spontaneously combustible babies
August 20th, 2009I guess there’s a few possibilities here. Could be the manufacturer, and the shirt itself is made from something like flash paper. Or maybe it’s a problem with consumers, putting space heaters in cribs or something.
Honestly, I can only think of one child who’s parents should be concerned about whether or not his clothes are flame-resistant.
But really, note how small that tag isn’t. They seem pretty serious.
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
since you have a baby coming, thought I’d let you know they AREN’T kidding. the looser the clothing, the more likely it is to brush against a flame that a baby may come into contact with and catch fire. they actually do make baby clothes that are flame-resistant, so I think it if isn’t sometimes it has this tag so you know and that it is safer tighter-fitting. that said, this website sort of explains the logic behind it, but also says that babies under 9 months who don’t move around much or at all are much less likely to come into contact with flames, so it’s not as necessary. http://pediatrics.about.com/od/babyproducts/a/08_baby_clothes.htm
what I don’t get is it seems to be on sleepwear a lot? hmm…have to think about that one. you’re right, not much flames going on near cribs. mysterious.
I think there is logic behind this. that said, it also seems like another example of our ultra (perhaps too) safe society regarding raising kids…sometimes a bit overkill? I guess that’s up for debate.
August 29th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Yes – I agree there’s logic. Certain of that.
Even so, if my baby is close enough to a flame that an extra couple inches of fabric may catch fire, my concern shouldn’t be bagginess of clothing, nor whether the manufacturer warned me.
That aside, assuming the warning is warranted, there’s still an element of cause missing from that label that makes me smile.
August 30th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
yes, so true…if people would stop letting their kids smoke in bed, everything would be fine, right? hee hee.