# New SIDS Info!



## DocsNemesis (Dec 10, 2005)

> *************************
> New Zealand SIDS Death Rate Decreases
>
> New statistics released by the New Zealand Ministry of
> Health show that the national rate of Sudden Infant
> Death Syndrome (SIDS) fell by 70% after an educational
> campaign in wrapping mattresses with special
> polyethelene covers was begun. The program began after
> research by a NZ scientist showed a link between SIDS
> and the toxic fumes emitted by mattresses.
>
> According to the statistics, NZ Maori babies are 10
> times more likely than NZ European (Pakeha) babies to
> die of SIDS.(2) Following the implementation of
> mattress-wrapping by the Pakeha community over the
> last eleven years (with an 85% reduction in their SIDS
> rate), New Zealand has the highest inter-ethnic SIDS
> disparity of any country in the world.
>
> In contrast to the US and UK, where back sleeping has
> been adopted as a method to prevent crib death, New
> Zealand began to publicize mattress-wrapping in 1994,
> with the practice widely adopted. Since then, the rate
> of deaths on unwrapped mattresses has continued to
> increase, while no deaths have been reported for
> babies sleeping on wrapped mattresses. Another
> advantage to this solution is that babies can sleep in
> a variety of positions and not suffer from
> plagiocephaly, or flattened heads.
>
> The results of the New Zealand mattress-wrapping
> program have been published in two peer-reviewed
> journals of environmental medicine(3) and far exceed
> the results of any other SIDS prevention program in
> the world.
>
> Notes
>
> Source of statistics: New Zealand Ministry of Health
> (final statistics to 2001; provisional statistics for
> 2002 and 2003; progress counts for 2004 and 2005).
> NZ Maori SIDS rate: 2.0 deaths per 1000 live births;
> NZ European/Pakeha SIDS rate: 0.2 deaths per 1000 live
> births.
> Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine
> 2004;14(3): 221-232. Zeitschrift fuer Umweltmedizin
> 2002; 44: 18-22.
> For further information, see: www.cotlife2000.co.nz
>


----------



## ellesmama (Aug 11, 2005)

WoW!! I wasn't expecting to read that, when I clicked on your post, I have never heard of the link between matress fumes and SIDS before. Thank you so much for posting that, I will be reading more on that....

( On a lighter note... Maybe I can use this info to help me convince dh to invest in an organic matress...







)


----------



## NZmumof2 (Jun 22, 2006)

NZer replying here. The website link you posted is to the website of the scientist involved in this research. The link between mattress wrapping the cot death rate decrease is dubious at best. What actually happened to decrease the rate was much more likely to be the "Back to sleep" campaign encouraging parents to put babies to bed on their backs. The reasons for the disparity between Maori and Pakeha involve socio-economic disadvantage, heavy smoking in young Maori women, very low breastfeeding rates for Maori, overcrowding, poor insulation and poor heating in Maori homes.

As for mattress wrapping being widespread, I am a family doctor here caring for many pregnant women and young families - the Ministry of Health does not recommend mattress wrapping, there are babies who have died on mattresses left in their plastic covers because parents mistakenly thought that was what was meant by mattress wrapping. Certainly none of my patients have even asked me about mattress wrapping and I would not recommend it. I routinely discuss sleeping arrangements because I care for many teenage Maori mothers who smoke and choose not to breastfeed, but in Maori society bedsharing is commonplace. I discuss the risks for them given this background and then support them in safe sleep whatever choice they make.

Anna, partner to Leah in NZ, mum to Bede 6 and Emmett 2, cosleeping, breastfeeding, vegetarian, organic food eating mum


----------



## pmartin (Aug 22, 2006)

On a lighter note... Maybe I can use this info to help me convince dh to invest in an organic matress...[IMG alt="" said:


> http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/winky.gif[/IMG] )


With regards to crib death, an organic mattress may not be any safer than any other mattress. If one accepts the Sprott theory that crib death results from accidental poisoning by toxic nerve gases produced by microbiological activity on chemicals in or on the mattress, any mattress which contains phosphorus, arsenic, or antimony is unsafe. Unless one can guarantee that the organic mattress does not contain these elements, it should be covered according to Sprott's protocol.


----------



## pmartin (Aug 22, 2006)

The link between mattress wrapping the cot death rate decrease is dubious at best. What actually happened to decrease the rate was much more likely to be the "Back to sleep" campaign encouraging parents to put babies to bed on their backs.[/QUOTE said:


> This is not supported by the evidence. It has been well known for years that having an infant sleep on her back, all other things being equal, decreases crib death by approximately 50% (45% in New Zealand (NZ)). The latest available NZ crib death statistics of May 2006 show a nationwide crib death rate decline, since mattress wrapping commenced, of 70% and an European ethnic crib death rate decline for the same period of 85%. Since back sleeping was introduced in NZ in 1989, and by 1993 95% of babies were sleeping on their backs, and since mattress wrapping commenced in December 1994, the crib death rate decline since December 1994 cannot be attributable to back sleeping, but rather to mattress wrapping. Likewise the decline cannot be attributable to any other crib death prevention advice, since there was no material change in that advice since 1992.


----------



## katies_mama (Jun 9, 2005)

I've been seeing information on this for a while and have decided that with the next babe, better safe than sorry.

Wrt the organic cotton mattresses, wouldn't the fact that they are organic cotton mean that there _are not_ any chemicals? I mean, isn't that the whole point?

Also, pmartin and Anna, I am interested to see any sources that you have for your information, if you have any.

tia!


----------



## Mamamazing (Aug 16, 2006)

Wow. I'm shocked. I was thinking this would be a pro cosleeping or anti cosleeping thread.

offgassing, who would have thought.


----------



## pmartin (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katies_mama*
Wrt the organic cotton mattresses, wouldn't the fact that they are organic cotton mean that there _are not_ any chemicals? I mean, isn't that the whole point?

It is possible. Some jurisdictions may still require that fire retardants be applied to organic mattresses. As well it is documented that sheepskins may contain significant quantities of arsenic. Polyester or kapok filled mattresses, pvc lined products, acrylic blankets, foam mattresses, coconut fibre may all contain phosphorus or antimony or arsenic. Unless it can be proven by chemical analysis that the mattress and the bedding do not contain the above three elements, the mattress should be wrapped and the bedding should not be used. This information is in the paper by Sprott, T.J., Cot Death - Cause and Prevention: Experiences in New Zealand 1995-2004, Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine 2004;14(3): 221-*232.


----------



## katies_mama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pmartin*
It is possible. Some jurisdictions may still require that fire retardants be applied to organic mattresses. As well it is documented that sheepskins may contain significant quantities of arsenic. Polyester or kapok filled mattresses, pvc lined products, acrylic blankets, foam mattresses, coconut fibre may all contain phosphorus or antimony or arsenic. Unless it can be proven by chemical analysis that the mattress and the bedding do not contain the above three elements, the mattress should be wrapped and the bedding should not be used. This information is in the paper by Sprott, T.J., Cot Death - Cause and Prevention: Experiences in New Zealand 1995-2004, Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine 2004;14(3): 221-*232.

I remember reading that. Didn't he say, though, that if a mattress was 100% organic _cotton_ that it would be okay?

And is there a place you can send a sample for testing? Or another way to find out if it is treated? Aren't the Amish made mattresses guaranteed free of chemicals? Sorry to ask so many questions, but I'm eventually planning on buying an organic cotton mattress in any case and I don't want to buy one and end up totally wasting my money if it is treated with chemicals.

Also, I thought sheepskin was not labeled organic because it is treated with chemicals almost all the time?

Thanks for the citation. I'll search for it online.


----------



## arlecchina (Jul 25, 2006)

Katies_mama: from what I understand if you are in the US, you cannot buy any mattress that is untreated. it's a federal law that all matresses be treated so you'd have to wrap. I dont know if you are allowed to import, in another thread (I forget where) a mom mentioned calling ikea which is all natural mattresses UNLESS they are to be sent to the US because of US federal laws. so it is possible ikea could tell you.


----------



## katies_mama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *arlecchina*
Katies_mama: from what I understand if you are in the US, you cannot buy any mattress that is untreated. it's a federal law that all matresses be treated so you'd have to wrap. I dont know if you are allowed to import, in another thread (I forget where) a mom mentioned calling ikea which is all natural mattresses UNLESS they are to be sent to the US because of US federal laws. so it is possible ikea could tell you.

I have family in the Netherlands and spend about six weeks a year here (I am in NL now actually) so I could possibly buy it here and ship it myself, particularly if it was at IKEA--that would be easy. Thanks for the info, I will look into it.


----------



## MamaCAS (Jan 6, 2005)

We bought a mattress wrap.

This is an interesting link on the topic.

http://www.mercola.com/2000/nov/26/sids_prevention.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jan/14/crib_death.htm
At an absolute minimum, I would throughly air out a new mattress for a long period of time before I put an newborn on it, face-up or face-down.


----------



## annarosa (Aug 30, 2004)

interesting info


----------



## skywatcher (Aug 31, 2006)

See NBC TV video link regarding a mattress-wrapping promotion for cot/crib death prevention held by Jim Sprott in California this week: click on top left item (with picture of baby).

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/video/972...x.html?taf=dgo

This TV item has been broadcast by NBC within the past 24 hours.

If you would like to e-mail Jim about the NBC report or his mattress-wrapping promotion in California, his e-mail address is: [email protected]


----------



## SeaMother (Jul 14, 2006)

I was glad to find this thread...
We live in europe right now and dd shares my big *european* Ikea bed with me but also has an American crib (gift) which she sometimes naps in, or plays in.

Well I had been looking into getting a fancy dustmite cover for her mattress shipped from u.s. (as the sizes are diff here) and found lots of stuff on outgasing.

Well I think I'm going down to Ikea to get an allen wrench tomorrow ---( she's crawling! time to put my bed on the floor!







) maybe I can figure out the all natural question!
Dana


----------



## kaylee18 (Dec 25, 2005)

Federal law in the U.S. requires that all mattresses sold in the U.S. meet fire retardency standards. This regulation is in place to prevent us from killing ourselves by getting drunk, smoking in bed, dropping the cigarette, and burning up in an alcohol-induced stupor.







Seriously, that was the grounds for the regulation (well, at least the smoking part was).

The cheapest way for mattress companies to do this is to use fire-retardent chemicals (such as PDBE's, which are bad stuff, and recently banned, I think, in California). However, that's not the only way. Wool is often used in organic mattresses to meet fire retardent standards, and I've seen boric acid (which is like Borax) used for the same reason. Sprott recommends against using wool, since it contains high levels of phosphorus.

Another option is to take advantage of the one exception to the Federal requirement: non-fire-retardent mattresses may be sold under a prescription from a doctor stating that the person who will be sleeping on the mattress requires one that is free of fire retardent chemicals. Such mattresses are sold at kidbean.com , among other places.

As far as the NZ mattress-wrapping theory, I do not believe that mattress wrapping has become a widespread enough practice there for it to be responsible for the drop in SIDS deaths.


----------



## skywatcher (Aug 31, 2006)

Cot Life 2000

Statistics: New Zealand
mattress-wrapping campaign

In 2002 a German environmental medicine practitioner, Dr Hannes Kapuste, published the statistical results of the New Zealand mattress-wrapping campaign in a peer-reviewed journal:
Giftige Gase im Kinderbett (Toxic Gases in Infants' Beds), Zeitschrift fuer Umweltmedizin (Journal of Environmental Medicine) 2002;44:18-20
The "p" factor for the mattress-wrapping intervention was calculated by Dr Kapuste (in collaboration with the Statistics Department of the University of Munich) as being:
p = less than 1.9 x 10-22
It is usual in medical circles to regard a "p" factor of less than 0.01 (10-2) as sound proof of a scientific proposition; and if the "p" is less than 0.001 (10-3), that is regarded as virtually certain proof of the proposition.

The number 1.9 x 10-22 (the "p" for mattress-wrapping) can be written as: 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,19

Put another way, the statistical proof that mattress-wrapping prevents cot death (SIDS, crib death) is 1018 i.e. one billion billion times the level of proof which medical researchers generally regard as constituting certain proof of a scientific proposition.

Not surprisingly, therefore, Dr Kapuste described the toxic gas theory for cot death and mattress-wrapping for cot death prevention as having "overwhelming reliability".


----------



## kaylee18 (Dec 25, 2005)

The p-value is the percentage likelihood that the observed difference between groups is due to random variation (chance).

For example, if you flip a dime and a penny 20 times each, you might get 3 more "heads" results from the dime than from the penny. But the results you got were due to random variation, and if you take that difference and calculate a p-value, it will tell you that the results are likely to have been due to random variation.

On the other hand, suppose I make a "trick coin" by beveling the edge of the penny so that it is much more likely, when it lands on edge, to fall with the head side up. Then I perform voodoo over the penny, but not the dime, and flip them both 20 times again, with 10 more "heads" results for the penny than the dime. The p-value this time will be very small, indicating that the penny's landing heads-up is not likely due to chance. Does this mean my voodoo worked? No. It just means that _something_ probably caused the difference I am seeing.

The p-value in the case of the SIDS rates is stating that the reduction in the rate for the area is very unlikely to be due to chance. It is _not_ stating that mattress wrapping, or back-to-sleep, or anything else, is the likely cause of that variation. It is only stating that the difference is likely due to a factor, some factor, that actively changed the SIDS rate.

The p-value has nothing to do with whether mattress-wrapping does a darn thing.

I don't have an opinion on mattress wrapping. If I can find a way to wrap our large co-sleeping adult bed Sprott-style and safely, then I will likely do so. But it appears that (aside from followers like Kapuste, who are commenting on Sprott's writings, not doing investigations of their own to replicate his results) Sprott is the only researcher or health worker who believes in his hypothesis; and statements that are misleading and unscientific certainly do not make me more likely to believe he is right.


----------



## janerose (May 9, 2004)

Interesting stuff to think about.

Honestly, I'm of the opinion that vaccinating babies has a much more significant impact on SIDS rates than wrapping or not wrapping mattresses does. And there have been several studies that show that nations which have reduced their vaccination schedules also reduce their SIDS rates.

Just my 2 cents through!









Holly


----------



## angelpie545 (Feb 23, 2005)

I think what we are doing here is beginning to explore all the possible causes of SIDS, and there are many. I certainly believe that toxic matresses and vaccines may cause SIDS, and it's been proven that formula feeding, smoking, and perhaps even crib sleeping may increase the risk of SIDS. The bottom line is that there are many causes, and that's what makes SIDS so elusive, because there are many causes of the deaths. "SIDS" is just a catch all label when the cause of death is not identified. For example, many vaccine deaths are labeled as SIDS. The best thing a mother can do, IMO, is take care of herself during the pregnancy and avoid toxins as much as possible, to breastfeed, and co-sleep, and not to smoke or use drugs. I think that sometimes SIDS is unaviodable, but the majority of cases can probably be prevented.


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaylee18*
Wool is often used in organic mattresses to meet fire retardent standards, and I've seen boric acid (which is like Borax) used for the same reason. Sprott recommends against using wool, since it contains high levels of phosphorus.

Even organic wool? Is there something about the natural makeup of wool that causes this?


----------



## skywatcher (Aug 31, 2006)

Cot Life 2000

Information about sheepskins

Sheepskins almost invariably contain significant quantities of phosphorus, and in addition many New Zealand sheepskins contain significant quantities of arsenic.

Action of common household fungi on compounds of phosphorus and arsenic can lead to the generation of intensely poisonous nerve gases known as (respectively) phosphines and arsines.

This gas generation resulted in the deaths of many children in Europe during the 1800s. The cause of these deaths was discovered by the Italian chemist Gosio in 1892.

Azione di alcune muffe sui composti fissi d'arsenico, Riv d'Igiene e San Publ (1892) 3:201-230 & 261-273; Action de quelques moisissures sur les composes fixes d'arsenic, Arch Ital Biol (1893) 18:253-265

Sheepskins have been shown by analysis to contain far more phosphorus and arsenic than is necessary to poison a baby by phosphine and/or arsine gas generation. (To view results of analysis, click on the sidebar heading Bedding analyses.)

The New Zealand Cot Death Study (1987-1990) found that of the 393 cot deaths investigated in the study, 42% of those deaths occurred on sheepskins.

Sheepskin bedding and the sudden infant death syndrome, J Pediatr 1998; 133(5):701-4

At the Sixth SIDS International Conference in February 2000, scientist Dr W R Cullen reported proof of the generation of trimethylarsine (a form of arsine) from sheepskin intended for use as baby bedding.

Arsenic methylation by micro-organisms isolated from sheepskin bedding materials, Human & Experimental Toxicology (2003) 22:325-334

The use of sheepskins as baby bedding should be discontinued.

Babies should never be put down to sleep on
unprotected sheepskins.


----------

