flame resistant PJs for 18-month toddler?

I just started taking the tags off of Micah's new PJs (shorts and
shirt), and noticed the bright yellow tag: "...This garment is not
flame resistant. Loose-fitting garment is more likely to catch fire."
I've done a quick google search on flame resistant PJs and have come up
with 1) don't get them; they're covered with potentially toxic
chemicals; 2) get them; it's a CPSC safety recommendation; and 3)
biggest concern is kids playing with/near fire/cigarettes and their
clothes igniting [IOW, I don't anticipate this being a problem for
Micah for the short period of time he actually FITS into these PJs]. I
don't want to get him tight-fitting PJs since it's getting hot.

So what do you all do about flame resistant PJs? Necessary or scare
tactic/unnecessary if you use common sense? I never even heard about
this until I noticed the tag today.

Em
mama to Micah, 11/14/04

wrote in message
oups.com...
I just started taking the tags off of Micah's new PJs (shorts and
shirt), and noticed the bright yellow tag: "...This garment is not
flame resistant. Loose-fitting garment is more likely to catch
fire."
I've done a quick google search on flame resistant PJs and have come
up
with 1) don't get them; they're covered with potentially toxic
chemicals; 2) get them; it's a CPSC safety recommendation; and 3)
biggest concern is kids playing with/near fire/cigarettes and their
clothes igniting [IOW, I don't anticipate this being a problem for
Micah for the short period of time he actually FITS into these PJs].
I
don't want to get him tight-fitting PJs since it's getting hot.

So what do you all do about flame resistant PJs? Necessary or scare
tactic/unnecessary if you use common sense? I never even heard about
this until I noticed the tag today.

The recommendation I always heard was to make sure their jammies
aren't loose. I'm not quite sure why it's considered such a danger
with jammies and not with regular clothes though. I never did get
that, and will be interested to see the explanation when someone posts
it.

Bizby

In article .com,
wrote:

I just started taking the tags off of Micah's new PJs (shorts and
shirt), and noticed the bright yellow tag: "...This garment is not
flame resistant. Loose-fitting garment is more likely to catch fire."
I've done a quick google search on flame resistant PJs and have come up
with 1) don't get them; they're covered with potentially toxic
chemicals; 2) get them; it's a CPSC safety recommendation; and 3)
biggest concern is kids playing with/near fire/cigarettes and their
clothes igniting [IOW, I don't anticipate this being a problem for
Micah for the short period of time he actually FITS into these PJs]. I
don't want to get him tight-fitting PJs since it's getting hot.

So what do you all do about flame resistant PJs? Necessary or scare
tactic/unnecessary if you use common sense? I never even heard about
this until I noticed the tag today.

Em
mama to Micah, 11/14/04


It's my understanding that most of the flame retardants wash out after
the first few washes, anyway.

However, I would avoid having the kids sleep in artificial materials,
since they tend to melt into the skin causing some pretty severe burns.

That's what my daughter was wearing -- fortunately, she had cotton
panties on under the cheap stuff (she was 14 at the time, not a little
kid) so the burns stopped short of, well, where the panties were.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

wrote:
I just started taking the tags off of Micah's new PJs (shorts and
shirt), and noticed the bright yellow tag: "...This garment is not
flame resistant. Loose-fitting garment is more likely to catch fire."
I've done a quick google search on flame resistant PJs and have come up
with 1) don't get them; they're covered with potentially toxic
chemicals; 2) get them; it's a CPSC safety recommendation; and 3)
biggest concern is kids playing with/near fire/cigarettes and their
clothes igniting [IOW, I don't anticipate this being a problem for
Micah for the short period of time he actually FITS into these PJs]. I
don't want to get him tight-fitting PJs since it's getting hot.

So what do you all do about flame resistant PJs? Necessary or scare
tactic/unnecessary if you use common sense? I never even heard about
this until I noticed the tag today.

I know most of DS's PJs are not flame resistant. He sleeps mostly in
100% cotton shorts or jammy bottoms and a plain T-shirt, because of his
eczema. I'm not too worried about it.

-L.

wrote in
oups.com:

I just started taking the tags off of Micah's new PJs
(shorts and shirt), and noticed the bright yellow tag:
"...This garment is not flame resistant. Loose-fitting
garment is more likely to catch fire." I've done a quick
google search on flame resistant PJs and have come up with
1) don't get them; they're covered with potentially toxic
chemicals; 2) get them; it's a CPSC safety recommendation;
and 3) biggest concern is kids playing with/near
fire/cigarettes and their clothes igniting [IOW, I don't
anticipate this being a problem for Micah for the short
period of time he actually FITS into these PJs]. I don't
want to get him tight-fitting PJs since it's getting hot.

So what do you all do about flame resistant PJs? Necessary
or scare tactic/unnecessary if you use common sense? I
never even heard about this until I noticed the tag today.

i'm allergic to polyester, so i never buy flame resistant
PJs. also, my son has sensory issues & the poly flame
retardent PJs are hard & scratchy to him. i prefer 100%
cotton, which will always come with the disclaimer tag.
2 points you should understand:
1) although the poly ones *might* self extinguish when removed
from the source of flame, they also *melt* & cause more
serious burns.
2) the fire retardant chemicals wash out if you use soap or
fabric softener in the laundry.
lee
--
"Fascism would be better described as corporatism,
since it is marriage between the state and business"
- Benito Mussolini

"bizby40" wrote in
news

wrote in message
oups.com..
.
I just started taking the tags off of Micah's new PJs
(shorts and
shirt), and noticed the bright yellow tag: "...This
garment is not flame resistant. Loose-fitting garment is
more likely to catch fire."
I've done a quick google search on flame resistant PJs and
have come up
with 1) don't get them; they're covered with potentially
toxic chemicals; 2) get them; it's a CPSC safety
recommendation; and 3) biggest concern is kids playing
with/near fire/cigarettes and their clothes igniting [IOW,
I don't anticipate this being a problem for Micah for the
short period of time he actually FITS into these PJs].
I
don't want to get him tight-fitting PJs since it's getting
hot.

So what do you all do about flame resistant PJs?
Necessary or scare tactic/unnecessary if you use common
sense? I never even heard about this until I noticed the
tag today.

The recommendation I always heard was to make sure their
jammies aren't loose. I'm not quite sure why it's
considered such a danger with jammies and not with regular
clothes though. I never did get that, and will be
interested to see the explanation when someone posts it.

no kidding. we have a gas stove & Boo likes to cook... you'd
think they'd make more of a fuss over clothes the kids are
more likely to be near flames while wearing.
lee
--
"Fascism would be better described as corporatism,
since it is marriage between the state and business"
- Benito Mussolini

I never got it either. It started when my first was around that age. I
was pretty mad. I don't like to sleep in snug-fitting pj's and neither
do my kids. Anyway, I just kept on a hunt until I found loose-fitting
pj's or pj bottom-type pants and bought regular ol' Hanes T'shirts.
They can take off the pants on a warm night and pop them on in the
morning when it is cool. I know they have made a change since I had to
deal with it last, but luckily I still have all of the pj's from the
first. When I finally couldn't find any loose-fitting non-treated pjs
any longer, I just washed them about five times before putting them
onto the kids. I wholeheartedly believe that chemicals should not be
placed on all of their pj's and that it should be my choice as to
whether or not I want to subject my kids to absorbing them. lol. The
theory is that loose-fitting clothes catch fire more easily than
snug-fitting ones. It used to be that the kids could wear the
loose-fitting ones a lot longer than the snug-fitting ones too. Maybe I
would feel differently if I ever experienced a fire, but I can't help
but think that if a fire is that close to a sleeping baby, chances are
it has inhaled a whole lot of smoke before then. kwim? As for playing
with matches, we don't keep those in the house and all of the lighters
are childproof now too. The new undershirts are tagless now too. I
never understood why they stopped short of trying to save children from
fire wearing day clothes either.

wrote:
I just started taking the tags off of Micah's new PJs (shorts and
shirt), and noticed the bright yellow tag: "...This garment is not
flame resistant. Loose-fitting garment is more likely to catch fire."
I've done a quick google search on flame resistant PJs and have come up
with 1) don't get them; they're covered with potentially toxic
chemicals; 2) get them; it's a CPSC safety recommendation; and 3)
biggest concern is kids playing with/near fire/cigarettes and their
clothes igniting [IOW, I don't anticipate this being a problem for
Micah for the short period of time he actually FITS into these PJs]. I
don't want to get him tight-fitting PJs since it's getting hot.

So what do you all do about flame resistant PJs? Necessary or scare
tactic/unnecessary if you use common sense? I never even heard about
this until I noticed the tag today.

The vast majority of the flame resistant pjs are
*nasty*, in my opinion. I generally only buy cotton pjs
for my kids, or else they sweat like crazy at night.
It seems to me that in the majority of cases, children
are *least* exposed to fire hazards while sleeping in
their beds at night, at least in most homes (if you
have other sources of fire hazard, you might choose
differently). So, the situation you're really talking
about as hazardous would be a house fire at night.
In that unlikely event, fire resistant clothing
might give your kids a few extra seconds (but not
really more than that). The official recommendation
from most fire safety sources is *either* fire
resistant pjs or very close fitting cotton pjs, but
honestly, it hasn't given me any heartburn to blow
off that recommendation and concentrate instead on
general fire safety (keeping kids away from matches
and such, no unattended open flames in the house,
fire safety plan, etc.).

Best wishes,
Ericka

This issue has come up before, and one time I had some free time to
look it up. I don't have any references handy right now, but the way I
found it, it looked like the main concern was for
toddlers/pre-schoolers who got up when their parents thought they were
in bed, and then played with fire. So, not only were they playing with
fire, they were unsupervised.

This was in a discussion of whether or not infant sleepwear really
needed to be flame resistant, and one of the conclusions was that
unless you thought your baby was at an unusually high risk of
spontaneous combustion, it probably wouldn't be an issue. ;-)

A lot of this is based on the fact that once people get into their
heads that children's sleepwear should be flame resistant, they get
scared if it isn't. So, they started making infant sleepwear flame
resistant, or putting labels in stuff warning you not to use it as
sleepwear. eyeroll

I try to get cotton pj's for my kids, but they do have some of the icky
polyester stuff, too. Of course, with the cotton pj's, sometimes they
go way overboard on how closefitting they are, and they *never* fit!

Irene

wrote in message
So what do you all do about flame resistant PJs? Necessary or scare
tactic/unnecessary if you use common sense? I never even heard about
this until I noticed the tag today.

I never paid attention to the flame retardant stuff and just bought what was
comfortable. As having lost my 3-year-old niece in a house fire, it didn't
matter what she wore, she was consumed by smoke inhalation and heat.
Precaution is the best measure and making sure there are escape routes and
smoke alarms, etc....
--
Sue (mom to three girls)