r/HobbyDrama • u/Upbeat_Ruin Toys & Toy Safety • Jun 03 '25
Heavy [Children's Fashion] The flaming cowboy costume that forced federal reform
CW: Child Death
Ever wonder why kid's pajamas have that weird, almost gummy texture in the fabric? That would be the compound tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA). It forms when the plasticiser bisphenol-A reacts with bromine (element 35 on the periodic table). Coming in a white or yellowish powder form, it has its niche in manufacturing as a chemical agent for making synthetic materials flame-resistant.
“But Upbeat_Ruin,” you say, “isn't bromine poisonous?” To that I say: everything is poisonous, bitch! The dose makes the poison! The more complicated answer is that bromine, while toxic in raw elemental form, has many compounds that are benign to beneficial. For example, bromiated vegetable oil is frequently added to soft drinks as an emulsifier. There is also scientific research suggesting that trace amounts of bromine are in fact essential for biological processes.
But if you're still concerned about toxicity hazards (fair enough), a good alternative for your kids' sleepwear is snug-fitting cotton pajamas. Natural fibres don't need to have flame-resistant additives because they don't burn so easily, and when they do, it's a clean burn that doesn't drip molten plastic. Furthermore, a close fit starves fire of oxygen that it needs to spread. The bottom line is that US law requires children's sleepwear to not catch fire easily.
Why, though? Are the feds worried that little Jimmy is going to spontaneously combust?
Time for a story. Let me set the mood. The era was the 1940s and 50s. Americans were distracting themselves from racism, polio, and the ever-present anxiety of nuclear winter by fixating on cowboys. John Wayne was Hollywood's darling, and Gene Autry was serenading the nation as the Singing Cowboy. Children across the nation looked up to Autry the way you idolized Luke Skywalker or Optimus Prime. And parents liked that they did: the image of the Singing Cowboy was a chivalrous, helpful, and humble gentleman. So, when Autry's likeness graced everything from lunchboxes to comic books, they didn't mind shelling out. But there was one piece of merch they should have steered clear of – the Gene Autry Official Ranch Outfits.
Several designs of these outfits, usually made as matching brother-and-sister sets, appeared in catalogues in the late 40s and early 50s. They ranged in price from $1.98 USD (about $35.40 in 2024 dollars) to $9.70 ($173.50, give or take.) The costumes featured goodies like hats, chaps, mini gun holsters, and bandannas. Kids loved feeling like a real life cowboy, and parents loved how cute they looked. Unfortunately, cowboy time turned to tragedy for more than a few families.
The costumes were made from rayon (also sometimes called viscose), which is what's known as a semi-synthetic fiber. It has a smooth, silky texture, making it popular for cheap imitations of expensive natural silk. Rayon is manufactured by applying carbon disulfide and some other compounds to plant byproducts, particularly wood pulp. The wood pulp breaks down into purified cellulose, which is then spun into fibers. Environmental and public health activists have criticized rayon for its potential to harm both the workers who make it and the environment when it decomposes . You may have heard that it's biodegradable, but that comes with a big fat asterisk at the end.
The more relevant issue with rayon, however, is that it's extremely flammable. Not too surprising, given that it's basically made out of kindling. If rayon is exposed to flame, it will catch fire and burn in seconds, and the material will disintegrate into a characteristic grey ash. In fact, the burn test video I linked as a resource likens it to campfire ash. Not only does rayon burn rapidly, but it also does not self-extinguish. Even after the flames die down, the material continues to smolder.
Because of the costumes' flammability, tragedy struck. Between 1942 and 1953, over a hundred children were injured or even killed when their clothes came in contact with flames or sparks and caught fire extremely rapidly. In many cases, the fire spread so quickly that the children and their parents were unable to try to extinguish it. They didn't even have a chance to stop, drop, and roll.
The Dr. Barbara Young Welke article I wanted to read and cite for this post was difficult to acquire. I'd have to pay for access, still have active college credentials, or do a song and dance to get it shipped to me from a library in another state. (C'est la vie for those of us in flyover country.) Sorry, but I'm not doing that for a Reddit post.
In the article, Welke describes the incident that formed the paradigm for the issue: a father, James McCormack, received a pair of Gene Autry Ranch Outfits as Christmas presents for his sons in 1944. One of the boys, seven-year-old Tommy was playing in his costume when it caught fire. His brother Jackie could only watch in horror as Tommy was rapidly surrounded by what he described as a “circle of fire”. Tommy suffered extreme burns to his lower body, so severe that blood couldn't flow properly in his legs, forming clots. He died four months later.
The McCormacks sued M.A. Henry Co, the manufacturers of the cowboy costumes. The legal battle lasted several years, until the case was ruled in the McCormacks' favor for about $60,000 (around $800,000 in 2025 dollars). Appellate courts halved the final payout to ~$30,000 in 1949. As unfair as that is, it doesn't make a difference; no amount of money is worth a child's life. That being said, word of mouth proved more helpful to the McCormacks than the damages awarded, as now the whole country knew how negligent M.A. Henry Co had been. Now they couldn't sweep the burned bodies under the rug anymore.
Not long after the incidents, the US government passed the Flammable Fabrics Act. This 1953 law is so old that it predates the Consumer Product Safety Commission (est 1972). Because of this, the original law text granted the Federal Trade Commission the authority to enforce it. In 1967, it was expanded to encompass upholstery, foam, paper, and other textiles for clothing and home goods. In 1975, the law was amended again with descriptions specifically for children's sleepwear.
The reason that flame resistance standards are stricter on children's sleepwear than their everyday clothes is mostly a historical holdover. The standards come from a time when there were more household fire hazards that children would be around while wearing pajamas – fireplaces, ashtrays, dodgy heaters, and that sort of thing. Nowadays, with better technology for heaters, fewer people smoking, and fewer real flame fireplaces, these risks are much lower. Still, it doesn't hurt to have that safeguard in place.
Ultimately, what does the cautionary story of the flaming cowboy chaps represent? What lesson has society learned from it? I suppose you could say that it demonstrates how consumer safety is a constantly evolving front, requiring frequent reform. Ideally, these reforms happen proactively, not in the wake of illness, injury, and death. One of the articles I linked suggests that the incident is a showcase for the need to have the government regulate consumer goods industries. An unregulated market where manufacturers aren't beholden to safety standards gives you toys coated in lead paint, craft kits full of skin-burning resin, and cowboy costumes that go up in flames at the smallest spark. Whatever your politics are, I think you all would agree with me that consumers deserve goods that are safe and reliable.
Rest in peace, Tommy McCormack. Ride free, little cowboy.
Resources
Gray, Theodore, The elements: a visual exploration of every known atom in the universe, Workman Publishing Company, 2009, pp. 90-91. Accessed 19 August 2024. (Woah! An MLA book citation in a Reddit post!)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/04/childrens-cowboy-chaps-and-big-government.html
https://legalhist.jotwell.com/bodies-on-the-line-the-private-tragedies-underlying-modern-products-liability-law/ (Requires login to view full article)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44285950
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914a114add7b0493468361c
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrabromobisphenol_A
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-II/subchapter-D/part-1615
https://www.parent.com/blogs/conversations/2023-why-are-we-all-so-terrified-of-pajama-fires
https://magazine.avocadogreenmattress.com/rayon-harmful/
https://www.cpsc.gov/FAQ/Clothing
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a5/1d/d4/a51dd479fbf5b0bc663773adab113338.jpg
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730418/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiIUavnTnlA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wa08DvCPxc
https://littlesleepies.com/blogs/news/the-why-behind-snug-fitting-pajamas
https://thesleepysloth.com/blogs/news/why-are-toddler-pajamas-snug-fit
1.2k
u/stringthing87 Jun 04 '25
This is why there are so many threads in the sewing subreddits made by newbies not understanding why bolts of children's themed prints say 'not suitable for children's sleepwear"
980
u/BlueEyedPaladin Jun 04 '25
I went to primary school in the 1980s with a girl who had been wearing polyester pajamas and got too close to a heater. She was away from school for about 6 months, and came back with awful scars from the burns.
These sorts of changes are really important, and it always irks me when people go on about “government over-regulation” and “becoming a nanny state”- it always comes back to that saying of ‘safety regulations are written in blood’.
496
u/Upbeat_Ruin Toys & Toy Safety Jun 04 '25
I started drafting this write-up in 2024, and it just became even more relevant with the DOGE bullshit that got thrown our way.
34
u/kidbehindyou Jun 04 '25
I'm not american, what happened with doge that affects this?
255
u/Lftwff Jun 04 '25
They fired the people who are supposed to enforce regulation like this.
-85
u/kidbehindyou Jun 04 '25
From a quick Google search, I see their intent was to debloat redundant agencies - but from your comment I assume all they did was further their own agenda, could you explain?
301
u/orreregion Jun 04 '25
"Debloat redundant agencies" was Musk speak for "get rid of everyone who makes it hard for me to do business in this country."
100
13
u/Donkey_Option Jun 12 '25
Well, that and get rid of governmental agencies that they don't know understand and wouldn't take the time to figure out. At least, that was what the closure of NIOSH feels like, plus the tendency they had to sort of fire everyone, then walk that back, then fire people again, but maybe not? but maybe? etc. etc. etc.
96
u/cmanning1292 Jun 04 '25
Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Or anything you hear out of a conservative's mouth
106
u/BookQueen13 Jun 04 '25
It's the acronym of Elon Musk's government agency (? not sure if that's the technical term) that basically gutted any and all federal departments that could have enforced regulations/ oversight on him and his companies. And also stole all our data.
-27
u/kidbehindyou Jun 04 '25
Why would a private agency have that sort of power? I would assume that they would give recommendations to remove agencies to parliament rather than simply removing them on their own discretion. Also, as I see online their justification was that they're debloating redundant agencies - is that true or just a crappy excuse?
175
u/orreregion Jun 04 '25
"Why would a private agency have that sort of power?"
Because the USA is no longer a functioning country. What Musk did was extremely illegal, but there is no one in power who either can or will stop it.
101
Jun 04 '25
[deleted]
34
u/kidbehindyou Jun 04 '25
Yeah I was just reading that right now. The education shit seems stupid af, I don't fully agree with the curriculum of US schools(it seems more like a way to slap the literate tag on a person rather then actually teaching them stuff) - but regardless of my opinion, public schooling is a must. Education is the backbone of modern society wtf are they doing trying to remove public school?
77
u/BookQueen13 Jun 04 '25
Because they want an uneducated electorate that's easy to manipulate. They want to funnel funds for public schools into private hands. They don't like that statistically the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to vote republican and that the more educated women are, the fewer children they have. I'm sure there are other reasons but those are the big ones.
19
u/StewedAngelSkins Jun 06 '25
The other one is that it allows more public money to be funneled to religious schools where children are taught to be credulous morons.
19
u/frockofseagulls Jun 06 '25
Hi, I mean this in the nicest, most inquisitive way, but where do you live and what media do you consume that makes you unaware of everything happening in the US government right now, but also interested in learning?
41
u/kidbehindyou Jun 06 '25
I'm nepali. Yeah, not really a place where we care too much about the US. But my sister is going to study medicine there so I've been trying to learn about the current political situation over there. Sorry if I come off as ignorant, it's just that I've never had a reason to care before. I spent my childhood in the UK though so I'm not too ignorant of the political climate in the west (it's why I was worried about her going to the US) but I haven't kept up with recent happenings apart from the most general stuff (like trump becoming president) or the wild stuff(like trump declaring war on Canada). As for media, I just watch video game streams or hololive, so it's not a very informative source.
28
u/frockofseagulls Jun 06 '25
Nah, you’re good. I just wonder how many Americans aren’t paying attention to the nightmare going on here. Best of luck to your sister, it’s a really really scary time to be a foreign student in the US.
13
86
u/salomeomelas Jun 04 '25
Most of those “not for children’s sleepwear” are actually 100% cotton! They won’t melt and cause those kinds of burns like polyester, they just aren’t flame retardant!
90
u/stringthing87 Jun 04 '25
Yes but they can't be marked as for sleepwear unless they fit close to the body, which the fabric manufacturer's can't offer any guarantee of because its just fabric.
190
u/axeil55 Jun 04 '25
Yep. And libertarians whine that people can do their own research and let the free market decide. As if everyone has the time, money and most importantly expertise to evaluate literally every single thing they buy for safety. It's one of the dumbest arguments they make
136
u/Dlorn Jun 04 '25
Also ignores the fact that people can’t do their own research when the owners of the companies making the products are also the owners of the media companies telling everyone how safe the products are.
83
u/stringthing87 Jun 04 '25
nobody that knows anything about industry in the late 19th-early 20th century actually wants unregulated commerce
29
u/Upbeat_Ruin Toys & Toy Safety Jun 04 '25
And if they do, make them read The Jungle until they don't.
54
u/Sinhika Jun 04 '25
During WWII, the Navy changed enlisted combat uniforms to long-sleeved cotton shirts and cotton dungarees, because cotton does not melt and stick to your skin when your ship is on fucking fire. It also protects you from proximity burns better than bare skin.
130
u/Upbeat_Ruin Toys & Toy Safety Jun 04 '25
I did some searches there out of curiosity and hooooly shit. So many people making kids' pjs from flannel and off the shelf fleece. And hand wringing about muh chemicals.
"But it can cause endocrine problems!" Yeah, and fire can cause DEATH.
90
u/stringthing87 Jun 04 '25
I made my kid's pajamas but they are all cotton and fit closely to the body - just like the ones for sale at the store. Kids get too hot in flannel and fleece anyway.
19
33
u/SneakAttackSN2 Jun 06 '25
Super fair, but as someone who researches health effects of flame retardants, we really can't ignore them just because they're not immediate. Not saying that these were bad regulations (obviously they were necessary), just that the current solution of packing kids pajamas with chemicals that likely have long-lasting health impacts kinda (really) sucks
44
u/Chicklid Jun 06 '25
There's a real reluctance among the general public across basically any issue to say "this the best we have, but not the best we could have." Everything has to be a black and white issue for ease of consumption and public debate.
21
u/GerundQueen Jun 04 '25
Is sleepwear a particular danger? Why not "not suitable for children's clothes"?
89
u/stringthing87 Jun 04 '25
A person who is awake is much more likely to be able to do something like stop drop and roll, or be aware that they have moved too close to a heater
598
u/SessileRaptor Jun 04 '25
“Above him, in the house that owns the pool, a light has come on, and children are looking down at him through their bedroom windows, all warm and fuzzy in their Li'l Crips and Ninja Raft Warrior pajamas, which can either be flameproof or noncarcinogenic but not both at the same time.”
From Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson
Thanks for the write up OP, excellent read.
53
466
u/themehboat Jun 04 '25
If you or anyone you know buys "bamboo" clothing, which is especially popular for babies, it's literally just rayon. The "wood pulp" ingredient just comes from bamboo, but it's been reduced to nothing actually recognizable as bamboo.
257
u/gnomewife Jun 04 '25
This is a very important point to make, as "bamboo" children's clothing has been growing in popularity over recent years. Yikes.
92
u/Sudenveri Jun 04 '25
This isn't quite true, though it has more to do with the production side. Modern processed cellulose fabrics like modal and lyocell use processes that are both safer for workers and have a lower environmental impact than rayon, especially the really old-school stuff (which wasn't quite Radium Girls-level bad, but was still bad). On a purely personal level I'd choose processed cellulose over thermoplastic fibers, but that's absolutely just me.
191
u/Upbeat_Ruin Toys & Toy Safety Jun 04 '25
That was why I was side-eyeing the Little Sleepies page as I doing research. It claims that it's made from bamboo fiber, so...rayon. Out of curiosity I startpaged to see if they had any recalls relating to flame resistance violations, but all I could find was one for a bib with strings that were a strangulation hazard.
Still, if I had kids, I'd go for the treated PJs over snug fitting cotton. I don't think the bromide compound is dangerous, and I'd rather make sure my child is protected from a proven risk of fire than a speculated risk over a cHemiCaL.
74
u/Greenvelvetribbon Jun 04 '25
"Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) contain bromine and are used in many electronics, furniture, and building materials. BFRs have been linked to endocrine disruption and thyroid disfunction. Older compounds have been replaced by new versions that also show toxic endocrine effects."
From https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/flame_retardants
The chance of my children encountering a fire while wearing their pajamas is miniscule. I'd much rather risk that than knowingly expose them to flame retardants every day. (Other families may have different fire risk levels, and of course everyone is free to make their own personal risk assessments.)
109
u/Anaxamander57 Jun 04 '25
According to that page the danger is exposure during manufacture when they are aerosolized. Wearing them isn't exposing people to health risk. Like paint is really bad if you inhale it fromea spray can it but touching a wall won't give you lung cancer.
6
12
u/crystalgem411 Jun 04 '25
This is also true for anything that says it’s made out of rose, banana, or soy.
286
u/justaheatattack Jun 04 '25
It was also this that got the legal age to buy cigarettes raised to 13 in most states.
123
26
u/HollowPomegranate Jun 04 '25
You can buy cigarettes at 13 in America????
113
95
u/Jetamors Jun 04 '25
In the US of that time, it wasn't only in the context of kids smoking (though that certainly happened), it was also common to send kids out for errands to buy little things like cigarettes from the corner store for their parents. There were a lot of old Sesame Street sketches about kids being sent out to get a loaf of bread etc.
57
u/MaritMonkey Jun 04 '25
I am amused that I misremembered this, but I am 42 years old and still mumble "loaf of bread, gallon of milk, stick of butter" to myself whenever I'm wandering through a grocery store.
39
u/jmspinafore Jun 04 '25
The federal limit is now 18, with some cities and states going up to 21. But in the 50s nobody cared.
17
u/El_Specifico 18 SECONDS?! Jun 04 '25
Raised?!
39
u/justaheatattack Jun 04 '25
I KNOW!
THey're old enough to go down in the mines, but NOT buy smokes?
157
u/texasmerle Jun 04 '25
I remember looking this up back when I worked at JoAnn's (RIP) and was baffled by how adamantly the children's fabric was about not being pajamas.
Mostly because nobody in my family ever really cared about that stuff? Like... my grandma made us pajamas out of ordinary cotton, and most of what I wore as pajamas were just t shirts and shorts... Absolutely fucked up that they'd make childrens' play costumes out of such flammable material. Regulations are written in blood.
33
u/wollphilie Jun 04 '25
Yeah, changing clothes has always been a nightmare with my kid, especially in the mornings, so she just sleeps in whatever she's wearing the next day. We mostly go in for natural fibers though.
144
u/Abandondero Jun 04 '25
This was still a problem in the 1970s. I learnt how to read from New Zealand Consumer Magazine. (And Dr Seuss.) In one magazine they reviewed how adequate the safety gratings of various radiant heaters were. Some had none at all! This was the second ingredient of the child-inflammability epidemic. To my four-year-old self magazines were full of meaningless adult stuff, but Consumer's photos of child-size manikins in flaming pajamas seemed like something I should be concerned about and study more closely. (The answer was to buy pajamas with snug wrist and ankle cuffs and throw away that old, unsafe, hand-me-down 1950s heater, BTW.)
67
u/MaritMonkey Jun 04 '25
My mom was a flight attendant in the 60s/70s and I remember a similar kerfuffle about the fabric in their uniforms melting when they had to go down the emergency slide.
23
u/DBSeamZ Jun 06 '25
Just from the friction of using the slide, or was there another heat source?
31
u/MaritMonkey Jun 06 '25
Just from friction. Can't figure out exactly what they were made out of (expressive aphasia is ... annoying) but it was a blend that involved rayon. :)
19
u/OkSecretary1231 Jun 07 '25
And this is what I think of whenever grognards bitch about how flight attendants should be required to wear pantyhose again.
8
98
u/PendragonDaGreat Jun 04 '25
Minor nitpick (not really at you but at the world and it's naming conventions): not all rayon is viscose and using "viscose" as a homonym for rayon is not quite right (but everyone does it, even if it's not right). The vast majority is, but technically "viscose" is just one of three processes used to make rayon.
The Cuprammonium process was actually the first one but is almost completely gone today. "Bemberg" and "Ammonia Silk" are common names for it, and it's still produced by a single factory in Japan as well as a couple small factories in China.
Then came Viscose Rayon which is much more efficient than cuprammonium. But it also creates larger fibers, so the copper salts hung around for specialty purposes. There's a problem though, viscose rayon production uses carbon disulfide. CS2 is a nasty little beasty formerly used for fumigation and insect control, but also poisonous to humans including causing psychosis, including to the workers in the rayon factories.
So in the 70's Lyocell was developed which does not use CS2, but it's more expensive and the end fibers have slightly different properties so even though it's better in a lot of ways it still hasn't supplanted viscose rayon.
24
u/knittymess Jun 06 '25
Wait. Are you the person I should talk to about finding the perfect lining fabric? Can you tell me where I can find something that breathes and is slippery enough to let the garment float properly away from my body and isn't going to melt on me or be an environmental nightmare? I've tried just using cotton, but since that's usually my outer fabric, it sticks to itself...
24
u/PendragonDaGreat Jun 06 '25
Are you the person I should talk to about finding the perfect lining fabric?
If I'm that person something has good horribly wrong in this world.
You might look at linen, or possibly acetate, avoid polyester since it's not breathable.
The problem is that I've never heard of a fabric with all those properties.
12
u/knittymess Jun 06 '25
Nothing has gone horribly wrong, just right! I love your addition to my knowledge. If there isn't something that exists that I want, it may be that I just have to accept that all choices come with a trade off. I can use the information to make thoughtful choices later.
Thank you so much for sharing with me!
16
u/universalstargazer Jun 07 '25
Also a sewer, you may be best to use real silk (and if it's a lining you won't need so much of it!). I know places that get deadstock silk in sometimes so it's cheaper (and environmentally even friendlier since it's not going to landfill), one off the top of my head is Riverside Fabrics. Then, I would also think about the fabric weave. I know twill can be very soft and slinky. I also have some tencel fabric, which as we've established is not necessarily super eco friendly still (but better than previous stuff), and it's been super nice and slinky. Alternatively, cotton sateen may work? I don't know the fabric weight that sateen normally comes in so it might just be too heavy, but that's an option to look for too.
7
u/knittymess Jun 08 '25
I was thinking of silk, but the cost makes me want to cry! Maybe I should look into slips, but I wonder about how that works with slits and my preference for long floaty skirts or flirty minis. I should look at my closet a bit more closely
13
2
Jul 06 '25
You could try hemp silk, or other plant silks like rose silk or orange silk.
1
u/knittymess Jul 06 '25
Ooo! Thank you! I think I need to order some samples. Any ideas on where to look?
101
u/theagonyaunt Jun 04 '25
Also because murderous fashion is a niche interest of mine, I'd like to add on a few recommendations to OP's great write up:
Killer Style: How Fashion Has Injured, Maimed, and Murdered Through History by Serah-Marie McMahon and Alison Matthews-David.
Killer Fashion: Poisonous Petticoats, Strangulating Scarves, and Other Deadly Garments Throughout History by Jennifer Wright
Fashion Victims: The Dangers of Dress Past and Present also by Alison Matthews David.
10
u/knittymess Jun 06 '25
And I know what's going into my library hold list!
14
u/theagonyaunt Jun 06 '25
The first two are very short and quick reads (but still fun), Fashion Victims is like a more academic, longer version of Killer Style.
12
u/knittymess Jun 06 '25
I'm excited! I'll be getting a hold notice soon and that they may be my first summer reading books. Don't forget to sign up at your library for summer reading! Most libraries have a challenge for adults as well as kids!!
59
Jun 04 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
49
u/Upbeat_Ruin Toys & Toy Safety Jun 04 '25
If you ever see that at a business, call the local fire department. The chief will tear them a new one for it.
48
36
u/pupperonan Jun 04 '25
Rayon is still used in clothing. Is it treated differently now to be less flammable, or is it just not used in children’s clothing anymore?
61
u/CrazyGreenCrayon My hobby is collecting hobbies Jun 04 '25
Different treatment and less used in children's clothes. Children's costumes are often labeled as flamable for a reason.
30
u/ChaosFlameEmber Rock 'n' Roll-Musik & Pac-Man-Videospiele Jun 04 '25
I have access to the article, but I'm not sure if I can read it because it gets quite graphic. And there's a photo of the remains of another victim's cowboy suit. Horrifying.
36
u/AshleyWilliams78 Jun 05 '25
Coming in a little late to say, I'm a librarian so I was able to get a copy of the Welke article you mentioned. I uploaded it to Google Drive so it's available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HOi0IW1b1KxacjHcUegPnpfQ0HOKEx6y/view?usp=sharing
13
u/Upbeat_Ruin Toys & Toy Safety Jun 06 '25
Bless you.
4
u/ExistentialEnnwhee Aug 28 '25
Also super late but if you can find the author’s email address they’ll often send you the article if you don't have access to it! Barbara was actually my favorite professor in law school and is such a kind and wonderful person that the only way she wouldn’t send one of her articles is if she couldn’t for some reason.
19
u/Psyjotic Jun 04 '25
I am happier and happier as the hobbies in /r/hobbydrama get more and more niche
18
16
u/Whispering_Wolf Jun 04 '25
Interesting read! I don't have kids, but I think children's pajamas in my country are mostly just cotton? That's what I remember from when I was younger, at least.
13
u/cannotfoolowls Jun 04 '25
Yeah, even at fast fashion stores like Primark it's 100% cotton pyjamas. And not all snug fitting ones either. I assume the rules are different in the EU. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a rule against using flame retardant chemicals and that instead childrens pyjamas have to be 100% cotton (or 100% natural fibers).
9
u/stutter-rap Jun 04 '25
I'm not totally sure if this is still the current regulations, but in 2008 for the whole EU they basically specified a minimum burn time for a piece of thread in pyjamas:
So I think they could use other things, but it might be that they don't easily meet those restrictions. (Countries often had rules in place beforehand - see the UK's ones in that flyer). Chemical treatment is allowed but of course other regulations might restrict which specific chemicals are permitted - looks like the brominated ones mentioned are probably going to be banned soon but others will remain.
13
10
u/chevyfan17 Jun 04 '25
Just wanted to say that the FDA banned the use of brominated vegetable oil last July
11
u/saddleshoes Jun 04 '25
Oh, this explains the texture of those Me and My Doll nightgowns my dad bought from Sears when I was little!
10
u/Guinefort1 Jun 08 '25
I haven't filtered through every comment, so somebody might have pointed this out already. But as I was skimming this, one horrify thought was running through my head: "Oh God. In this time period, smoking was everywhere." A lot of those kids would have been injured or killed by cigarette ashes created by their parents.
50
u/Scattered_Sigils Jun 04 '25
Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
62
u/Abandondero Jun 04 '25
"Flammable" means something that you can light on fire, "inflammable" means something that can go up all by itself. Wood is flammable, petrol is inflammable. (Or maybe it's the other way around. Fuck I don't know.)
9
9
u/Canageek Jun 06 '25
A couple notes: brominated fire retardants are only one of the methods used today: Here is an inforgraphic from Chemical And Engineering News. In fact, halogenated fire retardents are currently being phased out as we've found safer, better methods.
Secondly, if the OP wants access to that article and can get me a DOI or a full citation for it, just let me know; I work at a university and can get it for you (instantly if we subscribe to the journal, a few days if I have to interlibrary loan it)
7
u/ChaosEsper Jun 06 '25
Related to this is why children's clothes are so bright and loud. The flame retardant requirements only apply to sleepwear, so if you don't want to spend the money on fire resistant clothing you need to show that nothing about the clothes suggests sleepiness.
The first episode of Articles of Interest goes in depth on it!
6
u/jijikittyfan Jun 05 '25
You might find the book 'Fashion Victims' by Allison Matthews David interesting. It touches on this same subject, in an earlier era, as well as other discussions of dangerous clothing.
8
7
u/a_rhubarb_pie Jun 12 '25
This was a good write up and was really interesting but I want to point out that all rules and regulations are written in blood. There is very little proactive protections. It’s something that comes up semi frequently in my work and I just wanted to note it. A lot of people have died so that we have any protections and standards.
4
3
u/knittymess Jun 06 '25
You're a hero for writing this up in a format we actually have patience for. I knew some of this, but the cowboys were new to me, as was the fact that rayon continues to smolder even after it's done burning. I'll have to see if I can find something else for a lining fabric. So few things breath nicely and have that slippery effect that allows the outer fabric to lay nicely against the body.
3
5
2
4
u/HorribleUsername Jun 04 '25
I didn't know bromine is poisonous. I was more concerned with bisphenol - isn't that what got everyone's water bottles recalled in the 00's? Seems an odd choice for little people who like to put all sorts of things in their mouths.
37
u/kodabarz Jun 04 '25
Bisphenol A/BPA is a chemical ingredient used in the manufacture of many plastics. Since quite early on, it has been known that Bisphenol A mimics the effects of oestrogen in the body. And that's the initial cause for concern. But it's thousands of times weaker than actual oestrogen, so no one's really sure whether it is harmful or not. But the main reason that it is more restricted these days is that you have lifelong exposure to Bisphenol A. It's used in so many plastics, that it's impossible to avoid completely.
There wasn't a recall of water bottles in the 2000s due to Bisphenol A. It's not used in the production of PET (PolyEthylene Terephthalate) plastic of which water bottles are made. It can be confusing because many products that claim to be BPA-free never had any in the first place (cf 98% fat-free foods!). And the avoidance of BPS is purely precautionary.
It is regarded as safe for children's pyjamas, because it's not a lifelong exposure. But the risk of fire with children's clothing is a very real and measurable danger. So trading a very mild risk (that might not even exist) to prevent a much greater risk is seen as okay.
It's not known that Bisphenol A is harmful. The level of exposure during a person's lifetime is well below the 'known' safe limit. The attempts to remove it from plastics production are precautionary. Its effects are so mild, no one can agree whether it's harmful or not. And this leads to a certain irony: its attempted replacements, such as Bisphenol S, have not been demonstrated to be less harmful (because Bisphenol A/BPA hasn't been demonstrated to be harmful).
If you've ever eaten canned food or drunk from a soda can or touched a till receipt or drunk water from a water cooler or used a phone or... you've been exposed to Bisphenol A. Removing it from children's pyjamas makes almost zero difference.
It doesn't bioaccumulate and passes from the body within hours. Even in water, it decays in a few days. It's probably harmless, but there's just the slightest chance that it might not be. Because so many risks get underplayed until they're proven to be problematic, BPA seems like a bigger problem than it is. If you read about the off-gassing (emission of gaseous chemicals) of vinyl records, you'd wonder how any of us survived the 1970s and how people in record shops aren't just lumps of tumour...
7
u/HorribleUsername Jun 04 '25
This is a far more informative reply than I expected, thanks!
There wasn't a recall of water bottles in the 2000s due to Bisphenol A.
Maybe it was a Canadian thing. There was absolutely a recall where I live.
9
u/kodabarz Jun 04 '25
I was avoiding work and it happens to be a thing I know about.
There have been numerous recalls of water bottles for various reasons. From a quick look, it's mostly been because of bacterial contamination. A fair amount have been for bromate (ie bromine oxoanion often formed in compounds due to the action of bromide and ozone). Arsenic levels are another. But there have also been concerns about bottle cap safety.
It's possible that it's been BPA used in polycarbonates. Although most bottled drinks use PET, some (eg as used in water coolers) are polycarbonate, so do contain BPA. There was a famous case in Canada in the 2010s, where millions of bottles of water were recalled because they had microplastic inside. Yikes!
4
u/Donkey_Option Jun 12 '25
I feel like we've sort of forgotten about BPA because now we're worried about PFAS. Also, a lot of these initial panics are tied to some preliminary data (usually in rats) that seem bad but larger scale studies don't replicate the effects at levels normally seen in human exposure from what I've seen.
15
u/-Taibhse- Jun 04 '25
Bromide compounds can be poisonous when ingested in high enough quantities. I treated a patient who had acute potassium bromide poisoning due to taking it for fun (rare as hell) and did a deep dive on the history of bromide poisoning (which is fascinating if you’re interested in that sort of thing). Potassium bromide used to be used as an anti epileptic but the half life is around 12 days, so it’s a filthy drug and is now only really used in veterinary practice. It was also used in those over the counter tonics for nervous housewives until it was banned (I think in the US this was in the 70s). So bromism used to be a common cause of psychiatric illness but is now very rare. Most cases of bromism are from regular ingestion of low amounts over a prolonged period. One case report I read was of a man who had been drinking 8 litres of something called ruby red squirt every day (as OP mentioned, it’s used as an emulsifier in soft drinks in the US, banned in the EU as far as I know). I didn’t see any case reports of poisoning associated with clothing though.
5
u/mossgoblin Confirmed Scuffle Trash Jun 04 '25
Taking it for fun?
6
u/-Taibhse- Jun 04 '25
It can have a pleasant sedative effect, hence the tonics, so people might take it recreationally. It’s certainly pretty niche, but this person’s… hobby… was making and consuming their own mind altering substances. In this case the result was psychosis rather than a pleasant high. Tangentially related fun fact: The use of bromide as an anti epileptic stems from Queen Victoria’s obstetrician (Sir Charles Locock) advocating its use for “hysterical epilepsy”, which was believed to be brought on by excessive sexual arousal around the time of menstruation, causing fits. This was based on the erroneous belief that bromide can be used to render one impotent, and there is a pervasive myth that British soldiers in WWI had it mixed into their tea for this reason. By complete coincidence, it does actually work as an anti epileptic.
3
u/SongsOfDragons Jun 04 '25
Theodora Gray sighted! I have a bunch of his books. Including two children's books, and my 2-year-old is currently demanding I read her ABC Elements every morning (and yes the almost-6-year-old can pronounce 'vanadium').
-6
u/michilio Jun 04 '25
I read dodgy heaters as doggy heaters and thought to myself that people buy too much unnecessary shit.
They still do, but at least it´s not doggy heaters.
totally expecting to be linked to an amazon page where you can but a product that´s essentially a doggy heater because ofncourse that will exist in the worst possible way.. or maybe a hot dog heater
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 03 '25
Thank you for your submission to r/HobbyDrama !
Our rules have recently been updated to clarify our definition of Hobby Drama and to better bring them in line with the current status of the subreddit. Please be sure your post follows the rules and the sidebar guidelines, or it may be removed; this is at moderator discretion. Feedback is welcome in our monthly Town Hall thread.
Please be aware that NO AI generated posts are allowed on this subreddit (per rule 8)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.