Why Does It Help to Reduce the Risk for Some but Not Others?

   Critics of an accidental poisoning explanation for unexplained infant deaths have pointed out that turning a baby onto his or her back should not reduce the risk of dying if a toxic gas is responsible. In response proponents argue  quite simply that the movement of a baby's nose and mouth 180 degrees away from the surface of the mattress is an extremely strong argument in favor of their accidental poisoning  explanation.  The risk remains for the majority of babies, in spite of the back position, because babies continue to be exposed to the lighter gas of phosphorus. If this was not the case the back position should be 100 per cent safe. It is also of critical importance to point out that by the age of 5 months the majority of babies will be able to roll from their backs to their tummies during sleep.

   Barry Richardson, who demonstrated the generation of poisonous gases from crib mattresses, recommended a simple measure ten years ago; namely, require manufacturers to remove phosphorus, arsenic and antimony from baby mattresses, or else cover all mattresses with a polyethylene material  that contains none of the chemical elements he considered dangerous. 

   In New Zealand and England, where these  recommendations have been partially adhered to, the unexplained death rates have indeed fallen. In fact, no baby sleeping on a mattress or cover, which is free from these chemical compounds has died. The best medical recommendation would be to urge all parents to protect their babies from chemical compounds and mildew and to simply observe what happens.

   In addition  examining existing liver tissue samples from babies who had previously died from confirmed unexplained deaths would be an good interim step. If antimony is present the first question which must be answered is "how did it get there?"  The next question would be "did it cause the death?"

   As part of the Cook Report, which was aired on television in England, 50 per cent of the babies in the unexplained infant death study group showed amazingly high liver tissue levels of antimony not found in a control group.  This study was followed by a study that also showed high antimony levels in older siblings who did not die.  Unfortunately, phosphorus could not be tested for in blood or tissue samples, or all deaths might have shown an accidental poisoning as the possible cause.

    The fact that phosphorus is normally found in all babies makes phosphine detection impossible. In spite of the fact that there is no other explanation, other than a gas, that could have accounted for the antimony results, the medical community still doesn't test for antimony, arsenic or phosphorus  Why?