I don't see this issue as one of whether manufacturers meet the standards. It is more one of whether the standards are "adequate". Now the task becomes one of defining "adequate."
We've all see the hatchet jobs that the press or special interest group will do when they get on a mission. I'm not sure of their ultimate motivation. I do see a potential path of cause and effects. Designers/manufacturers are looking at what their products/equipment will do the environment (not the green one, the ambient one). This issue here is becoming one of what will the environment do to our products/equipment and how, in turn, will they affect the environment. We can't prevent the fire but what do we contribute to the fire if one occurs outside our product/equipment? Building products are coming under increasingly more stringent requirements to be fire proof/retardant. Building contents are now coming under the same types of requirements. Carpets, wall coverings, furnishings, window treatments are being required to be more flame retardant. Our products are the next step. Many consumer products used to be expensive enough that the locations in which they used were controlled and used by more wealthy and generally more educated people. With the decrease in cost, these same products are now being used in places in which they were never exposed to in the past. We are now seeing them placed in children's rooms and used by people with limited literacy (both young and old). Whether we like it or not, I believe that the fire retardancy of consumer products is going to increase. Not because our equipment is any more hazardous, but because groups with an agenda (fair or not, self-interested or not) will make enough public stink that we will either increase voluntarily or be forced by standards to increase the fire retardancy. It becomes a matter of what image we want to present to the public. Manufacturer's that care about their customers or those that are only looking for the dollars. Fair or not, that is what it will ultimately be played up in the press and by the first manufactures that decide to lead the way. Look at this scenario. A house fire starts in a child's room by a scented votive candle on the desk. The consumer product with an HB cover adds fuel to the flame and smoke. A child is either seriously injured or dies. The attorney for the family waves a dollar bill in front of the jury and says: "If the manufacturer had spent only one dollar, this tragedy might have been prevented. One dollar! But instead of spending this one dollar to save a life, they decided to give it to a corporate officer as a bonus for saving money." Would you want to be the manufacturer's representative on that case? Again, I'm not saying that this is fair or reasonable. I'm just saying that I see it coming. Look at the tobacco and gun industries. amichael%[email protected] on 01/20/2000 04:01:27 PM Please respond to amichael%[email protected] To: kandrews%[email protected] cc: chris.colgan%[email protected], emc-pstc%[email protected] (bcc: Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Open Letter re ITE Flammability (Source is NAFM) To Kurt: I believe it is possible to utilized an internal "enclosure" to protect against fire (and other hazards) and then, the outer case (the subject of the NAFM letter) does not need to meet the V-1 requirement. I know, for a fact, that this technique was utilized in other product lines (phones & video games, for instance) so that the outer case did not serve as the "enclosure" and could be made of less expensive polymers. And, to Chris: It has long been recognized on this side of the Atlantic, that TVs and other home electronics devices benefit from the use of flame-resistant "enclosures" (you can interpret that as: flame-resistant enclosures reduce the fire-risks associated with such products). That is why UL 6500 varies from 60065 and why flame-resistance of one of the cornerstones of the myriad of ANSI/UL standards. It's good to learn that 60065 is adding finally adding flammability requirements for enclosures. Regards, Art Michael Int'l Product Safety News A.E. Michael, Editor 166 Congdon St. East P.O. Box 1561 Middletown CT 06457 U.S.A. Phone : (860) 344-1651 Fax : (860) 346-9066 Email : [email protected] Website: http://www.safetylink.com ISSN : 1040-7529 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Andrews, Kurt wrote: > > According to 4.4.4 of both UL 1950 and EN 60950 monitors should be at least > V-1. 4.4.4 says that fire enclosures of less than 18 kg (about 40 lb.) have > to be at least V-1. For fire enclosures over 18 kg it needs to be 5V. So if > a monitor has a UL mark it should be at least V-1. A monitor case should > definitely be a fire enclosure as 4.4.5.1 says the following items need a > fire enclosure and I'm sure that all monitors have at least some of these: > components having unenclosed arcing parts, such as open switch and relay > contacts, and commutators; components having windings, such as transformers, > solenoids and relays; wiring; semiconductor devices, such as transistors, > diodes and integrated circuits; resistors, capacitors and inductors. > > > Kurt Andrews > Compliance Engineer > Tracewell Systems, Inc. > 567 Enterprise Dr. > Westerville, OH 43081 > Ph. 614-846-6175 > Fax 614-846-7791 > Email: [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colgan, Chris [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 12:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Open Letter re ITE Flammability (Source is NAFM) > > > Interesting and worrying. Does EN60950 call up flammability > requirements > for polymeric enclosures? If not, I guess I had better look for a > PC with a > NRTL mark as well as a CE mark - and then check it is V-0 rated. > > You may be amazed to know that while UL6500 (safety of audio visual > products) calls up flammability requirements for all product > enclosures, the > current edition EN60065 only requires the back and ventilated parts > of > television receiver enclosures to made of "slow burning material or > better a > fire retardant material". There is no requirement for other > products such > as amplifiers, CD players etc. The next edition of EN60065 > addresses the > problems of enclosure flammability but there must an awful lot of > highly > flammable hi-fi equipment out there. Think twice before placing > that > yuletide candle on top of your hi-fi stack. > > Regards > > Chris Colgan > EMC & Safety > TAG McLaren Audio Ltd > > mailto:[email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Art Michael [SMTP:[email protected]] > > Sent: 20 January 2000 14:48 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Open Letter re ITE Flammability (Source is NAFM) > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > Recently my attention was drawn to an open letter from the > National > > Association of Fire Marshals, detailing their concerns with 94-HB > > enclosures, which - according to tests they initiated - can be > readily > > ignited by external sources. > > > > A quote from their letter: "In November and December of 1999, SP > (the > > Swedish National Research and Testing Institute) tested five > computer > > monitors - all of which had been or are available to consumers. > Three of > > the five were made with fire-resistant plastic housings. Repeated > > attempts to ignite these monitors failed. Two of the five monitors > were > > made with HB rated plastic housings. A SINGLE MATCH IGNITED EACH > OF THESE > > QUICKLY." > > > > [The emphasis in the last sentence is mine] > > > > The NAFM letter can be viewed at: > <www.firemarshals.org/openletter.html> > > > > My interests were piqued and the subject-matter served as the > basis for an > > article in the current issue of Int'l Product Safety News. To > further > > this discussion, I ask you to read the open letter and then ask > yourself; > > > > A) What is your company's business practice ? Do they, 1: Just > meet the > > requirements (per a given standard) ? or, 2: Strive to provide > > equipment that is "safe" beyond the requirements of the standards > ? > > > > B) Should ITE (and other) product safety standards be concerned > with > > external sources of ignition. > > > > C) Do you agree that ITE should be singled out for scrutiny, given > that > > children's bedrooms (the impetus behind this open-letter), and in > fact, > > whole households, are replete with easily ignited materials. > > > > Regards, Art Michael > > > > Int'l Product Safety News > > A.E. Michael, Editor > > 166 Congdon St. East > > P.O. Box 1561 > > Middletown CT 06457 U.S.A. > > > > Phone : (860) 344-1651 > > Fax : (860) 346-9066 > > Email : [email protected] > > Website: http://www.safetylink.com > > ISSN : 1040-7529 > > > > > > > > > > --------- > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], or > > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > ===================================================== > Authorised on 01/20/00 at 17:38:33; code 37f48bf367698790. > > > > ********************************************************************** > The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive > use of the intended recipient. > If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your > system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You > should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. > > TAG McLaren Audio Ltd, The Summit, 11 Latham Road > Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 6ZU > Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) > Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) > > ********************************************************************** > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators). --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
