If the author of the article doesn't smoke in bed, then they are circumventing the risk in a different way.
In the UK, the label that shows soft furnishings are fire retardant has a picture of a cigarette and match, which is what leads me to believe this was the primary risk.
They didn’t even do that, though. They said “I don’t like my options for fire retardant, so here’s how I built a mattress without it”, with zero justification for why they thought it was acceptable, zero assurances that they put any thought into it.
It is a personal, minimalistic blog that someone else submitted to HN. The argument that the bed fire risk comes mostly from smoking in bed seems straightforward so maybe they did not feel a need to spell it out.
While on the topic of fire hazards "[s]heep farming emits high volumes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and also drives carbon-emitting deforestation"[0] both which, I add, contributes to climate change which increases the likelihood and impact of forest fires which put human lives at risk.
[0] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24008053/wool-marketing-e...
> But while smoking materials continue to be the leading source of deadly home fires, incidents involving candles have steadily increased. Candle fires have quadrupled to 16 400 a year over the last decade
https://www.flameretardants-online.com/news/archive?showid=1...