One of the locals daughter had her night attire catch fire from a naked flame, and she was hospitalised with very bad burns. I was under the impression that fabrics like cotton had been banned from kids night attire years ago, going back to the 1950s, has there been a drop in safety standards with cheap imports of late?

Here’s a page about mandatory Oz kids’ sleepwear standards:

http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/973519/fromItemId/973511

Bubbles, thanks, the regs seem comprehensive, compliance may be the problem in this case, the poor little kid is in the burns section of the Childrens Hospital.

bob(from black rock) said:

Bubbles, thanks, the regs seem comprehensive, compliance may be the problem in this case, the poor little kid is in the burns section of the Childrens Hospital.

not a happy time for anyone.

>>>not a happy time for anyone.

Why is it if kids or animals are sick or injured it makes an adult sad and angry?

Hello bob (from black rock), As I understand it, this is really only an issue these days (well for the last 30 or so years) in home made nighties.

I have no idea if this is so in this particular case, but these kinds of incidents fell away drastically when this legislation was brought in; I remember that there were the usual howls of outrage about nanny states taking over parents’ options etc when the legislation was proposed.

There are even warnings on the sewing patterns that home sewers might use, about the risks, and warning to choose the fabrics wisely.

Nighties of the kind of design that parents usually want for their daughters (to make them look pretty) tend to act as chimneys once alight … and the regular draft that heater cause tend to draw loose fabrics towards the heat source.

I hope this isn’t the case her, because then the family will have to endure knowing that it was avoidable, as well as the grief for the child’s injuries and pain.

Hi jj, I don’t know much detail, but I was surprised that this had occurred at all, hadn’t heard of this type of event for 40? years.

jj said:

I remember that there were the usual howls of outrage about nanny states taking over parents’ options etc when the legislation was proposed.

It would be interesting (to me) to look at the sociology and psychology of compliance with regulations. Australians seem to ignore such rules and regulations as ‘advisory’ or scoff at and dismiss them as ridiculous impositions – But arguing over whether a child’s clothing should be able to burst into flames and incinerate the child is possibly taking it too far.

Rule 303 said:

Australians seem to ignore such rules and regulations as ‘advisory’ or scoff at and dismiss them as ridiculous impositions

Au contraire, Australians tend to fall meekly into line with some of the world’s most detailed and complicated nanny state legislations. We’re internationally notorious for it.

childrens pyjamas have always been highly flammable

the problem gets ignored as the years go by and then it rears its head again

just buy cotton

wookiemeister said:

childrens pyjamas have always been highly flammable

the problem gets ignored as the years go by and then it rears its head again

just buy cotton

Cotton is very highly inflammable.

Best advice: just try to avoid setting fire to your children :)

Bubble Car said:

wookiemeister said:

childrens pyjamas have always been highly flammable

the problem gets ignored as the years go by and then it rears its head again

just buy cotton

Cotton is very highly inflammable.

Best advice: just try to avoid setting fire to your children :)

work shirts have to be cotton so they don’t catch fire easily – at least thats what we are told

the cotton is meant to charcoal and then stop burning

maybe i should find an old shirt and set it on fire to see what happens?

Bubble Car said:

Rule 303 said:

Australians seem to ignore such rules and regulations as ‘advisory’ or scoff at and dismiss them as ridiculous impositions

Au contraire, Australians tend to fall meekly into line with some of the world’s most detailed and complicated nanny state legislations. We’re internationally notorious for it.

• waits for the bike helmet argument to rear its head *

wookiemeister said:

childrens pyjamas have always been highly flammable

the problem gets ignored as the years go by and then it rears its head again

just buy cotton

There are fabrics treated with fire retardant

Bubble Car said:

Au contraire, Australians tend to fall meekly into line with some of the world’s most detailed and complicated nanny state legislations. We’re internationally notorious for it.

Y’see, this fascinates me – I could cite lots of examples where we seem to display extremely low compliance and have never heard of this international reputation.

Do you feel like telling me some more and maybe throwing up a few examples?

Rule 303 said:

Y’see, this fascinates me – I could cite lots of examples where we seem to display extremely low compliance and have never heard of this international reputation.

Do you feel like telling me some more and maybe throwing up a few examples?

We wear car seat-belts and bicycle helmets as a matter of routine.

>Australia is a nanny state. You only realise how much of a nanny state it is, however, when you go overseas and find that not everyone lives with the same amount of rules as we do.

That’s when you see the irony of our various wars in the name of “freedom”. Can you really call yourself free in a country that will fine you for walking across the road incorrectly? Or that has a proud democratic process that it forces you to take part in?<

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/blogs/the-backpacker/australia-the-great-nanny-state-20110503-1e6hf.html#ixzz1w4DvETZy

Hmm, to find that link you’ll have to put a quote from it into Google. For some reason this forum doesn’t like Fairfax links.

Hmm, to find that link you’ll have to put a quote from it into Google. For some reason this forum doesn’t like Fairfax links.
-

The problem is the last hyphen in the URL. If you replace it the link will work.

party_pants said:

Rule 303 said:

Y’see, this fascinates me – I could cite lots of examples where we seem to display extremely low compliance and have never heard of this international reputation.

Do you feel like telling me some more and maybe throwing up a few examples?

We wear car seat-belts and bicycle helmets as a matter of routine.

It’s the bike helmet thing. Only Australia and NZ have compulsory bike helmet laws. Not that they are enforced to any great extent.

I owe my back to fire retardant fabrics – as a child I sat too close to an electric bar heat – my jersey smoldered but did not ignite. It was the wool blend. I would hate for parents to not have guidelines and legislation which controls the sale of highly flammable fabrics. Few people are authorities in the flammability of fabrics themselves – so we need tests and information, and legislation to get rid of the nasty dangerous stuff… be that flammable fabrics or toxic paints on toys. We all pay for the outcomes – ask an emergency doctor about burns admitted in ED in the 1960s and 1970s.

http://kidshealth.schn.health.nsw.gov.au/sites/kidshealth.schn.health.nsw.gov.au/files/safety-factsheets/flammable-clothing.pdf

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/4/4/313.full
Abstract

Review of the records of 678 children with acute injuries referred during an eight year period to this burn unit indicated that flame burns from a single ignition source (50%) outranked scalds (27%) or house fires (12%) as causes of injury. There was no temporal trend in the rank pattern. The majority of these single-source flame injuries were severe and involved ignition of the child’s clothing. From 1969 through 1973, sleepwear was the clothing involved in 32% of the instances. Since that time and coincident with promulgation of strict federal and state standards for flammability of children’s night clothing, a dramatic decline in the number of children referred with injuries of this type has taken place. It is probable that the single factor most important to the decline, in our experience with these injuries, is lower fabric flammability but, because our data may not be representative, corroboration is needed before one can exclude factors such as altered garment design, fire safety related practices at home, or changing patterns of hospital referral.

I hope people realise that polypropylene is a fine polar feece fabric for keeping out the cold – but dang it burns- and then melts and adheres to the skin. Horrible injuries! Be careful near campfires and if caught in a bushfire.

Burns horrify me… as do head injuries.

Bubble Car said:

>Australia is a nanny state. You only realise how much of a nanny state it is, however, when you go overseas and find that not everyone lives with the same amount of rules as we do.

That’s when you see the irony of our various wars in the name of “freedom”. Can you really call yourself free in a country that will fine you for walking across the road incorrectly? Or that has a proud democratic process that it forces you to take part in?<

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/blogs/the-backpacker/australia-the-great-nanny-state-20110503-1e6hf.html#ixzz1w4DvETZy

a backpacker whinge blog?

neomyrtus_ said:

I hope people realise that polypropylene is a fine polar feece fabric for keeping out the cold – but dang it burns- and then melts and adheres to the skin. Horrible injuries! Be careful near campfires and if caught in a bushfire.

I had 5L of petrol go bang in my hand when I was about 15 – The (poly) jumper burnt / melted almost immediately but my burns were limited to my hand and face because of the flannelette (cotton) shirt underneath and the denim (cotton) jeans didn’t burn at all.

One might make similar comparisons between timber and steel in building construction.

The materials display a different pattern of burn performance under different conditions….

neomyrtus_ said:

That’s when you see the irony of our various wars in the name of “freedom”.

To be fair, the war on freedom only started after the war on WMD fell through for lack of WMD,

Only slightly TIC

Skunkworks said:

neomyrtus_ said:

That’s when you see the irony of our various wars in the name of “freedom”.

To be fair, the war on freedom only started after the war on WMD fell through for lack of WMD,

Only slightly TIC

I didn’t say that. How did that quote me saying that? I never utter strange pronouncements about ‘freedom’ ..

neomyrtus_ said:

I didn’t say that. How did that quote me saying that? I never utter strange pronouncements about ‘freedom’ ..

Sorry, my bad editing I was stripping stuff I thought was extraneous. That was following a post by Bubblecar.

Rule 303 said:

neomyrtus_ said:

I hope people realise that polypropylene is a fine polar feece fabric for keeping out the cold – but dang it burns- and then melts and adheres to the skin. Horrible injuries! Be careful near campfires and if caught in a bushfire.

I had 5L of petrol go bang in my hand when I was about 15 – The (poly) jumper burnt / melted almost immediately but my burns were limited to my hand and face because of the flannelette (cotton) shirt underneath and the denim (cotton) jeans didn’t burn at all.

One might make similar comparisons between timber and steel in building construction.

The materials display a different pattern of burn performance under different conditions….

The reminder still stands – polypro burns – you may well be fully aware of it but others are not. Thermal underwear burns and melts- even if worn under cotton denim. A friend set fire to his leg via thermal tights under denim to demonstrate the point – and by golly it was very alarming for all concerned. Facial and hand burns are still not good. What would a woollen jumper been like in comparison?

neomyrtus_ said:

What would a woollen jumper been like in comparison?

No different.

Skunkworks said:

neomyrtus_ said:

I didn’t say that. How did that quote me saying that? I never utter strange pronouncements about ‘freedom’ ..

Sorry, my bad editing I was stripping stuff I thought was extraneous. That was following a post by Bubblecar. My breath smells like cat-food

I told you that cat-food is worse than heroin.

When cam uniforms first came out they could not be used for fighting fires so stocks of the old uniform (greens) were grabbed back. They must have changed the recipe as they now wear cams.

Skunkworks said:

When cam uniforms first came out they could not be used for fighting fires so stocks of the old uniform (greens) were grabbed back. They must have changed the recipe as they now wear cams.

Proban is your friend.

http://www.rhodia-proban.com/uk/faq.asp

Car, thank you for the link to the article about backpackers and their gripes about not being able to have as much fun as they would like.

Unfortunately, I don’t find it compelling, thoughtful, well argued, persuasive or even logically consistent. It is not supported by anything other than opinion based on the meandering experiences of a very small selection of people.

But wait – There might be some hope for it yet: Not even the author of that article, a ‘professional’ backpacker and young man carefree and at liberty in the world, would argue against regulation of a child’s clothing to prevent it incinerating the child.

:-)

It’s an interesting argument / discussion about fabrics and their treatments, but the major problem in the days of the regs being brought in were not about those so much as design of the sleeping gear.

Cuffs were required on the pant legs and nighties recommended against because they turned into“chimneys” so suddenly*.
People still make their own children’s that way though, sure that they won’t be careless like others they hear about on the news.

*That mattered in the days of bar radiators and wood (open) fires.