NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/kids/28792

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 3.7 KB | 65 lines

Newsgroups: misc.kids
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!classy!lauraf
From: [e-mail] (Laura Floom)
Subject: Re: After the Stork Long Underwear
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: classy.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:22:22 GMT
Lines: 52

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Maureen Busch) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Reid Kneeland) writes:
>>Just out of curiosity, has anyone on this group ever had a child
>>saved from injury by a flame-resistant garment?  (Friends of friends
>>don't count.)
>
>Maybe this doesn't count, but I went to school with a girl who suffered 3rd
>degree burns on the front of her body from the neck to the waist when her
>nightgown, which was not flame-resistant, caught on fire when she reached
>across a candle.  It was a terrible accident caused in part by carelessness,
>but I'm sure she and her family will always wonder what her life would have
>been like had she been wearing flame-resistant sleepwear (skin grafts are
>not fun, and the tissue was damaged badly enough that she would never develop
>breasts).
>--

Then this wouldnt count either. When I was 8ish, a good friends neighbor,
who was about 2 years older then us, had been severly burnt when her nightgown
caught on fire, while she stood by the fireplace. I was too young to remember
any statistice about how much of her body was affected, but just everything I
could see was. This must have happened in the late 50s (she was about 4 when
it happened), so they probaby didnt have flame resistant sleepware back then.
It would be hard to say what would have happend if she had been wearing them.
I know that in past debates about this, people have mentioned that the
polyester can do some pretty horrid things to skin, when burnt, but presumable
not all over the childs body.

People who decided not to use flame resistant PJs (and I am one of those
people) have to think about thier home. Are there any open flames, such as
old wall furnaces, fireplaces, pilot lights on stoves, etc. Someone else
asked why on PJs and not regular clothes. The reason I have heard is that
PJs tend to be looser (especially little girls night gowns), and also they
are worn at a time when there is more likely to be open flames. They also
tend to be less supervised  - such as a child getting up in the middle of the
night, and maybe going over to the fire place (that appears to be out). That
sort of thing. One things for sure, I cant see why an infant needs flame
resistant sleepware. They dont wander around the house!

The thing I dont like about flame resistant PJs is that they are usually
polyester, and I prefer Jeffrey to have cotton when possible (I am more
comfortable in cotton, and I assume he would be, too). Now they are treating
cotton with flame resistant stuff. I assume the stuff is a chemical, and I
am not wild about that either. Kathie Riggle tells us that the mail order
place promises that it will wash out, and I hope it is true, but then the
whole issue seems pretty sleazy, because some people out there who do need
flame resistant PJs, are assuming they have it, and wont. It seems like a less
then perfect system. I have heard that the number of children burned by while
wearing PJs has gone down, but how much of that is because of the Js and how
much because of the awareness of parents, and safer heating. It is a very
confusing issue.

Laura Floom