FIRE RISK IN FABRICS

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27463, 24 September 1954, Page 8

FIRE RISK IN FABRICS

PUBLIC “HYSTERIA” DEPLORE!) CONFUSION SAID TO HAVE ARISEN “Admittedly, some of the fabrics sought after by the public have a definite fire risk— a fire risk higher than that of other, perhaps not quite so attractive fabrics. But should the trade and the authorities be stampeded by a bit of hysteria?" This question is asked in an article in the latest issue of the “Retailer of New Zealand,” the official organ of the New Zealand Retailers' Federation. The writer says that in the last 12 months, motor vehicles have been involved in very nearly one death a day, “to say nothing of the many serious accidents not involving a death. No one suggests we should ban the motorcar from our roads.”

A leading article in the journal says that considerable confusion among the public has been caused by recent publicity given in the House of Representatives, sections of the press, and other quarters to “so-called inflammable fabrics." The article says that practically all fabrics—whether natural staple fibres or man-made—are capable of combustion to varying degrees. Certain synthetics, though not combustible, can involve an element of risk if subject to abnormal heat. Fabrics with many, loose fibres on the surface will ignite more readily than similar closely-woven fabrics. Dlfficalty of Classification "Fabrics generally, however, apart from some synthetics, cannot be divided into two basic classes labelled ’inflammable’ and ‘non-inflammable’ respectively," the article says: “Various substances used in textile finishing processes may either increase or decrease the degree of combustibility. “No retailer can be expected to know what added substances there may be in every length of fabric he may stock. For one thing, some of the processes and materials are closelyguarded manufacturers' secrets; for another, the substances may vary in two apparently identical materials. “To campaign against ’dangerous’ fabrics on the false premise that textiles generally can be classified as, in one case, having a definite fire risk and, in the other case, being by implication perfectly safe is most unfair. "Retailers, too, must cater for their customers." says the article. “All buying policies stem from the consumer demand angle. While fabrics, which some well-intentioned people consider have a higher than average fire risk, make fashion news overseas, there will be a demand for them in New Zealand.” The article suggest that there should first be an educational campaign like that adopted by the Agriculture Department to check tractor accidents. If it is deemed essential after careful consideration to prohibit the importation, manufacture, use or possession of certain fabrics, prohibition should as far as possible be general, rather than specific in its terms, and based on some test readily available to an unqualified layman. Referring to the prohibition on nets impregnated with nitrate cellulose, the article says that there are fancy nets not containing nitrate of cellulose but identical m appearance with the nets in question. Any prohibition therefore should be so framed as to enable traders to recognise readily the prohibited article. "A prohibition based on the presence (or absence) of a named ingredient, that ingredient not being capable of ready recognition, is at best very difficult to enforce,” it says. "Publication of generalities about ‘inflammable’ textiles is disturbing to the public and the trade,” says the journal. "The advent of man-made fabrics produced criticism that this and that fabric would be, if not injurious, at least inadvisable. Prejudice was overcome, and synthetics play an ever-increasing important part in the textile industry, including blending with natural staple fibres.”