Any recommendations on how to more rapidly move the needle? Your work is appreciated!

For a long time I was written off by government and industry as a lone maverick with a chip on his shoulder. But things have changed a lot over the last year, first with the report by the Environmental Audit Committee in July which agreed with my findings and bollocked the Department for Business to get on with changing things. Second - and having massive effects behind the scenes but coming more into play - was the formation of a contaminants group in the FBU. The two guys behind it were outraged to discover only recently (and much of it from my website) that for 30 years they've been exposed to massively toxic fires without even been told about it by their management. Part of the problem there is corrupt fire safety officials in the pay of the flame retardant industry.

So in a short space of time, we've had people running for cover, resigning from committees and being axed from their jobs for corruption.

What else will move things on? Get your MP to write to the Department for Business. I met them yesterday and while they're crapping themselves about the attention that's now on them, they admitted that in effect they're not going to make any changes to these Regulations for another 9-12 years. I spelled out to them that that means we're going to continue poisoning our children as they sleep but these people have segmented minds and somehow avoid taking any responsiblity, concerned only about their careers and pension.

FBU = Fire Brigades Union

Thanks. A guy called Dave Sibert was for years the full time paid FBU rep for fire safety. He played a major role in blocking changes to the Furniture Regs, which would have hugely reduced flame retardants. It was pretty common knowledge he was in the pay of the industry; indeed, Matt Wrack of the FBU finally sacked Sibert for colluding with industry. The guy is a sociopath: he was actually prolonging a situation that poisons his own people on a daily basis, for personal profit.

Heavy claim against a named individual... can you back it up?

> Part of the problem there is corrupt fire safety officials in the pay of the flame retardant industry.

What's the evidence for this claim?

I provided some above. The names are well known within the fire sector and they've not denied it. There are two ex-firefighters on record (BBC interview, online records) who were heavily funded by the flame retardant industry to push for more of their chemicals in furniture and other products. One of them still operates: Mike Hagen. Both claim that they were not funded while in service but logic suggests at the very least they were sounded out before retiring. Another still in service is Paul Fuller - who regularly pushes for flame retardants in children's clothing. Then there's Sir Ken Knight who played a major role in blocking safety changes to the Furniture Regs that would have hugely reduced flame retardants. The same Sir Ken who signed off the Grenfell cladding as safe; and the same Sir Ken who was appointed Chair of the Grenfell independent experts panel and refused to even look at the role the faile furniture regs played in the fire.

I find your language extremely troubling. If I'm honest I'm struggling to take you seriously and it seems you are on a particularly self appointed mission. Which is fine. But things like

> but logic suggests at the very least they were sounded out before retiring.

Logic had little to do with it I fear. Secondly the UK tabloidesque vilification of public servants who leverage their expertise when their career is over is tiresome. That is not evidence of "corruption".

It really doesn't matter if you're struggling to take this seriously because key people do. I'm also not sure what exactly you mean be 'evidence', above what I've been reporting. People who are bribed are hardly likely to keep written records of the fact. But how about this: Matt Wrack, head of the FBU, told Prof. Anna Stec (who is reporting to the FBU on cancers in firefighters) that he'd sacked Dave Sibert for "colluding with the flame retardant industry". My mission is far from self-appointed: it's been appointed by many including a government select committee and the contaminants group in the FBU who I'm advisor to.

A simpler explanation is that firefighters - who spend their lives dealing with people who've had horrific burns - think that prevention of fire is important, and are not persuaded that fire retardant chemicals are unsafe, especially compared to the fire injuries they routinely see.

That is a simpler explanation and it's certainly true that firefighters want to see fires prevented. But the point is that they were historically persuaded that flame retardants are safe. They have recently discovered they're not and the new contaminants group is determined to remove them from home products like upholstered furniture.

Approving carcinogens for residential use.

How is that evidence of the claim?

The alternative is that they're just that evil, that they're doing it for the lolz. So no, it's not strict evidence.

Or they don’t believe the compounds are dangerous, or they don’t think they’re dangerous enough to outweigh the reduced risk of fires.

Yea that's the only option. And certainly a complete representation of what happened

I've heard a similar issue in the design of train furnishings. There was a large overhaul of fine retardant material after a tragic South Korean train disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire).

I'm not sure what is the right call is in the train case, because they have the same toxicity issue, interesting to hear it in this context. It makes me wonder if there is more to this story given your allegations

Dumb question: I've just bought a foam mattress (in the UK). How do I know if it contains flame retardants?

Short answer: if you bought it in the UK, it contains flame retardants.

By law all soft furnishing must be treated with flame retardant chemicals in order to be eligible for sale.

The problem may be more widespread than first considered - flame retardant chemicals are mandated for large categories of children's sleepwear. Surely direct-to-skin contact (absorption?) is at least as great a threat as off-gassing chemicals from a sofa or mattress.

If it says "KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE" in red lettering on the label, it probably doesn't have flame retardants. Though there may be false positives to this test (but no false negatives), so preferably look for something like no flame retardants.

That's completely wrong. That label has nothing to do with flame retardants. Almost all UK furniture contains FRs but there is no law at the moment that requires manufacturers to list them or even say if they use them at all.

Yes, UK furniture almost always contains flame retardants but it isn't law that they have to use them. The Furniture Regs set performance requirements but don't stipulate how you meet them. It's just that using FRs is the cheapest route to compliance for manufacturers.

> they aren't going to change anything for at least another 9-12 years.

That's an oddly specific timeframe. Any reason for that? Is there an agreement that due to be renewed by then or something?

They held a workshop for stakeholders a couple of weeks ago. And while they tried to hide the time involved it broke down like this: 2 years for them to get their "essential safety requirements" in place (which is itself wildly optimistic, given they've essentially did that for over 11 years and say they're now starting again. Then the go to British Standards. The British Standards rep then butted in to say they will need 5 years (again, wildly optimistic). When I met them on Tuesday I said they will need to add another two to that for consultation and implementation, which they actually agreed with. That makes 9 years - at an absolute minimum. Industry will want 2 years run-in too, making 11. I'm saying more like 15 because given what they're trying to do, that's more realistic. In practice they're not planning to implement anything.