Are we poisoning our kids?

Research which confirms and supports the toxic gas theory for cot death
(copied from www.babesafe.com)

Publication of the toxic gas theory:
The toxic gas theory for cot death was published by British scientist
Barry Richardson in 1994: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: a possible primary
cause, Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1994;34(3):199-204
Publication of proof of the gas generation involved:

The fungal generation of extremely toxic nerve gases from compounds of
phosphorus, arsenic and antimony has been demonstrated many times over the
last century. Recent confirmations a
Toxic gas generation from plastic mattresses and sudden infant death
syndrome, Lancet 1995;346:1516-20
Confirmation of the Biomethylation of Antimony Compounds, Applied
Organometallic Chemistry 1997; Vol. 11, 471-483
Publication of proof of the presence of fungal growth in babies'
mattresses:


Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: a possible primary cause, Journal of the
Forensic Science Society 1994;34(3):199-204
Final Report of the Expert Group to Investigate Cot Death Theories: Toxic
Gas Hypothesis (Limerick Report), May 1998
Publication of proof of the presence of the elements phosphorus, arsenic
and antimony in babies' bedding:
Analyses of bedding reported by Jim Sprott in The Cot Death Cover-up?
(Penguin, 1996)
Publication of proof of the generation of highly toxic gases from
compounds of phosphorus, arsenic and antimony in babies' mattresses and
other bedding:
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: a possible primary cause, Journal of the
Forensic Science Society 1994;34(3):199-204
Microbial studies of sheepskin bedding, W R Cullen, Sixth SIDS
International Conference, Auckland, February 2000
Publication of proof that the re-use of mattresses increases the risk of
cot death (a corollary of the toxic gas theory):
Case-control study of sudden infant death syndrome in Scotland, 1992-5,
British Medical Journal 1997;314:1516-20
Proof that the risk of cot death rises from first to second babies; and
from second to third babies; and from third to fourth and later babies;
and that babies of solo parents are at higher risk again (a corollary of
the fact that re-use of mattresses increases the risk of cot death):
Analysis of official British statistics

The finding of the rising risk of cot death from one sibling to the next
refutes every proposition that cot death has a medical cause. The more
times an unwrapped mattress is used from one baby to the next, the greater
is the risk of cot death.

This accounts for the higher cot death rate among poorer families, who are
more likely to sleep their babies on previously used mattresses.

If a mattress contains any of the elements phosphorus, arsenic or
antimony, and if certain household fungi have become established in the
mattress during prior use, any generation of toxic gas commences sooner
and in greater volume.
Publication of proof that later babies in a family are more at risk of cot
death than first babies (a corollary of the fact that re-use of mattresses
increases the risk of cot death):
Risk factors of sudden infant death in Chinese babies, American Journal of
Epidemiology 1997;144:1070-73
Publication of proof that face-up sleeping reduces the risk of cot death:

All studies which show that face-up sleeping reduces the risk of cot death
support the toxic gas theory. Face-up sleeping reduces the risk because
the gases concerned are more dense than air; they diffuse away from a
baby's mattress towards the floor, so a baby sleeping face-up is less
likely to ingest them.
Publication of proof that cot death babies show physiological effects of
gaseous poisoning:
Decreased Kainate Receptor Binding in the Arcuate Nucleus of the Sudden
Infant Death Syndrome, Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental
Neurology 1997;56:1253-61: proof that cot death babies have neurochemical
deficits consistent with poisoning by nerve gases
Publication of proof that the cot death risk varies with mattress type:
New Zealand Cot Death Study (1987-1990)
Publication of proof that the cot death risk in Britain is less on
PVC-covered mattresses:
CESDI study (Britain), reported in Lancet 1995;345:720

Any part of a baby's mattress which contains the chemicals phosphorus,
arsenic and/or antimony is capable of the gas generation which causes cot
death.

If, therefore, a mattress is covered with a gas-impermeable diaphragm
which does not contain those chemicals, the risk of cot death is
eliminated.

Accordingly, following removal of those chemicals from British
plastic-covered mattresses from 1989 onwards, the risk of cot death in
Britain is less on PVC-covered mattresses (which are very frequently used
in Britain).

Thus the finding by the CESDI study that babies are less at risk on
PVC-covered mattresses supports the toxic gas theory for cot death.


Book regarding the toxic gas theory for cot death
Jim Sprott, The Cot Death Cover-up? (Penguin, 1996).
Practical proof of the fact that mattress-wrapping prevents cot death:
Mattress-wrapping for cot death prevention (to prevent exposure of babies
to gases generated in mattresses) has been publicised in New Zealand since
late 1994.
Mattress-wrapping is the only new item of cot death prevention advice
publicised in New Zealand since 1992.
It is known from sales figures for BabeSafe cot mattress covers that tens
of thousands of New Zealand parents have wrapped their babies' mattresses
in accordance with the Cot Life 2000 specifications.
From 1994 to 1999 the New Zealand nationwide cot death rate fell by 48%
and the Pakeha (European) rate by an estimated 70%.
The Ministry of Health has confirmed that mattress-wrapping is more
prevalent among the Pakeha (European) community than among other ethnic
groups.
There has been no reported cot death on any mattress wrapped in accordance
with the Cot Life 2000 specifications.

"diaperlady" wrote in message
lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
Research which confirms and supports the toxic gas theory for cot death
(copied from www.babesafe.com)

You were not even subtle in the change of subject. I will accept that as
your acknowledgement that you agree that you do not know what you are
talking about.

Hmmm...change of subject?..."Are we poisoning our kids?" Yes, we ARE
poisoning our kids...even in their own crib mattresses. Interesting how
that's all you have to say in response to the evidence I provided. When in
doubt...insult someone, I guess.

Hmmm...change of subject?..."Are we poisoning our kids?" Yes, we ARE
poisoning our kids...even in their own crib mattresses. Interesting how
that's all you have to say in response to the evidence I provided. When in
doubt...insult someone, I guess.

"diaperlady" wrote in message
lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
Hmmm...change of subject?..."Are we poisoning our kids?" Yes, we ARE
poisoning our kids...even in their own crib mattresses. Interesting how
that's all you have to say in response to the evidence I provided. When in
doubt...insult someone, I guess.

We were discussing specific conditions and you changed the subject. If you
consider my pointing this out an insult, then you know what you did was
wrong.