Can anyone explain to me why sleep wear is suppose to be snug to be flame resistant? At first glance, this may seem obvious but think about it.
Daytime clothes aren't. And a toddler, out toddling about, is going to have a much greater risk of coming in contact with danger than is a toddler sleeping. Unless folks are putting their toddlers to sleep in dangerous places.
I am not being sarcastic or glib.
Am I missing some great threat to my daughter while she is sleeping? She sleeps in a crib, in a room in a modern house. Her room is heated with an electric cove heater that is nowhere near her. Neither my husband (her father) or I smoke. Does she really need snug fitting, flame resistant sleepwear?
I missed the part that showed that "snug" equates to "flame resistant".
I always thought "snug" was to lessen the chance of choking.
And "flame resistant" meant the material itself was, or had been sprayed with some chemical to make it so.
I think the idea is that if there is a fire in your house and you can't get to your child because of that fire then they need to be protected more than a person who could successfully evacuate on their own. During the day they should be near you and if they were in danger of catching on fire you would do something.
I've always purchased sleepwear that DOESN'T have flame retardants on it for my child. And a non-treated mattress. So I'm with you; keep the chemicals off my kid.
From the Consumer Product Safety Commission site:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/slpwear.html
"Flame Resistant -- Flame resistant garments do not continue burning when removed from an ignition source. Examples include inherently flame resistant polyesters that do not require chemical treatment.
Or,
Snug-fitting -- Snug-fitting garments need not be flame resistant because they are made to fit closely against a child’s body. Snug-fitting sleepwear does not ignite easily and, even if ignited, does not burn readily because there is little oxygen to feed a fire."
**The rules for flame resistance or snug fit do not apply to sleepwear for sizes nine months and under because infants that wear these sizes are insufficiently mobile to expose themselves to an open flame.
Children should never be put to sleep in T-shirts, sweats, or other oversized, loose-fitting cotton or cotton-blend garments. These garments can catch fire easily and are associated with 200 to 300 emergency room-treated burn injuries to children annually.
I never worried about it. I just put her in what is cute and comfy. I actually heard too that the flame retartant clothes have tons of chemicals in them as well.
When I was a child, flame retardant sleepwear (that means it should self extinguish if caught on fire) actually did save my life (as well as my two siblings and our house). We were home (probably 12 years old - old enough to babysit anyway) and my sister thought we needed a tent atmosphere (playing I dream of Genie) and threw her (fortunately flame retardant) bathrobe over the chandelier - where it (predictably for an adult) ignited and then happily smoldered for a moment, produced some smoke and went out. In the length of time it took us to find a ladder, climb up and retrieve it (to hide in the closet), the house certainly could have caught fire.
In the case of a fire, a toddler probably has not mastered -stop, drop and roll - and would be trying to escape. If his clothing would self extinguish, escaping would likely be enough. If his clothing were snug fitting, perhaps it wouldn't catch on fire. Just theorizing here.
My son (6) wears snug fitting cotton pjs mostly and a few fleece (flame retartant) non snug fitting ones.
This law is antiquated & for idiots who smoke. It infuriates me!
I'm with you. It drives me absolutely nuts! The flame resistant jammies are stinky and feel icky, probably due to the flame retardant chemicals on them. The "snug-fitting" jammies are ridiculously tight, to the point of being totally uncomfortable. The best thing I can figure out to do is buy the snug fitting ones in 2 or 3 sizes too large, or have my little guy wear cotton athletic wear loose-fitting pants and t-shirts.
My daughter slept in a plain t-shirt from the time she was an infant until she was grown.
I don't get it either. But from what I understood, the snug-fit sleepwear is NOT flame resistant, but the looser fitting ones ARE flame resistant. I could be wrong, but if I do have it right, then maybe the snug ones won't get stuck in the bed or snag on something as you run out of the house in case of fire?
But seems silly to me too. I don't get it either.
It does seem less than nessesary since most people that die in house fires die from smoke and fume inhalation, not acctually burning. I guess there are some circumstances where a child could catch fire and it would be good to have flame retardent clothes, but I can't see how that would occur when they are asleep in bed.
