home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!portal!lll-winken!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!gatech!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!reg.triumf.ca!advax
- From: advax@reg.triumf.ca (A.Daviel)
- Newsgroups: misc.kids
- Subject: Re: Flammability (was: Re: A few Questions)
- Message-ID: <26JAN199315055034@reg.triumf.ca>
- Date: 26 Jan 93 23:05:00 GMT
- References: <1993Jan13.023714.9282@cs.cornell.edu> <1993Jan21.100513.17157@marie.uucp> <1993Jan25.204253.14902@ttinews.tti.com>
- Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
- Lines: 21
- NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
- News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
-
- In article <1993Jan25.204253.14902@ttinews.tti.com>, reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes...
- >
- >Of course, sleepwear is really whatever the child sleeps in, whether
- >it's marketed as such or not. The law does not force parents to dress
- >their children in flame-resistant garments.
- >
-
- In the recent issue of New Scientist there is a report on a study of
- flammability of clothing. It found that women and children were more likely
- to be burned than men, because they were more likely to wear long, loose
- clothing. (Of course, women might be more likely to use the stove, too.)
- Loose fitting clothes are more likely to come close to an ignition source
- without the wearer noticing, and a beltless costume creates a chimney effect
- with ventilation from both inside and outside the garment, so that combustion
- becomes very rapid. Tight fitting clothing does not do this, and the wearer
- is likely to notice the heat before the flames have got very far.
-
- So I guess pyjamas are safer than nightgowns.
-
- --
- Andrew Daviel, Vancouver, Canada
-