Babyglow temperature sensing clothing: because you're dumber than your newborn

The most gullible shopper on the planet has to be the first time parent. Well meaning consumers who at their core are scared senseless. Chris Ebejer knows this and has developed a line of Babyglow clothing for newborns meant to communicate changes in your baby's temperature -- the fabric turns white above 37-C or 98.6-F. Ebejer claims to have spent 6 years and more than a million dollars to perfect the fabric -- sure, even though similar, if not exactly the same tech has been around in novelty-Tees for the last 20 years. How much does a single bodysuit cost? Try £20 or about $33 per. Are you really going to trust this man with your treasure, be it carbon or gold?

[Via Gizmodiva]

[kwikit (aka tikiwk) @ Jun 18th 2009 6:49AM]

I'm not a parent, but I am an uncle and a friend of various couples who have children. This is a decent enough idea, but wouldn't it make much more sense to use something like a bracelet (fabric) that can be reused more frequently? I mean, what's the advantage of temperature measure of the whole body? I honestly don't know.

Frankly, if it was the only way, and it ensured early warning of a fever or overheating, it's obviously priceless. Baby clothes aren't cheap in the first place.

I say buy one, tear it to shreds, make a bunch of bracelets / anklets out of them, and carry on with the care of baby. :)

[jay jay @ Jun 18th 2009 7:17AM]

i don't think it's needed everyone knows when someone feels warmer than normal and parents are going to find out relatively quickly anyhow since they'll always going to be holding it (to feed or change diapers). this seems to be a gimmick to make new parents feel safe but in reality isn't needed.

[rickjamess04 @ Jun 18th 2009 8:16AM]

Instead of an ankle bracelet, can't we just go on ebay and buy a Hypercolor t-shirt? I mean, they should be suing since they were the original to come up with this ridiculous idea.

[TheBDJ @ Jun 18th 2009 8:31AM]

Baby clothes aren't cheap? Are you insane? They sure as hell aren't $33 and we've (my fiance and I) have bought clothes for friend's and family member's babies for less than $5 multiple times and almost always less than $10. Anyone dropping $30+ on their kids clothes needs to have their head examined. Of course, these are probably the same parents who will drop $200 on a t-shirt and jeans for their teenage kids someday.

[Blackstar @ Jun 18th 2009 9:30AM]

Look, when will parents just learn to stop over-clocking their babies?

I know that you get this new bundle of joy your first instinct is to push him as far as the little guy will go, but it's not a good idea.

And until you can get some decent water-cooling or a really, really good heatsink crib, just leave the baby running stock for now.

[MacFevre @ Jun 18th 2009 9:35AM]

Hah! Over-clocking their babies. That's a good one. Maybe they ought to step up to a nice heat-sink shirt then they wouldn't have to worry about the temp. :) Next they'll have a little pump next to the crib pushing a water cooled diaper...

[Tim Brown @ Jun 18th 2009 10:26AM]

Ok, so if it gets hot it goes white, what about if the kid gets cold, most parents will assume that since it is the right colour, they kid is at the right temperature. I agree with Blackstar, if you are going to overclock your kid then install a decent heat sink and fan on the chest and let that to the work, you can pick one up for less than this thing.

Also he looks like a Del Boy wannabe, and as such, how much of the research money went into that tan?

[David @ Jun 18th 2009 1:13PM]

Interesting concept... I guess medical professionals have been wrong for all these years, those silly people take peoples temperatures INSIDE (mouth, ear, anus) but all they had to do was point a infrared thermometer gun at the person's skin. Totally accurate!!!

All joking aside... if my SKIN is 98.6+ I'm probably pretty effed.

[Dan Fruzzetti @ Jun 19th 2009 12:58PM]

All this money and the truth remains that the most accurate scientific instrument any of us has available to us to test our children's health is our own bodies. If I want to know whether my child has a fever, I touch her and feel the heat flow. If I'm not absorbing too much heat, she doesn't have a fever.

Seriously, to purchase diagnostic equipment that's better than your own body would cost a fortune. An enormous fortune.

And I'm a new, first-time parent :P

[Nathan @ Jun 18th 2009 6:51AM]

Hopefully they set up a program that automatically charges parents for a new and slightly bigger set every week.

/garage sales

[Dexter. @ Jun 18th 2009 6:54AM]

Wow. Just wow.

Thermochromatic fabrics have a finite number of cycles; meaning they wear out. What happens once you wash these (even at 40degC) as often as baby clothes get washed? Besides, babies don't change temperature that often, unless they're ill. In which case as a parent you'll know your baby is ill because of the constant whinging. Then, a reusable thermometer will tell you if your baby is sick.

In short, I think this guy could have done better putting his Mil elsewhere. Wish I had $1,000,000 to spunk away on some crackpot idea!

[ryaninc @ Jun 18th 2009 6:55AM]

I have a two month old and while this is a good idea in theory, I would never pay that much for it.

As an aside, it's good to see a baby product actually use a cute baby on their advertising material. So many baby items use painfully ugly babies on the packaging. :-)

[mirakutea @ Jun 18th 2009 8:47AM]

snow crash reference?

[Saibot @ Jun 18th 2009 9:16AM]

you serious, cute? about as cute as kick in the teeth! this babies eyes are waay to close together and the right one is bigger then the left! he looks he's been in a fight with the other baby models to decide who got to where the new sleepsuit, only then did he realise it was pink, hence the pissed off look on his face!

[ryaninc @ Jun 18th 2009 9:19AM]

Cute is a relative term. Go walk around Babies 'R Us for a little while and the baby in this post will start to look better and better. Some products just use crazy ugly babies, I don't get it. :-)

[Saibot @ Jun 18th 2009 9:29AM]

It is probably so we all feel better about our own babies, as you say alot of babies are ugly, so if you use an ugly one in an ad you make parents feel better, and then they spend money!

[cayton @ Jun 18th 2009 7:03AM]

That baby has a really big head! If she(?) stood up, she would look like a walking candied apple.



/Seinfeld reference

[Gi @ Jun 18th 2009 7:07AM]

you are NOT the father!

[Ranger Rick @ Jun 18th 2009 9:13AM]

Seinfeld... Not Springer.

[dsteve303 @ Jun 18th 2009 7:06AM]

What happened to a good ol' thermometer up the butt?

[Nelson @ Jun 18th 2009 8:01AM]

It now goes in the ear (Or across the forehead)... Get with the times!

[EI8HT @ Jun 18th 2009 8:08AM]

The proper answer is that it is (optional)

[Jamie @ Jun 18th 2009 11:59AM]

temporal and aural thermometers are not as reliable as rectal thermometers. We have a 15 month old, and you use those only to get a basic reading (which helps if you're hoping not to wake the baby up), but pediatricians ask that when you call in, that you've done a rectal temperature reading to be accurate.

I highly doubt that the clothing changes at exactly 98.6 and if it did, is the color change exact or gradual, and what does it do if the temp goes below 98.6 (possibly indicating SIDS which is of the utmost concern for parents of children that age). What about their extremities where the temps are nearer to 98.0?

This would be utterly useless if the clothing turned white at 99.0 or 98.2 which is a totally safe range of body temp.

I would rather have an audible signal if the child's temp were at an unsafe level because if I can see the clothing, I am more likely going to check them by touch then by looking in and saying, 'oh yeah, the kids pjs aren't white, cool, pour me another vodka so I can get some sleep'.

[jay jay @ Jun 18th 2009 7:10AM]

that baby looks petrified.

[MrNuclear @ Jun 18th 2009 8:43AM]

You would be too if Dr Evil was crouching over you!

[andymac @ Jun 18th 2009 7:13AM]

bald git

[xaml @ Jun 18th 2009 7:23AM]

You're somewhat good at electronic and consumer-ish subjects, you know, which do not require too much of intellectual activity around the upper region. Now, with newborns, you're as clumsy as it can be. You (dear author) probably have no kids, how could you, you're too busy carrying around so many "toys" (phones, netbooks, ipods, usb sticks). Now, one couldn't of course expect you to even slightly TOUCH the "SIDS" subject. Yeah, throwing an acronym at you, CEO of the irrelevant. I have an idea: why don't you wear this pajama on your head as a hat, so that you're warned whenever your nerval regions get too "hot", meaning indicate actual thinking.

[Nathan @ Jun 18th 2009 7:36AM]

Surely, if you were worried about increased temperature increasing a risk of SIDS, wouldn't it be more wise to take this sleeper OFF the baby?

[TheBDJ @ Jun 18th 2009 8:38AM]

You are either an ignorant parent or no parent at all. At best, there is a correlation between room temperature and SIDS and not necessarily the babies temperature. And since this fabric doesn't respond until fever ranges, you sure as shit would no your house was too hot before it hit 98+ F.

Not to mention, most SIDS cases occur when a baby is asleep, which also happens to correspond a lot to when the parents sleep. I don't think a magical color changing fabric is going to alert someone who isn't looking at the kid. So any reference to SIDS would be pretty meaningless.

Seriously, this is a done and rather worthless idea, but there will be some schmuck for a parent that will buy this because they are too lazy or stupid to use thermometers or listen to the whining kid when they aren't feeling well.

[james @ Jun 18th 2009 7:25AM]

I dont know whats more terrifying.. the man or the baby..

[wunch @ Jun 18th 2009 10:03AM]

The man, definitely the man. He looks like a used car salesman who, after selling you the Baby Glow, will also try to sell you the baby to go along with it. The baby appears to realize this, from the look on his face.

[Carl @ Jun 18th 2009 7:29AM]

Of all the many ways in which this is a useless idea, the one that struck me is the temperature setting. Newborns don't regulate their temperature very well, so this thing is going to be white about half the time. For it to be even remotely useful, it would need to distinguish between "a little hot but perfectly normal" and "feverish, action required".

Massive fail.

/Father of one pre-schooler

[james.kelly76 @ Jun 18th 2009 7:41AM]

Why is this even mentioned on a site like this? I have a two week old dauthter and this site is by last bastion away from anything baby, or pink, for that matter!

With one small artical about a completely crap product (if a parent cannot be bothered to touch their baby to see what temperature they are then they probably shouldn't be parents) i've got nlowhere else to go

[Mikey @ Jun 18th 2009 9:49AM]

James, get used to not being able to get away. I have a 10 month old son, and I still can't get away. The sadder thing is when Engadget or Gizmodo has a post about a useful baby product, and you will find yourself saying "Hmm... that's a good idea." Then, you shiver and wonder when you "grew up."

[pocketfulloftoys @ Jun 18th 2009 10:03AM]

"I have a two week old dauthter and this site is by last bastion away from anything baby, or pink, for that matter!"

Pink? Let's not forget all the Hello Kitty (Kitty Chan) gear shown here.

[Cameron @ Jun 18th 2009 7:58AM]

37°C is the core temperature of the body, the skin and extremities arent near this temperature. That suit is more likely to change colour if your heatpump is on overload than if your child is sick!

Gullible parents will buy it though, cannot have enough protection for little Jimmy can we!

[Dorf @ Jun 18th 2009 8:13AM]

My baby could kick that baby's ass! :-)

[Adnium @ Jun 18th 2009 8:14AM]

Please, please, please put this photo up as a caption competition!

[Joe @ Jun 18th 2009 8:16AM]

Even if this outfit does measure internal body temperature accurately, the normal temperature for babies is already above 37/99 degrees. I guess I'd only be concerned if my babies' outfit wasn't white.

[c_henry @ Jun 18th 2009 8:52AM]

"The most gullible shopper on the planet has to be the first time parent. Well meaning consumers who at their core are scared senseless."

Classic!

However, it does make me wonder why we need these now after we've shown our ability to fill the planet with how many billion people?

[N8 the Gr8 @ Jun 18th 2009 9:08AM]

Obviously we don't have a lot of parents on here. It's pajamas? It's not ideal to take your babies temperature while they are sleeping. If your child is sick and finally sleeping, the last thing you want to do is wake her/him to take their temperature. (a fever can kill a baby) While it would be great to get an idea of your child's temperature just by looking at her/him, I don't think this would do the job.

[Saibot @ Jun 18th 2009 9:17AM]

just place your finger on the back of their neck for a temperature reading, can even do it while they are sleeping... simples

[Mikey @ Jun 18th 2009 9:51AM]

They also make really accurate temporal artery thermometers (in the forehead/temple) that can be used while your baby is still asleep (assuming he/she is a sound enough sleeper), in case you are worried about a severe fever. Either way, this product is pretty stupid at any price, let alone $33 a pop.

[Ranger Rick @ Jun 18th 2009 9:14AM]

baby looks mad funny hahaha

[Necrotix @ Jun 18th 2009 9:29AM]

Wow I think this is a great idea. Would have saved me many very sleepless nights staying up with newborns a few years back. Obviously the author doesn't have kids since he thinks this is silly...

[Mikey @ Jun 18th 2009 9:55AM]

I have a newborn right now, and this is still a silly product. It won't really work as intended, and there are cheaper options (like feeling the baby's forehead with your hand... which is FREE) or a good temporal artery scanning thermometer (which is cheaper than 2 of these and is actually accurate).

This *sounds* like a good idea, but when you think about it critically, it really isn't.

[CtrlBurn @ Jun 18th 2009 9:47AM]

Is that Bull from Night Court?

[Jsjohnson @ Jun 18th 2009 12:52PM]

As the father of a 4 year old who had multiple fevers associated with ear infections as an infant, most doctors won't even call you back until your baby has reached 103F or more for an extend period of time since they spike periodically for a variety of reasons. As such, this clothing really should be set to at least 100F since this thing will freak people out needlessly if it changes to white at 99F.

[peepeepants @ Jun 18th 2009 10:21AM]

Chris Ebejer = Right Said Fred

His baby is too sexy for this clothes!

[Tim @ Jun 18th 2009 10:40AM]

Oh yes ... clearly you know all about SIDS. How about informing some of the doctors who are still stuck researching it - the silly fellows that they are.

Someone already pointed out SIDS is more likely when an infant is asleep and, if you ever had your own, you'd konw that parents are either sleeping or sleeping when an infant is asleep.

So besides that, this magic fabric changes color at 98.6 degrees? That's great, except how does it measure core temperature from the outside of the body? The head is the most accurate external place to measure and...well this doesn't cover the head. The extremeties are useless, they vary greatly depending on many factors. You can attempt to measure the torso but, again, that will still vary depending on several things - the simplest of them being the room temperature and if the child is wrapped in blankets.

Depending on where the cut-off temp is, there's a huge potential for false positives and negatives. Given parent's inability to 'parent' these days they often rely on crap like this. Just be aware how rabidly they will sue when a product doesn't prevent their ignorance from leading to injury or death of a child.