It's been a while since we had a poison to worry about. Sensing a need to fill that gap, I would like to tell you about a fire retardant chemical that has some scientists very concerned.

The chemical is called Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether, commonly known as PBDE. I suspect that you will be hearing more about this chemical is coming years

According to published reports, PBDE is accumulating in the breast milk of nursing mothers. Some scientists are calling for a ban on this chemical.

PBDE is used in furniture padding. It is designed to slow in-home fires. The question that needs to be asked is whether this chemical is causing more harm than good.

Supporters claim that the product has value and the value outweighs any health risk. But not everyone is buying this argument.

Europe and California are not waiting for deaths and lawsuits. Both have laws that will phase out the use of this chemical. They believe its better to safe than sorry - and I agree.

Chemical manufacturers say the risk of fire related death drops by 45% when this substance is used in furniture. However, environmentalists want this material banned because they allege that it is toxic and that it accumulates in the body.

Swedish scientists first documented the increase of PBDE in humans years ago. In 1998, scientists reported that levels of PBDE in breast milk had increased 40 times since 1972. And some studies suggest that this chemical may cause brain damage in mice.

California, to its credit, is not waiting for people to become ill. That State became the first in the nation to ban the chemical. While the EPA is monitoring the situation, California has decided to protect its citizens and will not take any chances.

Here is my question. If the material may be harmful, if it may cause illness, if we do not fully understand the impact of this product - why are we using it? As I understand things, in Europe products of this nature cannot be used unless they are proven to be safe. Here it seems that products cannot be banned unless they are proven to be harmful. It's a different approach.

MTBE is a great example of industry pushing a product without telling us about its problems. MTBE was promoted by the oil companies as a means of enhancing fuel efficiency to reduce air pollution. That was a great concept, but a bad idea.

Once MTBE leaks from gas station underground tanks, it pollutes the drinking water. And it is very hard to get rid of MTBE.

Did any one reveal to the public how bad MTBE was before industry sold us on it, and before the government bought into it? Certainly not, and now we have a national problem.

A few years ago, industry sold us on a new fire retardant wood for use in multi-family dwellings all over the U.S. That material lost its structural integrity and rotted, causing lawsuits all over the US. Valid lawsuits, involving large scale re-roofing projects. I wonder whether this PBDE will suffer the same fate. Some animal tests already indicate trouble. Why use this chemical without fully understanding it?

California and Europe want to be safe, not sorry. Sounds good to me.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.