Conformity Magazine - January 2009 - (Page 13) last two organizations stating that the potential risk was too low to justify the implementation of a candle flame ignition requirement. The Push for Inclusion of a Candle Flame Ignition Test However, undeterred by this data, NASFM continued to push the electronics industry to develop a requirement to make electronics in the home less susceptible to accidental ignition by candle flame. They demonstrated that, under simulated real-life conditions, electronic enclosures could catch fire and “flash over” to set an entire room and structure ablaze. The NASFM also videotaped tests showing products from specific major manufacturers, and then, according to some reports, used these videos to pressure the companies into supporting such standards. The NASFM also reportedly promised to release print and television advertisements, showing these tests to allege a lack of product safety, unless the manufacturers changed the housings of the products to meet the proposed requirement. Fear of such potentially adverse publicity may have contributed to some manufacturers agreeing to the development of a candle flame ignition requirement by IEC TC 108. Nonetheless, the committee ultimately developed and issued a standard, TS 624415, to determine ignition resistance to a candle-like flame. And in 2004, the NASFM made formal proposals6 to add candle flame ignition requirements to several IEC standards, as well as standards from Underwriters Laboratory (UL) in the U.S. and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) in Canada. Both the CEA and the Information Technology Industry Council (formerly TIA) vehemently contested these proposals. In a letter4, TIA bluntly and forcefully stated, “the proposal as it currently stands is without merit and should be rejected,” and based its rejection of the proposed changes on several key points, including the following: 1. The proposal was based on a claim of “sufficient historical evidence,” when little factual data was actually presented or available. The proposal’s vague wording asserting that further examination of the issue was unnecessary, while failing to conclusively demonstrate the need to impose such a test. The lack of evidence of fires being started by a candle falling over onto IT or telecommunications equipment (or other electronic equipment for that matter), which was the basis for the claim that such testing was necessary. 4. Holes, logic gaps, and other “deficient and inconsistent” aspects of the proposal. In response, representatives of the fire retardant chemical industry joined TC 108 national committees around the world and, working with the NASFM, prevailed against repeated attempts to stop the candle flame ignition requirement. Indeed, under heavy pressure from the NASFM and the chemical industry, the manufacturers voted to develop and incorporate these requirements into upcoming revisions of IEC 60065, IEC 60950, and the new IEC 62368 product safety standards. Why was the NASFM so committed to the passage of this requirement? One possible explanation is the connection between NASFM and the fire retardant chemical industry, a connection detailed in an article published in the Washington Post in January 20089. NASFM was also housed at the same address and suite in Washington DC as Sparber & Associates7, a lobbyist for flame retardant chemical companies, and shared some employees. Opposing Views Meanwhile, Dr. Arlene Blum, a biophysical chemist (and co-author of this article), was working with other scientists, 2. 3. JAnUAry 2009 Conformity 13 http://www.spira-emi.com http://www.spira-emi.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.