, on the job

as well as what

I've gone through.

And these are

our representatives.

They're working for us.

Why should I be intimidated?

♪

"The rates of contracting

various forms of cancer

"in the firefighting profession

is increasing.

"We are also fully aware that

these flame retardant chemicals

"bioaccumulate in our blood.

"Senator Lautenberg,

Senator Lautenberg.

Neurodevelopmental,

neurodevelopmental."

♪

Our meeting starts at

10 a.m. this morning.

I'm ready.

BOXER: The hearing

will come to order.

The purpose of this hearing

is to review the need to

reform the Toxic Substances

Control Act,

otherwise known as TSCA,

the primary law that regulates

chemicals in this country.

STEFANI: What we understand

right now is that these are

important chemicals that

have to be dealt with

because of their

bioaccumulative process

that is actually proven

in medical science right now.

MAN: OK.

My name is Hannah Pingree, and I

thank you for this invitation.

I am here as the former

Speaker of the Maine House.

PINGREE, VOICE-OVER: The fact

that Washington is now

really seemingly paying

attention is exciting.

I definitely did not

imagine myself, you know,

sitting next to the

Chemtura lobbyists

and the other industry

lobbyists, and a great

California firefighter.

But I, you know,

I felt good about it.

I felt like, "I am exactly

what we're talking about.

"I am a pregnant woman

who is being

impacted by these chemicals

and so I should be here."

The Senate bill would mandate

a new round of EPA review

for every new use

of a previously

approved chemical,

and every significant increase

in use of an existing chemical.

The implications for EPA's

overburdened resources,

for EPA's ability to prioritize,

and for industry's

ability to innovate

would be very significant.

MAN: Let me try

to get an answer

to my first question.

Does Chemtura concede

any danger from its...

From these two

flame retardants that

you've identified?

Again, in terms of

the expected exposures,

in 2006 EPSE published

expected exposures

and predicted exposures of TBB.

And those are much lower

than any level that would e...

Was predicted to have

any sort of an effect.

So, in those terms,

the answer to

your question

would be that, no, those

are, those are safe.

MAN: They're perfectly safe. OK.

In Maine, we had

an industry front group.

We had many of the companies

represented at this table,

the American Chemistry Council,

spending huge amounts of money,

misleading legislators,

and doing whatever they could.

I don't trust these

companies to tell

the truth about their

chemicals, and I don't think

the American public or you,

as senators, should, either.

BOXER: I want

to thank all of you

for coming here today.

So I have a question

I want each of you

to answer yes or no.

There's no other answer,

just yes or no.

And I'm gonna start with Hannah.

Do you agree that

chemical manufacturers

should have to prove

through unbiased studies

that their products are safe

for pregnant women, for infants,

and for children before

they can sell those

chemicals in the United States?

Yes.

STAPLETON: Yes.

I... yes, I agree.

Could you repeat the question?

BOXER: Do you agree that

chemical manufacturers

should have to prove

through unbiased studies

that their products are

safe for pregnant women,

for infants, and for

children before they can

sell those chemicals

in the United States?

Respectfully...

BOXER: No, not respectfully.

Yes or no.

The question cannot be answered

without explanation.

BOXER: Mr. Stefani.

Yes. BOXER: Thank you.

Let me just say, I know

that it's a little harder

for lawyers to answer yes or no.

But this one?

♪

PINGREE, VOICE-OVER: The fact

that they are holding hearings

and paying attention

is a big deal.

They got that it wasn't

just about flame retardants.

It was about the big picture.

But the reality is,

the American Chemistry Council

is working absolutely

overtime to try

to influence members of

Congress to stop this bill.

They know that it has traction

with the American public,

so they don't want it

to get out really into

the light of the day.

If it's on the floor

of the Senate,

they know it's problematic.

Because when you get

a group of moms angry,

politicians don't want to be

on the other side of them.

[Chanting "Toxic chemicals

got to go"]

We brought the signatures

of 130,000 Americans with us,

gathered by... [Crowd cheering]

We are delivering these

signatures to our senators

to show how many

people want action.

When people's voices

are heard, you know,

retailers might

start taking action.

Those kinds of

changes are happening.

But the only reason

they happen is that

regular people have

stood up and said, "Look.

"We're... we don't want to...

You know,

we don't want

to take it anymore."

So if there's

a furniture company that

wants to be a part of

the solution, we want to

meet with them, we want

to collaborate with them,

we want to actually

triangulate with them

to force the chemical

companies to stop making

those furniture companies

to use their chemicals.

And then, for companies that

actually are just looking

for a quick buck, we're

gonna kick them in the nuts

and force them to stop.

♪

Citizens for Fire Safety,

they folded.

So... they said they're folded.

The website with

the smiling children

and the red brick

Americana firehouse,

that doesn't exist anymore.

You know, I think

the big question is,

will the world change?

It's not just our furniture.

It's not just California

Technical Bulletin 117.

It really is about how

we, as a society,

view chemicals, how we

vet them or don't vet them.

And who are we listening to

when we're being told

these chemicals are safe,

they work, they protect us,

they're essential to our lives?

Who are we listening to?

That's really, I think,

the crux of it.

STEFANI: So we're really excited

about the new Technical

Bulletin 117 2013 that's

going to be put in place to

eliminate these toxic chemicals.

Well, I'm optimistic

when a small band

of a thousand people

or two thousand people

can take on a multi-billion-

dollar industry and say

we will stop you from using

those poisonous chemicals

in our furniture.

We did that on people power.

However, I don't think

that we can celebrate yet.

I hope that what we did

in California is, in a way,

inspirational for the rest

of the country, to

in their legislatures, in

Congress and so on, to turn

the spigot off on these poisons

and have sane chemical policy.

Do you want some milk? Yeah.

KERR STONE, VOICE-OVER:

His name is Graham Alison

Kerr Stone.

And Graham is a family name.

And then Alison is our

friend who passed away,

Alison Greene.

So we said, first baby,

we said, "OK, it's a boy.

"We'll give this another shot.

If we have a girl, she can have

Alison as her middle name."

Well, we have a boy with Alison

as his middle name.

Right after her... in her memory

and her spirit.

♪

STEFANI, VOICE-OVER:

Seeing firefighters

that I worked with for years

succumb to this hideous disease

called cancer,

it has a profound effect

on my life on a daily basis.

I know when I came in in 1974,

I was not concerned

about cancer.

It was the last

thing on my mind.

Every time that we rolled

out our doors, we were

going out for one reason,

and that was to help somebody.

And when you have a big fire,

it gets to the point where,

OK, we draw the line right here,

and this is as far as

that fire is going to go.

We're going to put it out.

You don't let the fire win.

We win.