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

 

See, something good ALWAYS has to be screwed up. This just makes me want to go into law EVEN more, and put these mindless environmental idiots to shame. There are always to sides of the story. First "global warming", then "emissions", then "pedestrian impact", now...new car smell?

 

why is it that everything in this world that gives me any sort of pleasure what so ever is bad for me???? WHY?

 

Early puberty, excellent!

 

Ever notice how orgs like this are always located in whacko-magnet ultra left wing college towns? You know who I mean: Ann Arbor, Madison, Berkley, Austin et yada.
Personally, I think ultra-left socialist college profs are bad for your health, but that's just me.
Baaahhhh!

 

I'm not all that surprised, really...the whole off-gassing thing has been around for a long time...this is just a bit of an extension of that theme. Seems car makers are well aware of the issue, too, and are (and have been) amply engaged in appropriate development.

I'm not sure how much any of this has to do with smell and how much has to do with in-vehicle air quality. I suspect actual "new car smell" is not in any real danger of going away.

The steps recommends for consumers seem simple enough...I've heard the Car Talk guys discuss similar things. In fact, I do this all the time to keep my car's interior from turning into a freakin' oven during the hot Texas summers.

 

Well I drive with the sunroof open and the windpws down so I guess I'm safe but I sure do miss that smell.

 

Hey, I love Austin and I'm not an ultra left wing whacko. I'm a marginally left wing whacko, who works in the petroleum biz no less. Keep Austin weird!

 

awwww...come on...this is such a load of Hoowey! They conveniently "forgot" to mention the statistics of how many New cars on average a person buys in their life. I'm almost 30 and I'm on my 1st...so by the time I'm old and gray I might (and that's a big might) be up to 4...what was that percentage again of the damage it might cause to me? Oh that's right, they "forgot" to mention that too (but in laboratory animals...blah blah blah). Don't get me wrong I'm sure it's a risk but so is aluminum poisoning from our deodorant and soda cans and my average lifetime percentage of using those is in the thousands...hmmmm. Stinkin humans, always gotta find a scare tactic to "freak out" the general population. Hum bug

You wanna know something else? Edible underwear have also been known to cause cancer in laboratory animals as well (don't ask how I know that)

 

It's some of the same crap. While lifetime exposure is surely low, as StooopidGirl points out, there's no arguing that the chemical mix is a bunch of nasties (said by someone who had done IR spectroscopy and compositional analysis of gas mixtures). Think of it this way, would you want to fill a large plastic bag with a bunch of those petroleum byproducts and take a few hits? I don't think so.....

While it's not going to kill any one person, it is interesting to think about
(at least to me), what the total population exposure is, and what it does to the group as a whole..... Afterall, there are lots and lots of cars produced each year.

But Stooopid, I think your a bit off base in the rapid dismissal of this. There have been times in history where the fad has been widespread self-poisoning of the population. You can find evidence in Indains use of mercury containing face paints (happened here in the south SF bay area, until the Indians figured out that all the painted warriers were going bonkers), to arsnenic poisening as a TREATMENT is the 1700 or 1800s in europe, heck, we even put TONS of lead in the air for all of us to breath until the mid 1970s.

Just be cause we can send men to the moon, doesn't mean that we're a wise race, just capable....

Matt

 

I'm by no means dismissing it, but I do think the media likes to use scare tactics. In which case, to me, this seems like a cut and dry case of it.It was definately interesting, good to know, and a nice read. But, there are no hard statistics that's all. The media likes to latch on to certain topics for the shock effect. People choose to fall prey to it or they can use their brain and figure it out for themselves. When they print actual figures then I would be all for fighting it. Did you know that roller coasters cause brain damage? That article was just like this one. Turns out it's like .000001% chance of it happenning, but they didn't really mention that part when they reported it. Just like 1% of people who have peircings have Heart valve problems, yet another scare tactic. Anyway, I'll shoosh with all my examples. I just don't understand presenting a case like it's a big deal until they can prove it. This to me does not prove it.

 

But it's interesting to ponder at what point does one start to show concern. Look at global warming... Many oil companies used (and continue to do so) your exact same arguement to do nothing in the face of growing evidence. And to make matters worse, by the time that the body of evidence is large enough and conclusive enough to convince even Exxon, then it will probably be too late to do much about it, without massive costs to societies.

Look at MTBE, that's getting phased out of gas as an oxygenate. Then there was proof that the materials was being used not because it was the best oxygenate, but because it was a convienient disposal method for those that create it. All those tree hugging radicals were accurately pointing out that it's a very insideous molecule, and now congress (well parts of it anyway) keep trying to introduce riders that protect the very same companies that lobbied for it's use from financial responsibility for mitigation of it's use. (turns out, they'd have had to pay for it's disposal as a by-product of the refining process... I know, let's put it in cars and just burn the stuff!!!!) You know that massive rash of gas stations being dug up a couple of years ago? That was to create double walled tanks for gas, because MTBE could permeate the walls of single wall tanks, now we have ground water issues all over the country.

The rational standard for action is taken by weighing the consiquences of wieghted by the likeleyhood of various outcomes, with the cost of mitigation. This is why we all have auto insurance. The chance of a bad accident is small, but the cost, should it occure, can be massive.

I don't know enough about this particular issue to know if we're underreacting, as a society, or overreacting. Historical perspect tends to favor the tree huggers. They don't have a huge economic interest in the positions that they advocate, and if one measures the accuracy of the assurances of large industry, the record of the vested interrests isn't good. It's so bad, in fact, that one could be percieved as pretty wise if one advocates EXACTLY the opposite position of large industrial efforts.... (not 100%)

Just another one, of many, crappy things we have to keep in mind.....

Matt

 

You can make up statistics to prove anything, 37% of all people know that.

 

I'm all for global warming. Man-caused or natural cycles, I don't care. I've had enough of cold winter days. Bring on spring.

 

I'd rather have these types of things examined then swept under the rug. The rise of diseases like breast cancer, ALS, austism in children, etc etc in much higher percentages of the population in recent years has to be caused by something and it very well could be a combination of increasing numbers of chemicals people are exposed to over time that is contributing to it. Companies are only interested in sales and the testing is often not sufficient, and well its a whole topic unto itself, but in the end outside testing and consumer/environmental protection groups are really the only ones really looking out for public safety long term. By the time "actual" numbers can be reported you have a real tragedy on your hands (if they ever can report actual numbers; although they are finding that the byproducts of creating Teflon can be carcinogenic how do you prove it's what killed your loved one?* Or is it that plus new car fumes, plus insecticides on food... you get the picture). It is sad that we seem doomed to find out about this stuff after its already out instead of really investigating these man made chemicals and their interactions/by products thoroughly over time first.


*quick Google came up with this about it - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012502041.html

 

I think we need to remember that so many man-made chemicals have been introduced into the environment, and that we really don't know how they all react to one another. When these studies are conducted, they isolate a certain set of conditions to study. My concern is the ever-increasing combinations of chemicals that we're being exposed to over long periods of time, not just each separate one studied in a lab setting. It all adds up...

 

Most of the false, biased evidence supporting global warming has been funded by the enviromentalist. There have been an overwhelming majority of evidence that acknowledges global warming, but dissmisses the fact that it is due to humans. (This has been hid by the media.)

I am no scientist or enviro expert-however, here are the facts. The earth and sun rotate in stages,climate wise, especially the sun. This is a fact, and speculation is the sun and earth are simply changing again. (as they always are.) How do we explain the end of the ice age? Mini Coopers?

Also, a cow "fart" is mostly methane emissions. These methane particle are more than 10 times more damaging and polluting than carbon, the pollutant involved with cars. See a connection?

I know this might be a bit "political" but it is also scientific. Lets discuss this as mature adults and not lock this thread.

 

I totally agree that this is not something to be swept under the rug and should definately be looked in to further as with anything that can be considered harmful. I'm merely remarking on articles that are used as scare tactics. I'm glad this was brought to my attention so I can look forward to future investigations. Pretty much anything the human race does is harmful to the envoronment, I am no saint. Personally I'd rather be on a deserted island with a few selective friends. The tv show LOST is one of my dreams (aside from bug scary island monsters and the "others")

 

I'd like to see a study showing a percentage based on how much studies in general are biased. But then again, it might be biased.

 

Sorry but I don't believe that the amount of pollution that we've put in the environment in the past hundred years isn't effecting it any. What other studies are you referring to? One's funded by the oil elite (cough*bush*cough)? Yes there are natural cycles but we're speeding up those cycles by creating huge amounts of ozone. I'd be more inclined to believe those studies funded by environmentalists as they are the one's who actually know how it all works. There's a movie called "The Day After Tomorrow"...very good movie, lots of good facts. You should watch it sometime.

Sorry for being so blunt but I get a little worked up when someone says we aren't hurting the environment. I'm as guilty as the next person for watching auto racing and wanting to hop up my MINI. On the other hand, we also drive a Honda Insight that has been proven to pass an emissions test without a cat and has returned about 65 mpg over the past 80k miles. Nothing bad with saving the environment and the pocketbook.

Hopefully it will all be over soon as we switch to an economy not run on oil. Whats done is done and there's no changing it. Maybe the environment will recover, maybe it won't.

 

You mean like the bias of the government towards industry with powerful lobbyists, 'gifts' to lawmakers, and money to spread misinformation and advertising

Although the OP and article was about chemicals that harm people, not an environmental thing in terms of nature, there is often ultimately a connection, but people generally don't like to hear it since it means having to take change, and maybe industry accountability, into consideration. Sure there was an ice age before, but does that mean massive pollution of air, water and soil with chemicals/insecticides, errosion of the ozone layer from chemicals, deforestation, the increased building of giant dams that actually throw the rotation of the earth off, etc etc (I'm sure there are lots more of examples but that was off the top of my head ) does not have an effect on human health and the environment that supports us?

Its too bad that many people don't seem to care to see the implications until something horrible happens on such a grand scale that is incontrovertible - even then people seem quick to forget and powerful companies and the government continue on with their own short term goals in mind.

 

If you will read my post, you would find I didnt say that. These "findings" (cough*flamingliberalenvironmetalistwacko*cough) just exagerate the polutants of automobiles and human machines to incredible amounts. Its really amazing how people have been mis-lead.

Oh, so next I should go watch fahreinheit 911 huh?

Although some studies are beneficial to society-have you ever considered that the change might not be worth while, and might be a detriment to society?

I think its ashame people dont see the full side of the situation in all aspects. I sometimes catch myself doing this, but not in this situation.

Both of you need to listen to Rush Limbough!

 

Sure its possible, perhaps even probable, that the amount of pollution that we've put in the environment in the past hundred years has affected the environment. But the affects may be immaterial in the overall scheme of things when compared with volcanic emmisions, cow farts, plant and animal decay, and natural cycles of cooling and heating. Also, we have managed to clean up a lot of the environment as well. London's air quality is much better today than it was several hundred years ago. And it is apparent to me that in spite of all the pollution produced by the industrial countries, some of the most environmentally miserable places on earth are in the less developed (or "developing") nations.

Global warming sounds terrible, but so does global cooling. Maybe a little bit of global warming would be a good thing (longer growing seasons in northern Nevada, for example), but if carried to an extreme obviously it would be disasterous. Unfortunately, discussion of environmental issues tend to focus on highly improbable extreme outcomes instead of more moderate outcomes that are more likely to occur.

Studies are good, if they are honest and objective. We should have more of them because you never know when you just might uncover something really important. What if an objective study shows that had it not been for man's influence, earth would be going through another ice age? We might be thankful for big cities and cow farts. But we should also not bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no way man can have a net adverse affect on the environment. We also should look objectively at the data already available and not rely solely on anecdotes and emotions. For a well-documented and fun read, may I suggest Micheal Crichton's book, State of Fear.

 

I was actually about to make a comment that you must listen to Rush Limbough but I decided not to. Dude, he's a hardcore Republican who will say anything to support the current administration. My uncle is an avid listener and he actually made the same comment about "there's no such thing as global warming" to us last time we were over. My parents then proceeded to get into an argument for the next couple hours . I try to keep away from these types of arguments so I think I'll stay away from this thread when I'm done here. Getting back to the idea, all studies are going to have some bias but it's the environmentalists job to do these studies and the administration's to listen to them. That's what you call a subject matter expert. Politicians don't know what's going on with the environment so they talk to someone who does. If the environmentalists are saying one thing and the politicians are saying something completely different, don't you think there's something wrong ?

Peace

 

Well, not everything....I think the first supreme court nominee wasnt really accepted..

Im not going to say theres no global warming; I just say its more natural than it is human.

The subject matter expect, as in this case, the environmentalist, go to an extreme level to get things done their way. If you go to the EPA or sierra club websites, all that is on their bulletin is "bash bush" and to stop the paving of new roads, etc. (Which we really need.)

If the environmentalist are saying one thing, and the scientist are saying another...

Peace....
Proved we could have a mature conversation about politics on NAM. (before it got locked)