On 20-Jan-04 John Logsdon wrote:
> Dear all
>
> To continue the debate as far as environmental factors are concerned, I
> have seen nothing at least recently in the UK media (ie the BBC) about
> the findings of the New Zealand forensic chemist who claims that cot
> deaths are due to rare element actinides that have been promoted as a
> result of fireproofing cot mattresses. The URL is
> www.cotlife2000.co.nz.
> He promotes putting the mattress in a wrapper that is impervious to
> these heavy gases - which he also markets by the way.
>
> The claim is that there have been no cot deaths in 1995-1999 associated
> with the use of matress wrapping (presumably of a fairly small number)
> cf about 400 in the previous 5 years.
> [...]
> Comments? What is the significance of these recommendations? Very
> little
> I would guess so why not wrap your mattress - at least it can't do too
> much harm and saves getting it wet!
I would sup with a very long spoon where this "research" is concerned.
First, this NZ chemist, T.J. Sprott, is not the first in the field.
It goes back to one Barry Richardson, who originally proposed it in 1989.
There was a transmission of "The Cook Report" in 1994 which uncritically
put Richardson's theory up as THE explanation.
Second, Sprott's website promotes a company, BabeSafe:
"The BabeSafe range of safety mattresses and safety mattress covers
protects babies against exposure to toxic gases generated from the
elements phosphorus, arsenic and antimony. Compounds of these
elements are frequently present in mattresses.
Made in New Zealand to the specifications of Dr T J Sprott
by BabeSafe P 0 Box 58-245 Greenmount Auckland NEW ZEALAND
Phone/fax: 64-9-2739421
For technical information on BabeSafe products or if you are
interested in becoming a BabeSafe distributor, contact
[log in to unmask]"
This antimony theory was the kernel of Richardson's theory (along
with a contribution from a fungus).
I actually met Barry Richardson in the mid-90s at UMIST, in connection
with a different matter; but it was not long before the mattress
theory of cot death came up. As I recall, there was also a marketable
product in the background. He too made a big story out of relating
the change in incidence of cot death to the time of introduction of
fireproofing.
Third, an "Expert Group", chaired by Lady Limerick, was set up by
the Govt to enquire into this matter (following the "Cook report"
publicity), and reported in 1998. See
http://www.sids.org.uk/fsid/limerick.htm
for an outsider's summary,
http://www.doh.gov.uk/limeranx.htm
for members and terms of reference, and
http://www.doh.gov.uk/limer.htm
for a list of contents and some tantalising snippets (if you wanted
the full thing you had to buy it for £15 -- I don't know if you
still can).
The 20-page Executive Summary (PDF file), however, is fairly
comprehensive, and concludes that the theory is unsubstantiated:
http://www.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/limer1.pdf
Fourth, this has not prevented believers in the theory, and firms
marketing "protective" sleep products, from asserting that the Limerick
report had not disproved Richardson's theory, and indeed citing it in
support of the theory! An approriate web search will throw up countless
instances.
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972
Date: 21-Jan-04 Time: 00:08:38
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|