3 ms·
Did you even read it? Here you go, buddy: > [Referring to a Gene Autry costume that had over 100 lawsuits over the burn victims] The cowboy suit and other sim
by daveguy 2y ago
Did you even read it?
Here you go, buddy:
> [Referring to a Gene Autry costume that had over 100 lawsuits over the burn victims] The cowboy suit and other similar incidents were the impetus for the 1953 passage of the Flammable Fabrics Act, which regulated, among other things, which fabrics could be used for clothing. No more rayon pile chaps for kids (or brushed rayon sweaters for women), as such items had become famous for creating what were widely reported at the time as "human torches."
- potato3732842 2y ago>Did you even read it? >Here you go, buddy: If I didn't read it why would I say something like "I didn't know the moral panic went so far back"?. Like I said, I'm familiar with the actual standards for flammability that didn't come about until the early 1970s and resulted in the textile industry adding flame retardants to everything. I have no idea what they were legislating in the 1950s but it wasn't the whole industry. Regardless, the point which you seem to be missing is that it's not clear how good for everybody it is to be living their whole lives in and around clothes and textiles that are treated with flame retardant chemicals that are safe in the same way that pesticides and sketchy plastics are safe. Edit: I was right, turns out the 1953 law is basically "don't sell anything that's more flammable than typical" https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/1609.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/1609.1
- daveguy 2y agoFlame retardant treatment requirement for cotton was discontinued in 1996. Sorry, it's clear we are talking past each other. You have a great week.