New Car Smell = Toxins
01-31-06, 07:59 AM
#1
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
New Car Smell = Toxins
http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/01/31/toxic_cars/index.html
New Car Smell has Toxins
Environmental group contends drivers, passengers are breathing dangerous chemicals found in car interiors; calls for new regs.
January 31, 2006; Posted: 8:09 a.m. EST (1309 GMT)
An environmental group says that Volvo is the automaker with the lowest level of toxic chemicals in car interiors.
An environmental group says Volvo is the auto manufacturer with the lowest level of toxic chemicals in car interiors.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - A Michigan environmental group is charging that at least part of the so-called "new car smell" is toxic, and that the interior of an automobile has dangerous levels of various chemicals.
The report, "Toxic at any speed," comes from The Ecology Center, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based group. It reports that PBDEs, used as fire retardants, and phthalates, used primarily to soften PVC plastics, are found in dangerous amounts in dust and windshield film samples.
It called for tougher regulations to phase out the use of the chemicals as well as voluntary moves by the auto manufacturers to stop using the products inside of new vehicles.
It also suggested that car owners take steps to reduce the release and breakdown of these chemicals by using solar reflectors, ventilating car interiors, and parking outside of sunlight whenever possible.
The group says that phthalates are partly responsible for the smell associated with new cars.
Drivers and passengers are exposed to these chemicals through inhalation and contact with dust, according to the group's report.
"These groups of chemicals have been linked to birth defects, impaired learning, liver toxicity, premature births and early puberty in laboratory animals, among other serious health problems," according to the report.
"We can no longer rely just on seatbelts and airbags to keep us safe in cars," said a statement from Jeff Gearhart, the Ecology Center's Clean Car Campaign Director who co-authored the report. "Our research shows that autos are chemical reactors, releasing toxins before we even turn on the ignition. There are safer alternatives to these chemicals, and innovative companies that develop them first will likely be rewarded by consumers."
The group found Volvo was found to have the lowest levels of phthalates and the second-lowest levels of PBDEs, which it said made the Ford Motor Co. (Research)-owned unit the industry leader in terms of indoor air quality. Volvo also has the toughest policies for phasing out these chemicals.
Other auto manufacturers had more mixed records on the two types of chemicals, according to the group's survey. For example, Korean auto manufacturer Hyundai had the lowest level of PBDEs, but the highest level of phthalates.
The group said it was told by Ford officials that the auto manufacturer has eliminated PBDEs from "interior components that customers may come into contact with." Ford had among the lowest level of PBDEs in its vehicles, and General Motors (Research) and BMW vehicles also had lower-than-average levels for all chemicals tested. But Mercedes, Chrysler, Toyota and Subaru had higher-than-average levels of both PBDEs and phthalates.
In response to the study, one industry group defended the use of PBDEs as an important contributor to vehicle safety.
The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum said in a statement that PBDEs known as Deca-BDE have been extensively studied in the U.S. and Europe -- including a 10-year-long risk assessment -- and found to be safe for continued use.
"If automobile manufacturers follow the guidance in the report, it could result in lowering fire safety for the public, as well as promoting the use of unidentified alternative substances about which very little may be known," said the group's statement. It said it is crucial that autos have the best possible flame retardants available in case of accidents.
"In 2004 alone, there were approximately 297,000 car fires in the United States, leading to 550 deaths. If effective flame retardants were not used, this number would certainly be higher," the group's statement said.
Auto manufacturers have already agreed to phase out two of the three flame-retardant chemicals cited in the report, Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, told the Detroit News. The remaining chemical has been studied by the European Union for 10 years and has been proven safe, Shosteck said.
The report was released Jan. 11 during the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, but it received little attention outside of Michigan.
New Car Smell has Toxins
Environmental group contends drivers, passengers are breathing dangerous chemicals found in car interiors; calls for new regs.
January 31, 2006; Posted: 8:09 a.m. EST (1309 GMT)
An environmental group says that Volvo is the automaker with the lowest level of toxic chemicals in car interiors.
An environmental group says Volvo is the auto manufacturer with the lowest level of toxic chemicals in car interiors.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - A Michigan environmental group is charging that at least part of the so-called "new car smell" is toxic, and that the interior of an automobile has dangerous levels of various chemicals.
The report, "Toxic at any speed," comes from The Ecology Center, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based group. It reports that PBDEs, used as fire retardants, and phthalates, used primarily to soften PVC plastics, are found in dangerous amounts in dust and windshield film samples.
It called for tougher regulations to phase out the use of the chemicals as well as voluntary moves by the auto manufacturers to stop using the products inside of new vehicles.
It also suggested that car owners take steps to reduce the release and breakdown of these chemicals by using solar reflectors, ventilating car interiors, and parking outside of sunlight whenever possible.
The group says that phthalates are partly responsible for the smell associated with new cars.
Drivers and passengers are exposed to these chemicals through inhalation and contact with dust, according to the group's report.
"These groups of chemicals have been linked to birth defects, impaired learning, liver toxicity, premature births and early puberty in laboratory animals, among other serious health problems," according to the report.
"We can no longer rely just on seatbelts and airbags to keep us safe in cars," said a statement from Jeff Gearhart, the Ecology Center's Clean Car Campaign Director who co-authored the report. "Our research shows that autos are chemical reactors, releasing toxins before we even turn on the ignition. There are safer alternatives to these chemicals, and innovative companies that develop them first will likely be rewarded by consumers."
The group found Volvo was found to have the lowest levels of phthalates and the second-lowest levels of PBDEs, which it said made the Ford Motor Co. (Research)-owned unit the industry leader in terms of indoor air quality. Volvo also has the toughest policies for phasing out these chemicals.
Other auto manufacturers had more mixed records on the two types of chemicals, according to the group's survey. For example, Korean auto manufacturer Hyundai had the lowest level of PBDEs, but the highest level of phthalates.
The group said it was told by Ford officials that the auto manufacturer has eliminated PBDEs from "interior components that customers may come into contact with." Ford had among the lowest level of PBDEs in its vehicles, and General Motors (Research) and BMW vehicles also had lower-than-average levels for all chemicals tested. But Mercedes, Chrysler, Toyota and Subaru had higher-than-average levels of both PBDEs and phthalates.
In response to the study, one industry group defended the use of PBDEs as an important contributor to vehicle safety.
The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum said in a statement that PBDEs known as Deca-BDE have been extensively studied in the U.S. and Europe -- including a 10-year-long risk assessment -- and found to be safe for continued use.
"If automobile manufacturers follow the guidance in the report, it could result in lowering fire safety for the public, as well as promoting the use of unidentified alternative substances about which very little may be known," said the group's statement. It said it is crucial that autos have the best possible flame retardants available in case of accidents.
"In 2004 alone, there were approximately 297,000 car fires in the United States, leading to 550 deaths. If effective flame retardants were not used, this number would certainly be higher," the group's statement said.
Auto manufacturers have already agreed to phase out two of the three flame-retardant chemicals cited in the report, Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, told the Detroit News. The remaining chemical has been studied by the European Union for 10 years and has been proven safe, Shosteck said.
The report was released Jan. 11 during the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, but it received little attention outside of Michigan.
01-31-06, 08:09 AM
#2
Speaks French in Russian
Yea Volvos been pushing that low toxin crap for years, along with there Oxygen forming radiators to make the tree huggers happy. Honestly, the new Volvo smell - smells like crap. Its a very annoying smell to me.
01-31-06, 09:20 AM
#4
Out of Warranty
Smells like Bureaucrat to me . . .
Back in the late ‘70’s when benzene standards were written, tests proved that a new car’s vinyl dashboard cover outgassed sufficient quantities of benzene as to violate the exposure limits for the driver and passenger. This was not so much a function of the content of the vinyl, but the fact that the standards were set unrealistically low. I somehow got peripherally involved in setting those standards, as well as those for H2S and a few other substances. Here’s how it happened:
When experts in the field, environmentalists, industrial chemists, manufacturers, and contractors were asked what maximum exposure limits should be, each wanted to err on the side of safety, so they fudged the numbers a little. As these estimates were passed up the line through management, a series of “fudge factors” were applied. If a concentration of 20 PPM (parts per million) in air was considered the maximum safe exposure, surely 10 PPM would be safer. By the way this information was worked through the layers of committees, the standard might be set at 2 PPM – certainly a safe level, but all but undetectable to field-grade instrumentation. Detectors were re-engineered to measure infinitesimal concentrations of contaminants, but in the field, they could be error prone. Solution? Reduce the standards again. A totally unknown measure PPB (yes, parts per BILLION) appeared.
The second measure was the duration of exposure. If a worker in an asbestos mine in South Africa, where he spends eight hour days and 48+ hour weeks at fairly heavy labor can be expected to inhale an amount of asbestos fiber to create a serious health risk, why is this same level set as the max exposure level for a worker in an industrial plant where exposure should be no more than a few minutes a day? Because it’s easy . . . and it doesn’t give the lawyers much of a case. If you can inhale a mix of asbestos fiber for 20 years before you develop a medical condition, why is a half-hour’s exposure to the same level considered critical. It’s the TOTAL AMOUNT of fibers in your lungs that creates the hazard, not the instantaneous exposure.
Many of our environmental standards are calculated in the same way. Is it any wonder that they are usually unrealistic? Particulate emissions in the city limits of Houston have been excoriated in the press as shameful and unhealthy for humans . . . . then the whackos found that the particulates were TREE POLLEN. No comment from the environmental front . . . you could hear nothing but crickets . . . .
When experts in the field, environmentalists, industrial chemists, manufacturers, and contractors were asked what maximum exposure limits should be, each wanted to err on the side of safety, so they fudged the numbers a little. As these estimates were passed up the line through management, a series of “fudge factors” were applied. If a concentration of 20 PPM (parts per million) in air was considered the maximum safe exposure, surely 10 PPM would be safer. By the way this information was worked through the layers of committees, the standard might be set at 2 PPM – certainly a safe level, but all but undetectable to field-grade instrumentation. Detectors were re-engineered to measure infinitesimal concentrations of contaminants, but in the field, they could be error prone. Solution? Reduce the standards again. A totally unknown measure PPB (yes, parts per BILLION) appeared.
The second measure was the duration of exposure. If a worker in an asbestos mine in South Africa, where he spends eight hour days and 48+ hour weeks at fairly heavy labor can be expected to inhale an amount of asbestos fiber to create a serious health risk, why is this same level set as the max exposure level for a worker in an industrial plant where exposure should be no more than a few minutes a day? Because it’s easy . . . and it doesn’t give the lawyers much of a case. If you can inhale a mix of asbestos fiber for 20 years before you develop a medical condition, why is a half-hour’s exposure to the same level considered critical. It’s the TOTAL AMOUNT of fibers in your lungs that creates the hazard, not the instantaneous exposure.
Many of our environmental standards are calculated in the same way. Is it any wonder that they are usually unrealistic? Particulate emissions in the city limits of Houston have been excoriated in the press as shameful and unhealthy for humans . . . . then the whackos found that the particulates were TREE POLLEN. No comment from the environmental front . . . you could hear nothing but crickets . . . .
01-31-06, 10:35 AM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Yeah I'm sure that new car smell is a lot worse than the deep breathing of gasoline fumes you get when gassing up that new car. 
People with too much time and money on their hands...
If cars didn't exist and were invented now they'd never be allowed to be on the market. What, you want to drive around with a tank of explosive liquid chemicals?
People with too much time and money on their hands...
If cars didn't exist and were invented now they'd never be allowed to be on the market. What, you want to drive around with a tank of explosive liquid chemicals?
01-31-06, 12:14 PM
#7
When I was just out of High School I worked at a car dealership. When we took in new cars the interirior smell was really bad. It is different from that new leather or new car smell you smell at the show room. Until you take off all that plastic covering from the interior seats and panels, and really clean up the car the smell can be very toxic. I couldn't spend more than a few minuts in the car without getting a headache.
Trending Topics
01-31-06, 01:07 PM
#8
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
When I was just out of High School I worked at a car dealership. When we took in new cars the interirior smell was really bad. It is different from that new leather or new car smell you smell at the show room. Until you take off all that plastic covering from the interior seats and panels, and really clean up the car the smell can be very toxic. I couldn't spend more than a few minuts in the car without getting a headache.
but the new car smell at dealership? i am cool
01-31-06, 02:39 PM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
Mods: I believe this thread is a repost but I couldn't verify it....the CL search engine was down when I tried it....several times.
If so, you can consider merging the two threads.
If so, you can consider merging the two threads.
01-31-06, 03:22 PM
#11
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by mmarshall
Mods: I believe this thread is a repost but I couldn't verify it....the CL search engine was down when I tried it....several times.
If so, you can consider merging the two threads.
If so, you can consider merging the two threads.
), but it was a totally different article from this one, this is a new article that I also saw yesterday. So not really a repost, just addressing the same issues . . .
01-31-06, 04:56 PM
#12
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: California
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the latest Volvos really have very little smell when new and what they have goes away quickly. If you go back 2-3 years even Volvos were very fragrant (some liked it and other didn't) with a smell that would last for years.
Originally Posted by magneto112
Yea Volvos been pushing that low toxin crap for years, along with there Oxygen forming radiators to make the tree huggers happy. Honestly, the new Volvo smell - smells like crap. Its a very annoying smell to me.
01-31-06, 05:34 PM
#13
Originally Posted by Lil4X
Solution? Reduce the standards again. A totally unknown measure PPB (yes, parts per BILLION) appeared.
.
.
A college professor of mine (I was taking my Masters degree at night) found a way to detect parts per billion. Suddenly all kinds of products were violating the law! The professor himself thought the Delaney clause made no sense as written, but the genie couldn't be put back in the bottle. He even performed testing that showed a higher level of concentration of the offending substances in product that had never been packaged - apparently stuff is everywhere at the ppb level.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
