|
I have been reading with great interest the threads on this forum. My wife and I are looking for a mattress for one of our sons (we have six kids) who has very bad allergies. He is currently 8 years old and weighs around 70-75lbs. We are going to put the mattress on a solid wood base of his bunk bed. The bottom bunk is full and the top if twin. We have an older "My First Sealy" twin on the top bunk. The bottom bunk base is one ich thick planed plywood with a thick maple veneer. I called SleepEz and spoke with Shawn after reading all of the glowing reviews. He seems like a nice man. The think that concerns me is that MANY people speak of being able to swap cores many months after they have been sleeping on them. I am concerned that latex cores that we would receive could have been in someone elses home and contain allergens, etc. I don't want to think about bodily fluids. Either there is a HUGE margin in latex cores so that Shawn can dispose of returned cores or people are getting layers that have been used by someone else. Does anyone have any insight into this? As for the mattress itself, do you think a firm, medium core of the 7000 series would be a good choice? I know he does not weigh much now, but we hope this mattress will last until he is ready to go to college. His younger brother will eventually be sleeping in this bed as well. He is currently only 19 months old so he has at least 6-9 months before he will also be sleeping on the latex mattress. Would the 7000 series also be strong enough to support an adult? I weigh around 200lbs and when we have bad storms the kids sometimes ask mom or dad to sleep in their room. I really don't want to bottom out. We can't afford much more than the 7000 series. We want something without flame retardants, but we don't have a lot of money either. Thank you to all in advance, |
|
Well I contacted SleepEZ and spoke with Shawn, Jeremy and Shawn's father who started the business. Shawn's father was very knowledgeable (I mean he really knows his stuff). He said that the flame test is looking more for the amount of heat supression vs not burning/no flames. He said the wool chars when it burns, and it does burn, but the char creates a very strong insulation later that helps to deflect heat even better. He continued on stating that when a flame is applied to wool from the top the wool does not burn like wood or cotton, rather it smoulders and creates a char layer that acts as the true heat insulator during a real fire. Since I did not know if this was true or not I did some research and found this to be accurate. While the strobel test shows wool burning, it was an unfair test as the wool was lit from the bottom and the flame burt UP the string. The better, and more accurate from a mattress point of use, would have been to light the top part of the wool and see if it would burn down. My guess would be that it would not, or if it did it would be slow and a char layer would form and put out any ongoing flame. If you think about it any flame a mattress would be exposed to, either from the side or top of the mattress, would be burning the top of the wool layer. This would then form a char layer which would enhance the insulating properties. Here is my original e-mail and the reply I received from Jeremy:
I also e-mailed Flobeds to see what their response was. They replied with a link to video of their burn test, the corresponding report, etc. I really wish more companies would provide this information. One thing I did notice was that in the report it lists the company that submitted the mattress for testing was Berkeley Ergonomics. I e-mailed them back and asked them about this. They said that they purchase their bed covers from them. They also stated they submitted their most flammable bed to them for testing. The video evidence really sells this for me. Here is the e-mail string from FloBeds: From: FloBeds [info@flobeds.com] Mathew, Berkeley Ergonomics is a company in California we contract out to do the sewing in our covers, ie quilting the organic wool into the organic cotton ticking. We offer visco as an option (which we don't recommend). Visco is much more flammable than latex, so we had them test our most flammable mattress, (latex topped w/ visco). At 10:14 AM 11/11/2010, you wrote: Thank you very much for this information. I do have a question though. The company in the report is listed as Berkeley Ergonomics. Do you resell their products or has the company changed names? They seem to be located in Canada, but I don't see any retail store so they seem to be a manufacturer that you buy from? Is that correct? I also noticed in the report that the bed tested contained Visco foam. Does it matter with Latex beds which type of materials are in the core or is the test solely for the outer cover? If the test is solely for the outer cover, then is that the item sourced from Berkeley Ergonomics? Thank you again, Matthew Becker -----Original Message----- From: FloBeds Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:40 AM To: Matthew Becker Subject: Re: Question about Latex mattresses Matthew, Organic wool is our sole flame barrier. http://www.flobeds.com/burntest.html The wool is certified organic and has not been treated with any chemicals whatsoever, if you purchase one of our Green mattresses you will have a chemical free sleeping environment. At 11:22 PM 11/10/2010, you wrote: Hello, My wife and I are looking for a full size, 100% natural latex mattress for our son who has allergies. I would like to know if your latex beds and associated covers are 100% free of all flame retardants both synthetic and natural (other than organic wool)? Examples of flame retardants would be Silica, Boron, Boric Acid, PBDEs, Formaldehyde, etc. We are under the impression that wool acts as the natural flame barrier. We want to be 100% sure that the wool has NOT been been processed or sprayed in any way with anything to enhance its natural flame retardant properties or that any other material has been added to the bed before placing an order. I look forward to your prompt reply, Matthew Becker In all I am impressed with both answers. I really wish SleepEZ had their flame tests online as well. Unless these companies are outright lying, and I don't believe they are, wool truely is a natural flame barrier! What am I going to buy? I am pretty sure we are going with the 7000 organic/natural series from SleepEZ. I will discuss with my wife. The acutal test results from FloBeds and the accompanying video is a power sway for me though. Proof behind the pudding! This message was modified Nov 11, 2010 by moon1234
|
| Also as a followup to my original question of if the swapped layers are used. I called Shawn and he said that ALL layers sent out are new. He said that he actually does not get many swaps back. When they do come back he said that he offers the swapped layers locally (disclosed as swaps to the purchaser) at a discount. He said he has no problem selling them. |
|
The 1633 standard is set up in a way that assumes that the mattress has ticking, bedclothes and sheets etc over the fire retardent barrier that will contribute to the fire and keep on burning after the flame is removed. It then tests for total heat release in the first 10 minutes (15 MJ) and peak heat release over 30 minutes (200 KW). The idea is to prevent "flashover" where the temperature gets so high that everything nearby starts to burn without direct contact with the flame and to give the occupant time to escape. Bear in mind that this is heat release and not "open flame" although they are connected. Smouldering may not go over the 10 minute test but it could go over the 30 minute test (which is why they have it). Because there is heat applied to the side for 50 seconds (70 on top), there would be some "up" burning". I personally would tend to believe what you have been told as my doubts lie not in the facts as known by the mattress manufacturer ... there is no doubt in my mind that the wool they and many others use passes the test... but in the original processing of the wool and ticking. Different qualities and processing methods of wool have different flammability qualities. At the very least ... the wool needs to be thicker and then compressed (thus the 4" you were told earlier which would then be compressed to a thinner layer). There are some very stringent organic manufacturers out there who do use thicker "organic" wool that is compressed and use it on the sides as well and they pass the test. It is not so much the actual thickness as the oz/sq ft and the type and quality of wool that makes the real difference. This is the main reason that I didn't use wool in my quilting since I believed that not only would it need to be compressed and not be as "fluffy" (confirmed by my experience where the same mattress had a compressed wool fire barrier option and that bed was firmer) but that it would also compress over time and harden up my latex. Of course my mattress doesn't have a removeable cover so I couldn't take it off and fluff it up as you can with the removeable covers. In the end, it didn't really matter so much to me since the old standard was more than sufficient in my eyes and if I had my choice I would rather have a mattress that didn't comply with any standard if compliance meant doing anything that would in any way "denature" or "alter" the materials used. I am also not as sensitive as many others are and a completely organic mattress is not as high on my list of priorities as it is for some others. I am much more "sensitive" to dumb regulations (laughing). I really don't like what the regulations have forced the industry into doing and the distortions of information that have come about as a result. Interesting about Berkeley Ergonomics. They make a really nice microcoil mattress and in the early part of my search I was seriously looking at a mattress of this type since another one I tried was really comfortable. I wonder why they use them for their testing since they don't commercially sell the same mattress as flobeds and the mattress has to be tested as a complete unit (the cover cannot be tested by itself and used on "multiple mattresses"). There are some minor exceptions with this if the "other" mattress is not substantially different from the prototype that was tested. The source of all this information is the regulation itself rather than anything I have been told. Phoenix This message was modified Nov 11, 2010 by Phoenix
|
|
I would tend to go with something a little thicker than 6" as well. Perhaps even more important ... given that you have some good options for testing near you ... I would go (with your son) and lay on some mattresses with different ILD's and layering before I bought something online as you will have a much much better idea of what is suitable for you. This is probably more important than anything else in terms of getting it "right" ... especially if you are thinking of a thinner mattress with less "changeability" in the layering. Phoenix |
|
Phoenix wrote: Interesting about Berkeley Ergonomics. They make a really nice microcoil mattress and in the early part of my search I was seriously looking at a mattress of this type since another one I tried was really comfortable. I wonder why they use them for their testing since they don't commercially sell the same mattress as flobeds and the mattress has to be tested as a complete unit (the cover cannot be tested by itself and used on "multiple mattresses"). There are some minor exceptions with this if the "other" mattress is not substantially different from the prototype that was tested. The source of all this information is the regulation itself rather than anything I have been told. Phoenix |
|
"I wonder if they are simply transferring the testing done on that cover to their own bed?" This is not allowed under the regulations. If they did this their mattress would not be considered as having passed the regulations. Covers are not tested except as part of a complete and specific prototype. Even a mattress that requires a certain foundation is tested specifically with that foundation and the mattress itself is not considered to have passed without that foundation. None of this would matter to me personally since if the cover had passed with a different prototype that was similar ... it would be more than enough for me ... even if it wasn't good enough according to the regulation. I would happily buy a mattress from a reputable manufacturer that hadn't passed the regulations (and may even prefer it in some cases) if that was possible to do without a doctor's prescription. Phoenix This message was modified Nov 11, 2010 by Phoenix
|
|
I'm not sure that the strobel picture of the wool burning was meant to be taken literally? as to wool burning up rather than down, but having said that, I did find in my research that some wool is treated or blended with other substances that may not be classified as "chemical". In the fine print, some add silica to the wool. Wool vissel is sometimes mentioned, which as far as I could tell, is something else compressed with wool. If this were something I were concerned about, which it is, I would ask if "anything" was added at all, and if so, what. The mattress seller might not have this info, and might need to ask the company from whom they purchase the cover, who then might need to check with their suppliers. What is hard to know is, if somewhere in the supply chain, the wool wasn't treated. But this all begs the question that Strobel raises, which is, if one manufacturer has to fire treat their wool, then why not all? All other variables being equal. That is still where I am stumped. This message was modified Nov 12, 2010 by jasmine
|
|
I personally have no problem with Silica as it is a "natural ingredient" and the main component of quartz and diatomaceous earth. While inhaling the powder can cause some problems, I believe in the form it is used in the fire barriers there is little potential for harm and is certainly the least objectionable of any inherent or added material. Naturpedic (and probably others as well) uses it in their Ultra crib mattresses which is one of only 3 North American mattresses which are GOTS certified and USDA organic (the other 2 are OMI and Lifekind mattresses without latex). I also don't have a real problem with cellulose type of fabrics (viscose/rayon) even though they are not the most environmentally friendly in their manufacture. Many of them such as the bamboo blends are being falsely touted as being "green" just because they come from a plant. To me it doesn't mean they're "bad" (I like bamboo blends) ... only that we may as well use the facts when we make our decisions. This wikipedia article calls them "artificial fibers" neither natural or synthetic which I think is closest to the truth. Naturepedic's fire protection, designed by an expert environmental scientist, contains no wool or borate powder and is instead made of baking soda and hydrated silica bonded to cellulose fiber. Baking soda can be found as a naturally occurring compound, but is generally made from other naturally derived materials. Silica is a natural mineral that comprises about 70% of the earth's crust. Clay, rocks, sand, etc. are all made primarily of silica. It is a major constituent of human tissue, bones, teeth, skin, eyes, glands, organs and is even available in food supplements. The cellulose fiber used is derived primarily from eucalyptus and poplar trees and has a low carbon footprint. Visil is a trade name for a cellulose fiber manufactured by Sateri Milliken makes something similar called Paladin It seems that visil/wool blends don't do very well in fire tests and that even the weave pattern can make a difference. From my research different types of wool have different fire retardency qualities. Similar thicknesses/processing methods/compression of different types of wool could very well have different outcomes. The lanolin content also makes a difference (lanolin can be flammable). How it is treated and manufactured, and how much wool and how compressed it is are also factors. I also think it is quite likely that some mattress manufacturers are only repeating what they have been told about the wool in their covers and may not know for sure. In other cases they (some "organic" manufacturers) will independently test for chemicals but I doubt that silica is one of the chemicals they test for. In regards to the Strobel claims ... OMI disputes this on their website here under "PULLING THE WOOL OVER OUR EYES" I also checked and Silica is not one of the specific "chemicals" that are tested for in GOTS certification I also know it is not cheap to test an individual prototype so it passes the fire regulations so there would be some pressure on smaller companies to do "whatever they could to pass with the least possible cost". In the end I guess we all have to decide "how pure is pure" for ourselves and decide on the level of uncertainty we are willing to live with in our mattress. Phoenix This message was modified Nov 12, 2010 by Phoenix
|
|
From the limited info on the web, it seems that there are different formulations of silica. Some are considered to be more benign than others, some come with health warnings. It would be great if a complete list of ingredients, and info on the treatments that those ingredients have undergone, were available with all products we purchase, including mattresses. It would certainly make our jobs as consumers easier. As that is not the case, it makes our purchasing decisions more difficult. This message was modified Nov 20, 2010 by jasmine
|
|
I don't think that silica is a perfect ingredient but I do believe that it is better than anything else commonly available besides compressed wool and wool that is thick enough to act as a fire retardent comes with it's own disadvantages in certain applications. I am not aware of any health warnings for Silica as it is used in a mattress. Of course as it is used in diatomaceous earth (as a crystaline powder) there would be a warning not to inhale it as it could cause respiratory problems. Exposure to crystaline silica as used in drywall for example can lead to silicosis. Could you direct me to any warnings you have seen that are specific to how it is used in a mattress? If my beliefs are based on faulty information, I would certainly like to correct them :). Phoenix This message was modified Nov 20, 2010 by Phoenix
|