I only wanted to ask Shelter Designs their position on the issue of vinyl in yurt cover fabrics, so this will be my last post in this thread, but I will open another thread to discuss this issue.
Again, Shelter Designs is doing a good job of making yurt frames and covers and their quality seems to be high. I only question the choice of cover fabric and if they have searched for alternatives to vinyls and
.
One of the issues that I have with PVC and Vinyls are the high levels of Phalates and other plasticizers found in the soft vinyl used to coat fabrics. One common phalate used in vinyl fabrics is BPA or Bisphenol-A. This chemical was deemed to be harmful enough to small children and adults that it was removed for nearly all children's products as well as the lining of cans as was widely reported over the past several years. BPA has been found in the blood of nearly humans ever tested. Many companies are touting their newly-redesigned products as BPA-free, so why would yurt companies not want to be BPA-free as well?
The other issue with vinyls is the high levels of fire-retardants particularly brominated fire retardants found in vinyl fabrics. These are another class of chemicals that is coming under enhanced scrutiny in recent months. These chemicals are banned in Europe already.
EFSA Topic: Brominated Flame Retardants
Most chemicals have had no research into their possible health effects because big companies want to sell more products, not protect the health of the public. That is the fault of the close ties between big business and the government.
This is from the EPA website at
HPV Chemical Hazard Data Availability Study | OPPT | US EPA
I personally don't want to take the chance that my kids will grow up with thyroid issues or genetic mutations, or cancer and so I stay away from vinyl.
"Of the 3,000 chemicals that the US imports or produces at more than 1 million lbs/yr, a new EPA analysis finds that 43% of these high production volume chemicals have no testing data on basic toxicity and only seven percent have a full set of basic test data. This lack of test data compromises the public's right to know about the chemicals that are found in their environment, their homes, their workplace, and the products that they buy. Industry must do more to ensure that basic information is available on every high-production chemical they manufacture.
Background:
There are six basic tests which have been internationally agreed to for screening high production volume (HPV) chemicals for toxicity. The tests agreed to under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Screening Information Data Set (OECD/SIDS) program are: acute toxicity; chronic toxicity; developmental/reproductive toxicity; mutagenicity; ecotoxicity and environmental fate.
EPA found that approximately 55% of TRI chemicals have had full SIDS testing, while only 7% of other chemicals have full test data. EPA also looked at a set of 491 chemicals used by children and families in consumer products. Only 25% of these chemicals have full screening data. EPA cannot begin to judge the hazards and risks of such consumer chemicals without basic information, and in fact substantially more detailed and exhaustive testing is needed to assess these high exposure chemicals.
It is clear that companies need to do more to address this problem: of the 830 companies making HPV chemicals in the US, 148 companies have NO SIDS data available on their chemicals; an additional 459 companies sell products for which, on average, half or less of SIDS tests are available. Only 21 companies (or 3% of the 830 companies) have all SIDS tests available for their chemicals. The basic set of test data costs about $200,000 per chemical."
I think we have found the yurt we want
Linear Mode
