Yes, rickets, the bone disease that was ever so popular in the unenlightened 19th century is now making its triumphant return in the 21st to the coddled children of America.
Studies are being launched to see just how pervasive these increased incidents of softening bones and increased bone fractures are in children. The three causes: kids not drinking enough milk, not getting enough sun, and not enough exercise.
Is anyone surprised about this?
Parents keep their kids out of the sun because of all the fears that that UV rays will cause skin cancer. More and more schools are doing away with recess because of fears over lawsuits or having to deal with behavior that they can't control. Good old fashioned running around and playing is replaced with carefully controlled play dates. Little kids are constantly chugging down fruit juices rather than milk. Half the peak bone mass happens during adolescence, a time when today's teens aren't exercising or drinking milk or going outside, but instead sitting cloistered in front of computers or vegging out listening to iTunes and drinking soda.
This isn't a rant over how kids today are no good. It's how parenting and schooling that skids between sloppiness and overprotectiveness is once again not getting the job done.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at November 28, 2007 09:05 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingLet's not forget the increasing "milk is bad for you" stuff in the media, especially pushed by extreme vegan and animal-rights people.
All I could think of was the time on the Sim psons when Mr Burns blocked out the sun, and Homer Griped "These rickets are killing me!" Is Homer parenting all these kids for real?!
It's not so much that milk is bad, but more that there are better things to drink, and pass-proccessed milk might not be good from a variety of viewpoints.
But that digression aside, it's really challenging to raise kids. Maybe that statement seems obvious, but aside from the effort and energy required, there's a huge amount of information that gets thrown at you...in addition to the stuff you seek out yourself. And to add in another failing of our education system, very little of that information gets taught in public school. And the little that did get taught...in my case, over 20 years ago...it's now hopelessly outdated.
We gave our son whole cows milk until he was two, at which point the high fat content isn't needed as much for brain development anymore. He still gets cows milk, but far less than before, and then only organic.
To add to things, I was taking a look at the ingredients to the Dove Bodywash we just bought...I can't make out a single one. I'm sure hoping that something in there equals soap, but who knows?
It's become increasingly difficult to tell what's good, what's not good, what's safe, what's not safe. Take sun exposure. Yeah, we know too much sun is bad, but what about the alternative? It's harder to get proper exercise indoors, so muscle and bone mass suffer when kids are kept indoors because of fears of UV exposure. America puts tariffs on cane sugar, making it expensive, so products substitute high fructose corn syrup in just about everything that needs to be sweet...with no longer-term understanding of what exposure to high levels of that substance are.
And of course there's the lead paint turing up in toys.
It's hard work being a good parent, maybe harder now than in the past. I'm sure every generation says that.
I'm not a vegan nor a vegetarian, Yet I will also say too much milk is bad for you.
You can get Calcium and Vitamin D (which is actually the more important nutrient for bone growth/health/strength) from many other sources, all which supply a larger amount than milk.
Milk/dairy has triggered Psoriasis in three people I know: My grandmother, my girlfriend, and my girlfriends friends father. Removing all dairy from their diets has cured the psoriasis, where creams and other treatments have failed. (and I say all this as i drink a big glass of chocolate milk with my breakfast.) I would never tell anyone what to do with their diets, but I personally would not over-emphasize milk/dairy for this reason. Not when many other healthy foods carry the same, if not better nutritional value.
But besides that...I completely agree. Kids need to go out and play. When I was younger, I would watch tv and play video games but only after my homework was done, and after I played some sport in the street for 2 hours. I sit here at age 31, I play my video games and go online, and i WISH I had some friends who wanted to go out and play. I had to buy a pitching net and a pitching machine so I can pretend I'm 15! To this day, my mom will say to me: get off that damn computer and go outside for a while :)
IMO, I don't think its parents being overprotective, I think too many parents just don't care anymore. Too many parents are absentee, or they just want their kids to shutup and leave them alone. If the TV or video games can control the children, that is good enough for the parents.
I also think soda should be limited if not completely removed from childrens (everyones?)diet . A friend of mine from the midwest said they used to clean their toilet bowls with Coca-Cola. That was enough for me to stop drinking the crap. If its strong enough to clean your toilet, I cant imagine what it does to your insides :/
Michael
I've always been infinitely grateful that my parents didn't freak out at every report of what's good/what's bad for kids that came out when I was a kid. I had plenty of freedom to play and explore (and be *alone*, something kids don't seem to have anymore) and they didn't mind if I tried to eat the mud pies I made. They never got overly excited if a trip to the emergency room was needed for stiches or what used to be normal childhood injuries. I got generally balanced meals and barely ever remember drinking anything other than milk and water.
Thanks to that, I've got an excellent immune system and the only health problems I've got can be attributed to mistakes I've made, such as too many years of smoking.
I genuinely feel sorry for kids these days.
Jan
Y'know, it's funny. Given your love of using wordplay, including in the titles of your blog entries, I figured your use of "rickets" would turn out to be some sort of double meaning, or something. It's sad that it turned out to be an actual returns of rickets. But it's not surprising. This is what happens whenever pseudoscience gains a foothold in the public consciousness with regard to medicine. In its own way, the sentiments you report here on the part of parents with respect to UV is little different from the MMR vaccine controversy, or AIDS denialism.
I really don't think the proportion of bad parents to good ones has increased that much to account for this kind of phenomenon. I'd say the likelier culprit is very likely overprocessed American food and the accompanying lack of a calcium-rich diet (lots of veggies also provide calcium). I also believe culprits like overprocessing and high-fructose corn syrup -- and this is all top-down corporations-thrusting-onto-consumers stuff -- is at the heart of the so-called "obesity epidemic" much, much more than lack of individual willpower (or even more logical factors like heredity or yo-yo dieting). Whenever culpable corporate and government entities enlist their buddies in the media to spread lines about how something bad is consumers' fault rather than shouldering any of the blame themselves, that's always a red flag to me.
Then there's , of course , the assertion that tooth decay is on the rise because America is hung up on bottled water, which is not fluorinated. G-dam! is there NOTHING in the world that is harmless for humans to consume?
Bob
A portion of the problem no one wants to admit is the idea that firm parenting, that part of parenting that uses the word NO and goes against what the child wants, will irreparably harm the developing psyche, as it has for the last 1 million years. Current philosophy says that to tell a child No Soda, drink milk, No TV, go play, or no, you can't have $50 for another video game, is to demean your child and ignore his needs and desires. Thus, it is now okay to have a 5 year old who can't speak because there is still a pacifier rooted in his rotting teeth.
You also need a parent who is HOME and spends time with their kids. When the kid is in daycare 12 hours a day, he's not used to being outside. When he's supposed to stay inside after school until someone gets home at 6 or 7, he won't see the light of day. Children shouldn't be raising themselves.
And when the government keeps raising the price of milk - over $4 a gallon here - and soda costs $1.50 a gallon, what is a financially strapped single parent going to buy more of??? My crew goes through 7 gallons of milk and a pound of cheese or more every week, but not one of them has ever broken a bone.
G-dam! is there NOTHING in the world that is harmless for humans to consume?
I've got a friend who's an EMT who tells me that it's basically impossible to give a patient too much oxygen. I'm sure that someone smarter than me can come up with some long term problem associated with high oxygen content, but I'd still be that O2 is as close as you're going to get to an actual real-world answer.
If you want to talk intangibles, then maybe "God's love."
Teens have been surly and uninvolved since the beginning of time. But my kid has recess at school, plays in the sun (with sunscreen when appropriate), and his play-dates could hardly be called endured, much less "carefully controlled".
But yes. He doesn't drink a lot of milk. Wanna know why? Humans are the ONLY mammal that drinks the milk of other mammals, and there is WAY TOO MUCH crap in regular milk these days. Bovine Growth Hormone, antibiotics, and all sorts of other crap. No, thanks.
I'm not all that concerned that humans are the only species that actively seeks out other animal's milk to drink...we eat a huge variety of things. But I am concerned with all the stuff that's not milk that ends up in the milk in order to make it stay fresh longer, or gets passed through by the donor cow in order to make that cow more productive longer, or the stuff that gets carried through the cow's digestive system that's intended to make the feed the cow is given last longer, etc.
There aren't a whole lot of people or agencies looking out for the actual health and welfare of people. On top of that, most people don't give a second worth of thought about the safety of the food they eat.
And yet, for all the supposed crap that we're eating, aren't we living longer than before?
There might be a tradeoff--granted, too many preservatives can't be a good thing...but it might be better than risking aflatoxin in your produce. Though there's no reason we should settle for merely the lesser of two evils.
BTW-does anyone know if any form of artificial lighting can replicate the Vitamin D producing qualities of sunlight? The cruddy fluorescent lights of school are sure no help. Not suggesting this as a replacement fbor sun, just as a supplement
"And yet, for all the supposed crap that we're eating, aren't we living longer than before?"
And how much of that has to do with better medical facilities, fewer wars (at least so far as the US is concerned), better hygene, the fact that most of us don't have to chase down wolly mammoths for food anymore, etc.
And while we're living longer, aren't cancer rates up?
As a teacher I have to say AMEN!!
I have been really disappointed in how children today DON'T act like children. They have no idea how to go outside and have fun. As for the parents......... :(
Hopefully, information and problems like this will stear some back in the right direction...
MILK is beneficial because it provides calcium and vitamin D. But people who never drink milk CAN be healthy without it. And as a rule, milk is harmful to you; as a specific case, milk might not be harmful to you. It all depends on if you are LACTOSE intolerant or not. I am.
Calcium can be found in many foods. If you think you are calcium deficient, you can get calcium from a high quality supplement.
VITAMIN D is made by the body from the reaction to sunlight. In winter, most people in the US do not get enough sunlight.
ARTIFICIAL lighting can help somewhat in the winter, but the light must be from full spectrum lighting. Those bulbs are expensive. Standard incandescent bulbs will not help.
Bill,
I don't know if there's a lightbulb for humans, but I know that they sell full-spectrum lightbulbs for use in reptile terrariums. So, theoretically at least, you could install those in your house, and as long as your kids didn't develop scales or anything, you'd be good to go!
.
.
.
I get a lot of information on health subjects from Healthy Talk Radio. They feature natural health care.
www.healthytalkradio.com
Here is a specific link to an hour from the show that I just listened to last night. "How much Vitamin D do you need?" They also talk about other things in this hour, but the Vitamin D info lasts throughout the show.
I STRONGLY URGE EVERYBODY TO LISTEN TO THIS. I don't know that anyone would have the time to listen to all 3 hours of the show every day, but this one hour is a good place to sample the site.
(The link will go away around December 7.)
http://vista.streamguys.com/healthytalk/DRS20071127-11.wma
The answer is 2000 IU (International Units) daily.
100 mg equals about 400 IU.
Julian Whitaker, M.D., says that the recommended
daily amount of 400 IU is too little, especially in the winter months, when there is little exposure to sunlight. He also speculates that the lack of Vitamin D leads to a weakened immune system, causing people to get the flu in winter.
.
.
.
Here in Britain the government started several programs in schools, mainly for fighting obesity. Schools offer more PE (physical education). Children under 5 get free milk, children 5 and over get subsidized milk, like my daughter. Younger children are also entitled to one free piece of fruit or vegetable a day and school meals have to meet strict nutrition guidelines.
Fizzy drinks and sweets are not allowed in school lunch bags. Children are allowed to use a personal water bottle they can also have in class.
My daughter is a very fussy eater. When giving her fruit and vegetables at home, she might eat one carrot and one small piece of broccoli, and that takes some persuasion. At least she seems to eat her portion at school because she sees other children eating it. What we are doing is giving her real fruit smoothies so that she gets some natural vitamins and a vitamin and mineral supplement for children in the morning, as we call it, her "building block".
Fortunately, our daughter still loves milk and occasionally she eats yoghurt, too.
Otherwise, her favourite meals are eggs, fish fingers, toast with butter and nothing else and the occasional small piece of meat. It is not the best diet but she seems to be healthy and happy. And she is certainly not overweight.
From early on, she had milk or water, not the colourful sweet drinks other children got. Now she doesn`t even like them. When offered, she is asking for water.
Where we live, we are very lucky: We have a green area next to our house with a big play ground that actually offers a lot to children. If we would live in the middle of town surrounded by busy roads, providing excercise especially in school holidays would be much more difficult.
Bone disease doesn`t seem to be a problem here and I must admit, I have only seen very few children I would classify as obese.
All I can do is second that "Amen!" and say "mmm...bovine growth hormones..."
he fact that most of us don't have to chase down woolly mammoths for food anymore, etc.
Ahh... Those were the days! The real health program was running away from sabertooth tigers!
As for the parents....
Well, that's a loaded statement.
Maybe it is just me, but it sure seems that many parents let (particularly young) kids get away with more than I could as a child.
And while we're living longer, aren't cancer rates up?
That's to be expected--the longer you live the more likely you are to get cancer. Isn't it true that half of all men over 70 will get prostate cancer (though far fewer will die from it). Cancer seems a natural and expected result of aging.
I imagine that it isn't a big problem in Lesotho (life expectancy 42.6).
All that said, I'd rather eat eat meat that has as few added chemicals as possible and I'd like to see more effort put into alternative to chemical pesticides.
You know, one of the reports I read on rickets said that 10-15 minutes of sunlight per week was sufficient for kids. Holy smokes what kid isn't getting at least that much???
G-dam! is there NOTHING in the world that is harmless for humans to consume?I've got a friend who's an EMT who tells me that it's basically impossible to give a patient too much oxygen. I'm sure that someone smarter than me can come up with some long term problem associated with high oxygen content...
Well, there's fire.
I've heard a high enough quantity of oxygen will in effect slowly burn lung tissue. To burn something is to oxidize it.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=860
It may turn out that our practice of giving oxygen to heart attack victims may hasten their deaths. We need to keep them oxygen deprived and drop their body temp. Ice slurry infusions have great potential in improving our fairly dismal odds of surviving massive heart attacks.
www.damninteresting.com/?p=860
It may turn out that our practice of giving oxygen to heart attack victims may hasten their deaths. We need to keep them oxygen deprived and drop their body temp. Ice slurry infusions have great potential in improving our fairly dismal odds of surviving massive heart attacks.
"I'd blame parents, but he hasn't got 'em."
Gotta eat to live, gotta steal to eat, tell you all about it when I've got the time! :p
Anyway, this is sad news. I'm really surprised that kids aren't getting outside enough. I was under the impression that it was programmed into every parent to turn off the TV, stand in front of it and say "Go play outside! It'll blow the stink off ya!" Maybe that was just my parents.
Anyway, I have to ask the people who have mentioned that there are lots of other foods besides milk that provide Calcium and Vitamin D to please actually name them. I'd also like to ask them if you believe many kids will actually eat them. You see, I ask because I know that kids can get really stubborn about food and when they decide they don't like something and don't want to eat it, they won't. The whole thing reminds me of when I was younger and talked to some people about being vegetarians. When the subject of protein came up, they'd all say that there are plenty of other places to get protein. Then they'd list all sorts of beans. As a kid, I hated beans. Wouldn't eat them no matter what. I've since learned to like them but I'm still not crazy about them. Less strict vegetarians would promote eating fish. I didn't like eating fish until maybe I was in college. I never would have made it as a vegetarian. So, what I'm basically saying is that if you cut out all dairy and then try to base your child's Vitamin D and Calcium intake on certain vegetables that your child will NOT eat no matter what (including against the ever present threats of "no dessert" or "grounding"), you're kind of up the creek.
Me, though, I never had a problem with Calcium or Vitamin D. Then again, I just love milk. :D
Several wise men (Jesus, Aristotle) have discussed the value of moderation. That not only means food and drink, but work and play, love and lust, joy and sorrow. As parents we have to teach our children how to expel and conserve energy, and when its appropriate to do so. My daughter LOVES milk. She will drink it before juice. She's gotten a few upset stomachs from it, though.
I, on the other hand, avoid dairy because of Crohn's Disease. Every once in a while, though, I still drink milk or have ice cream. Just cause, you see.
Rickets? Crap...what's next? Scurvy? Bust out the limes!
Damn, Lance C Johnson *just* beat me to a comment about scurvy!
I agree that kids today (I'm 37 -- still not old by MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL standards, but old enuff to gripe about kids today) tend to be a lot less active than in the past. Athletic activities like sports and playgrounds have been laregely replaced with console games and watching tv or dvds. (And no, I don't think the Wii will contribute much to exercise.)
Thus, it is now okay to have a 5 year old who can't speak because there is still a pacifier rooted in his rotting teeth.
While I'm sure you've seen an example of such a wretched creature, have you seen such a large proportion of them that you'd describe it as being seen as "okay"? Are most, or even many, of the 5 year olds you see in that state?
"Let's not forget the increasing "milk is bad for you" stuff in the media, especially pushed by extreme vegan and animal-rights people."
Soy milk has just as much calcium as milk.
Oh yeah, and there's those pesky VEGETABLES that have lots of calcium. How do you think all those herbivores keep their bones strong?
Soy milk has just as much calcium as milk.
But let's not forget that some people are allergic to soy, and there are concerns about the effect that phytoestrogens have on humans.
Great. Next week we can look forward to the Plague rearing it's head again.
Personally, I blame anyone who uses the phrase "for the children." Okay, Tonka Trucks are now plastic, good sugar has been replaced by high fuctose corn syrup, teachers have been vanquished by the psycho-babble-speaking Ritalin pushers, people are putting foam hats on their kids when they have to piss, nutrition has been replaced by cost-effective dietary endeavors, and I, for one, am getting fed-up with it. No pun intended.
What the Hell has happened? When I was a kid (Damn I'm getting old) I never wanted to come back INside. None of us did. When we were outside we were in charge. Our parents were inside either having a fight or having sex. Or both!
Use of imagination led to crazy adventures and even crazier projects. Building forts, ramps, tree houses, digging holes for no good reason, farting on your friends only to realize that you've pushed a little too hard... "I gotta go home real quick. I'll be back."
It's like over the course of 25 years everyone became scared of everything. Kids can't go outside because it's not safe, but we want them to behave themselves while they're inside and then dope them up when they get a little hyper (after all the sugar water) because they can't go outside what with it not being safe and all.
Look upon these works ye fearfull and despair. Then go pop open a jar of the latest designer perscription pills for your semi-regular-yet-often-unnoticed-untill-Pfizer-brought-it-up-left-eye-twitch-sometimes-but-not-always-accompanied-by-an-out-of-place-eyelash, throw some of the green and blue ones back then wash them down with Pineapple Schnapps.
Might as well feed the kids booze for breakfast and be done with it.
To bobb alfred:
Where did soap go? I don't know what happened to soap. All I hear about now is Shower Gells and Bodywash.
Ben:
"Soy milk has just as much calcium as milk."
Sorry Ben, but I have to...
There is no such thing as Soy Milk. Milk comes from animals. Soy is a plant. Juice comes from plants. Hence, no Soy Milk.
Here, have a Soy Juice on me!
Please don't get me started on this 'Fish Isn't Meat' B.S.
Many Regards,
Mitch
I should talk I'm a 10 year addict of the internet.
I have the hunched backed spine to prove it played videogames for three years straight. but I see kids are becoming hunched backed from sitting on the computer for endless hours doing god knows what.
Kids brains are fried with LCDs, mountain dew, and ipod music that sounds good but doesn't teach anything.
But then again a real person shouldn't worry about looks.
Posted by David Hunt
G-dam! is there NOTHING in the world that is harmless for humans to consume?
I've got a friend who's an EMT who tells me that it's basically impossible to give a patient too much oxygen.
Actually not true - though you need a fair amount of pure oxygen under pressure before you start, essentially, burning the lung tissue.
John W. Campbell, jr (who also said that history doesn'r *always* repeat itself - "...sometimes it just screams 'Why don't you LISTEN to me?!?' and lets fly with a club>") once pointed that oxygen is the deadliest addictive drug known to man - one small does causes lifelong addiction, it's 100% fatal in cumulative doseage, and no-one has ever survived withdrawal.
Posted by Alan Coil
MILK is beneficial because it provides calcium and vitamin D. But people who never drink milk CAN be healthy without it. And as a rule, milk is harmful to you; as a specific case, milk might not be harmful to you. It all depends on if you are LACTOSE intolerant or not. I am.
I thank Whatever is responsoble for my mid-European ancestry that leaves me *not* lactose intolerant in my late 50s...
Building forts, ramps, tree houses, digging holes for no good reason, farting on your friends only to realize that you've pushed a little too hard... "I gotta go home real quick. I'll be back."
Ah, good times, good times.
Growing up in Upstate New York was pretty much as you describe it. We only got 3 channels on the TV, 4 if you could get your sister to hold the bent wire coat hanger just right. Plus, our parents made us play outside. Now I hear people saying their afraid the kids will get Lyme disease. We've ceded the outdoors to ticks.
I note that the situation now is somewhat divided on class lines--while the average middle class kid is probably sitting and playing Halo 3, the kids often disparaged as rednecks or hillbillys are out shooting deer and riding 4 wheelers through the mud. They can make a catfish trotline out of a bent needle and a spool of thread, while whistling "A Country Boy Can Survive". Ok, their music sucks but they bring me deer jerkey so it's cool. (in case you're wondering, deer jerkey tastes like salty leather)
So, come the zombie uprising, there will be some who have the good bone health to survive.
1)Posted by David Gian-Cursio at November 29, 2007 12:32 AM
....Are most, or even many, of the 5 year olds you see in that state?
I work in a library that runs preschool programs every day. I see at least 2 a day. You are guaranteed to see at least one in every restaurant, and at least 3 in every trip to the mall.
2)Re: body washes: they're a marketing joke. Read the label - sodium or aluminum laurel/laureth sulfate - the exact same main ingredients as your shampoo bottle. You are paying $6+ to wash with shampoo. Somewhere, some executive is laughing his butt off. If you must have it, buy a moisturizing shampoo for $0.88.
3)Re: Vitamin D - you CAN get Vitamin D toxicity. I did not believe it until my father, who was under a doctor's care for calcium imbalance after thyroid cancer, became toxic because the doctor put him on both supplements and a drug that said in tiny print, "Do not take with Vitamin D." It is quite dangerous in large amounts.
4)Re: "What's next, plague?" In the news headlines, someone died of plague in the US this month or last month, I don't remember exactly. It is endemic in the west, especially Colorado, where it is carried by mice, rats, and everyday squirrels, so don't be surprised.
Mitch - Count me in as one of those who grew up without video games and with little tv. Outdoors, with tree houses, snow forts, and other activities is where the fun was. Well, that and indoors with books.
Another problem these days is the fear parents have of bacteria. Houses are drowning in anti-bacterial chemicals with the predictable result that kids' immune systems don't get the workout they need to develop properly. Gregory Benford and David Brin wrote about that in HEART OF THE COMET 20 years ago when the expedition medic's most important job was to create and spread 'challenge viruses' to keep peoples' immune system up to snuff without actually harming them. It only took medical science another fifteen years or so to wake up to that fact and start sounding alarm bells concerning our too-clean society.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet because I didn't read through all of the comments, but I wanted to respond to PAD's point about schools eliminating recess and gym classes. It's not as much a matter of not being able to control behavior and the fear of lawsuits that's eliminating physical activity in schools. It's fear of the Department of Education. Because of Bush's high stakes test-loving "No Child Left Behind" and the anti-public school media, schools are often using recess and gym class time to give more time to students to work on their reading and math so that they can pass the high stakes tests that the district has to give. The last thing that a district wants to hear on the news is "Superduperland School District only has 25% of students that were proficient in reading and math under the guidelines of No Child Left Behind." To these districts, the elimination of gym and recess is a small loss compared to the public humiliation of kids not performing well on just one test.
Lessee, AdamYJ...many green veggies are high in calcium and protein. Eat some green beans or peas, broccoli, etc., and you'll be fine.
Diet is an acquired taste. Back in school when I decided to seriously lost weight, I reduced my beef intake to nearly 0, ate only chicken when I did eat meat, and ate a lot more salads. Best move was cutting out soda and juice, switching to water. I dropped 30 pounds in two seasons. I hated it at first, but after a while, my tastes adjusted and I was fine with it, even enjoying my food.
The key is your expectations. You'd be surprised what you can tolerate and accept when you adjust what your expectations are.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet because I didn't read through all of the comments, but I wanted to respond to PAD's point about schools eliminating recess and gym classes. It's not as much a matter of not being able to control behavior and the fear of lawsuits that's eliminating physical activity in schools. It's fear of the Department of Education. Because of Bush's high stakes test-loving "No Child Left Behind" and the anti-public school media, schools are often using recess and gym class time to give more time to students to work on their reading and math so that they can pass the high stakes tests that the district has to give. The last thing that a district wants to hear on the news is "Superduperland School District only has 25% of students that were proficient in reading and math under the guidelines of No Child Left Behind." To these districts, the elimination of gym and recess is a small loss compared to the public humiliation of kids not performing well on just one test.
Phys Ed isn't going away, it's changing. Many, if not most schools have eliminated things like dodgeball, not only out of fear or lawsuits, but because it's not really a skill that carries over into the real world. The stress now is on lifelong physical activity, so Phys. Ed. often focuses on training students to enjoy activities that will carry over beyond graduation. Our school is what is called a "PE4Life Academy" where students are hopefully taught that physical activity shouldn't stop when school lets out.
As I have asked on this page several times, please don't generalize about all schools based on what you know of one or two. Most are doing their utmost to do right by their kids in spite of the interference from the government, the apathy of many parents and the animosity of the uninformed.
George Carlin started saying all this years ago. Kids are so weak and coddled compared to even when I grew up (I'm 38) it's pathetic. It's coming back to haunt this country already
Thus, it is now okay to have a 5 year old who can't speak because there is still a pacifier rooted in his rotting teeth.Are most, or even many, of the 5 year olds you see in that state?
I work in a library that runs preschool programs every day. I see at least 2 a day. You are guaranteed to see at least one in every restaurant, and at least 3 in every trip to the mall.
It's nice to know we're ready for that No Ecstasy Left Behind testing.
"but because it's not really a skill that carries over into the real world."
It's too bad I have yet to use much of that 5 years of math and 3.5 years of science I took in high school.
Why is it we can't play dodgeball, but we can waste our time learning about sines and cosines and all the little things that make up plants when the great majority of us aren't going to be rocket scientists? :)
I wouldn't so much blame parents and schools directly as I would blame the "experts" on child care and education. Parents today, more so than when I was growing up, seem to be bombarded with mutually contradicting data about what is good and not good for their children. Honestly, I find myself in this situation as well. Organic baby food? That whole organic spinach packaging scare gave me the willies. My wife still swears that it's the best thing for the boy. Milk or formula? Whole milk or reduced fat milk?
Half the stuff my parents let me do growing up would be considered illegal and borderline reckless now (lawn darts games, riding in the back of a pickup truck, playing in the woods near our home without an adult riding herd on me). All the stuff I remember as fun is frowned upon. I honestly can't necessarily blame new parents for being confused, because as one of them, I know I often am. I just try to balance things as best I can. It's tough for me to think ill of someone who takes the safest way (keeping kids out of the scary cancer-causing sun, giving them fruit juice instead of dairy products when half of the expert commentaries you see advise you of problems with our society overdoing it with dairy products) when they are blasted with so much conflicting information.
I checked out the link that Rich provided. Now, to both me and my son, that looked like the most dull place ever. I can't stand treadmills or stair climbers. Want to get exercise from walking? That's why they invented sidewalks. Want to get exercise climbing stairs? GO UPSTAIRS. I work in a six floor building, on the sixth floor. Now, when I'm bringing equipment up to the sixth floor, I see people wait 10 minutes for the elevator to go up ONE FLOOR. When the stairs are ten feet away, they still complain that the elevators take forever. Makes a LOT of sense, that.
I checked out the link that Rich provided. Now, to both me and my son, that looked like the most dull place ever. I can't stand treadmills or stair climbers.
I can understand that. This is a case where the pictures don't convey a thousand words, I guess, but they really do have a good curriculum that the kids have taken a shine to. They love the climbing wall, and the pictures don't show things like the kids using DDR in class. About the only thing the kids tend to gripe about is the swimming portion of the year because they hate getting their hair wet. It's not just throwing the class on a treadmill and having them go to it for forty minutes.
Aside from the pus cells in bovine mammary milk, there's the issue of hormones. Isn't it also amazing that gorillas don't get rickets, yet they don't drink cow's milk?
We are the only species that not only drinks the milk of another species, but does it long after it's needed. Cow's milk is designed to make a BIG cow from a calf in a year, not for humans. If we wanted milk closer to "mother's milk" go for chimp milk, or even pig's milk.
As to the rickets issue, check out: "Resurrecting Dairy's Rickets Lies:"
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/notmilk/message/2841
FYI, Mark
Christine wrote: "Ahh... Those were the days! The real health program was running away from sabertooth tigers!"
Reminds me of a great Bill Cosby routine called "The Neanderthal Man", from his album, I Started Out as a Child. At one point, two saber-toothed tigers are "basking in the sun", and one tiger tells the other one (Arnold), that a Neanderthal Man is sneaking up behind them, intent on hitting one of them with a stick.
"Say what?" Arnold asks.
"That's the same nut who hit me with a rock and run like hell yesterday," the first saber-toothed tiger replies.
As to the lack of activity among kids today, I can only speak about those kids I know personally. My younger cousins, now all but two of whom are in their teens or early 20s (the exceptions are 12 and 6) have all been active growing up. I don't know whether they had (have, in the case of the 6-year-old) recess, per se, but they were/are active in various organized sports and ran/run around a lot and play(ed) outside when at home.
My 5-year-old nephew is also very active at times. On the other hand, when I visited him last summer, and decided to explore the woods on the property, I walked, while he drove an electric Jeep-like vehicle. I tried to encourage him to walk, too; but he preferred to drive.
Still, he is only 5 and is not, as a rule, a sedentary child. What's more, the next two times I visited, we drove our bicycles together. Also, his parents limit how much pop and "junk food" he can have.
Will he play a lot of video games growing up? Possibly. Certainly more than I did, because they didn't exist during my childhood (at least not so far as we ever knew). I was in my early teens when we got our Atari 2600 (after relentlessly going after our parents and finally breaking them to our will), but even then, I still spent a lot of time outside, driving my bike, walking the dog, climbing trees, and going into the woods and climbing Suicide Hill.*
(* a not all that big hill, which my friend Matt named when he slid down one side of it, twisted his ankle and said, "man, you can kill yourself on this thing." Someone left an old Big Wheel there, and Matt and I used to take turns driving it down one of the steeper faces of that hill.)
I can't speak to whether kids today get enough milk. I know that I've cut down on my own milk consumption-- because the stuff's so costly these days. More often than not, I eat my cereal raw.
Rick
Just because your local school is doing better with PE doesn't mean that there isn't an issue. I'm not sure if this is what Will was originally referring to, but there was a report on KPCC (Los Angeles NPR station) that noted that, among other issues facing the LAUSD, they have ZERO students who passed the physical fitness requirements. Given the size of LAUSD, that's a lot of students. Probably more than a rural PA district has ever seen.
In the news headlines, someone died of plague in the US this month or last month, I don't remember exactly.
There was an odd case in Colorado a few years back when a woman ran over a squirrel with a rider lawn mower. The blood formed an aerosol that she breathed in and gave her plague. More proof that little good comes from yard work.
When I was living in Albuquerque, I recall hearing about cases of Plague every summer. It's not that big a deal anymore. I suspect the only reason it even gets any news play is because of the novelty.
.
All too often these days, the response to being told some Information We Don't Really Want To Hear is to ridicule the message.
Global Warming? "It's 10 below zero with wind chill. So much for Global Warming! HAHHAHHHA!"
In this case, lack of exercise and poor nutrition is bad for you. "Ah, that's just nonsense. They say everything is bad for us! Next thing you know, breathing air will be bad for us! HAHHAHHHA!"
There have been many posters here who offhandedly ridiculed the message.
The question is: Why do you do this? Is it that you can't or don't want to face reality? Is it that you don't really care? Is it that you are confused or disillusioned and try to cover it by reacting by mocking? Is it that you are afraid and are lashing out in anger of the unknown? Is it that others do it and you want to be part of the crowd? One thing I do know, it isn't because you are stupid. Stupid people don't hang around this site.
Some sources of Vitamin D. I did a 3 minute Google search to find this list. Yes, there were several sites that were of little or no help.
# Fatty fish such as salmon, mackerel, tuna, sardines, herring.
# Eggs, butter, dandelion greens, milk, oatmeal, sweet potatoes, tuna, and vegetable oils.
3.5 ounces of cooked salmon or mackerel provides 360IU. 3 ounces of canned tuna provides 200IU. 1.75 ounces of sardines provides 250IU.
1 tablespoon of Cod Liver Oil provides 1360IU. (!)
Therefore, 1 teaspoon would provide 453IU, more than enough to meet the daily recommended amount.
As I mentioned in an early post, Dr. Whitaker says the daily amount should be 2000IU.
.
Amendment to Vitamin D post.
Some Cod Liver Oils have the Vitamin D removed. Always check labels.
(I would suspect that few would be willing to try the oil. I like the taste of it, but then again, I'm weird.
During the 1960s, when I was a young kid growing up in Chicago, I remember:
Idly knawing paint off of the windowsill of my bedroom window while looking outside. That "sweet-tasting" paint was no doubt lead-based.
My sister and I finding a big jar of mercury on a bench in the dingey basement of the apartment building we lived in. We took it outside and played with it, poured it into our hands and on the sidewalk, etc., because it was fun to watch the beads burst into a thousands pieces.
Eating dirt in the back yard.
My sister and I once found an emaciated stray cat and brought it home. My mom got rid of it, but not before my sister and I contracted ringworm.
Having rock fights and pinecone fights.
Shooting myself in the eye with a Johnny Reb Cannon that, unlike toys today, could probably stun or kill a small animal at 20 paces. I didn't lose the eye, but after the bleeding stopped, I had to wear a much-hated eyepatch for a long time.
Climbing trees, drainpipes, roofs and walls all over the neighborhood. One time, I even tried to get on the roof of a three-story apartment building by climbing up a telephone pole ABOVE all the power lines. Another time, I shimmied up the three-story drainpipe of a local church. I also participated in the urban sport of jumping from garage roof to garage roof -- until my foot went through the rotting slats of one particular roof.
Jumping off of buildings into snow piles -- especially during the Big Snow of 1967.
Getting sideswiped by a car in broad daylight as I was showing off in a busy street in front of a girl from school. More scared I would get in trouble than hurt, I ran like hell all the way home.
Playing in construction sites and city sewer project trenches.
Getting sunburn almost every time I went to the beach (yes, Chicago has beaches)
Sliding down coal chutes and playing in piles of coal in the basement of our apartment building.
"Skitching" rides on icy side streets by grabbing the bumpers of passing cars and "skiing" with our shoes.
Blowing up plastic models or launching cans into the air with firecrackers, cherry bombs and even an occasional M-80
Playing in the nearby railroad yards and hopping aboard slow-moving freight trains just leaving the yards -- riding them for a few blocks, or even a mile or two (And in the process, occasionally getting chased or shot at with rock salt guns by the railroad police).
Playing with bb guns and slingshots.
Playing hardball with no protective equipment (we didn't have any) on rocky dirt baseball diamonds.
Monthly visits from the exterminator, who sprayed all the baseboards of our apartment with some nasty-smelling, oily stuff that was probably DDT-based.
The fact is, I spent the majority of my youth in what today would be considered an extremely hazardous environment, yet I, along with my friends and siblings, somehow managed to survive. We played outside on the hottest days (most of us had no air conditioning, so what difference did it make?), and the coldest days (after all, it takes quite awhile to build an igloo or a king-sized snow fort)
Heck, not only do many of today's cloistered, hermetically-sealed kids miss out on all of the fun stuff we used to do, they are a sickly lot, with rampant obesity, asthma, diabetes, allergies, and now, apparently, rickets.
I'll take occasional ringworm, scrapes, cuts, bruised eye sockets and sunburn any day. Hell, at least we were out there living and having fun!
Hmmm - I had to get more than halfway through the thread before somebody blamed rickets on Bush. Is this really peterdavid.net?
This just in: the Surgeon General has just announced that doing anything, anywhere, with anyone, will kill you.
Have a nice day.
(yes, that joke has been around for a couple of decades now.)
Chris
I agree that a lot of child-rearing today is overprotective and anti-competitive, but cannot agree with the ridicule of reasonable precautions. Once it's known that a chemical is dangerous, it is only common sense to avoid exposing children to it: Cancer and birth defects are not badges of honor. There are many sources of Vitamin D, and the increased future risk of skin cancer from childhood sunburn is a very serious thing, so every effort to prevent sunburn is wise. The elimination of "dangerous and competitive games" is indeed foolish: Suggesting that children are harmed by winning or losing at games is just unrealistic - Everybody wants to win, and as an adult one cannot avoid competition. I had a friend in 4th grade whose parents were so afraid he'd hurt himself at football that they insisted he be allowed to play soccer - at which he broke his thigh on the first day of practice.
"The fact is, I spent the majority of my youth in what today would be considered an extremely hazardous environment, yet I, along with my friends and siblings, somehow managed to survive. We played outside on the hottest days (most of us had no air conditioning, so what difference did it make?), and the coldest days (after all, it takes quite awhile to build an igloo or a king-sized snow fort)
Heck, not only do many of today's cloistered, hermetically-sealed kids miss out on all of the fun stuff we used to do, they are a sickly lot, with rampant obesity, asthma, diabetes, allergies, and now, apparently, rickets.
I'll take occasional ringworm, scrapes, cuts, bruised eye sockets and sunburn any day. Hell, at least we were out there living and having fun!"
I've seen this rationale before, and with no apologies, it's the stupidest, most illogical reasoning people can present. All of the activities you list involve some risk. Just because you didn't suffer any serious, long-term effects doesn't mean those acts are safe. Nor does it mean that it's a good, wise, or smart thing for kids to do, or for parents to allow, encourage, or want their children to engage in.
So you played with mercury and haven't noticed any side effects...bully for you. Talk to the parents with children that develop serious brain damage or other life-long effects and ask them if they would happily allow their children to repeat those actions simply because it was fun. Or talk to a parent that's lost a child to a car, train, or attractive nuisance like a coal shoot whether they think the moments of thrill their children experienced moments before they died what was likely a painful and terrifying death if it was worth it, and whether people should just ignore the dangers that exist in the world around us because they might be a source of fun.
Now, I do feel that our actions for safety do go too far at times, but that's to be expected. I'd rather err on the side of overprotection when it comes to children...who after all do often lack the life experience or even chemical-brain makeup to make good decisions when it comes to acceptable risk...than have to read about some story of some injury or death that could have easily been prevented had some adult remembered that children don't see the world the same way.
I think it's incredibly stupid to suggest that the only way to "live" or have "real fun" is to involve some element of danger, especially when many of those risks are easily manageable.
Idly knawing paint off of the windowsill of my bedroom window while looking outside. That "sweet-tasting" paint was no doubt lead-based.
My sister and I finding a big jar of mercury on a bench in the dingey basement of the apartment building we lived in. We took it outside and played with it, poured it into our hands and on the sidewalk, etc., because it was fun to watch the beads burst into a thousands pieces.
Eating dirt in the back yard.
Why am I flashing back to Irwin Mainway?
The question is: Why do you do this? Is it that you can't or don't want to face reality? Is it that you don't really care? Is it that you are confused or disillusioned and try to cover it by reacting by mocking? Is it that you are afraid and are lashing out in anger of the unknown? Is it that others do it and you want to be part of the crowd? One thing I do know, it isn't because you are stupid. Stupid people don't hang around this site.
I imagine that part of it is that there is just too much overkill on the part of the people crying wolf. and when I say that, let me point out that ultimately, there were wolves in the story. The constant drumbeat of doom is doing no good if people stop listening. What foods haven't been called dangerous at one time or another? Look at the list of foods that you were kind enough to list (and thanks, btw):
# Fatty fish such as salmon, mackerel, tuna, sardines, herring.
Mercury levels, especially in higher level predators like Tuna and salmon. Concerns over farm raised tuna. The word "fatty". The problem of overfishing.
# Eggs, butter, dandelion greens, milk, oatmeal, sweet potatoes, tuna, and vegetable oils.
Was it only a few years ago that eggs were the silent killer? And butter was so bad for us that they pushed margarine and spreads on us. NOW we are told that those saturated fat filled substitutes are the bad ones. Dandelion greens may have pesticide problems (and have a taste that is very much an acquired one, though I rather like it). Again with the tuna! Google Vegetable oils danger and get a whole slew of stuff about how bad rapeseed oil (marketed, for obvious reasons, as "Canola") can kill, using flaxseed oil to counterbalance the "dangers" of corn, soy, canola, safflower and sunflower oil...good grief!
Not to mention the whole "genetically modified frankenfood" talk that makes you wonder if cannibalism is the only safe alternative. Though, looking at my neighbors, probably not.
My point is not that we should just throw our hands up and pay no attention to what we put into our bodies--far from it--but people are not to be blamed for thinking that an awful lot of what passes for "nutritional facts" are anything but, driven by a desire to get in the news and/or push some particular agenda. Or sell stuff.
And yeah, it's retarded to say "It's cold outside! Global warming is a fake!" but it was equally retarded to say "It's hot outside! Who can now deny the reality of global warming!"
I might add, for those easily frightened by out of context facts, that castor oil comes from Castor beans which contain ricin, one of the deadliest poisons on earth. Workers who pick the beans suffer from nerve damage.
Also, hexane is used to extract vegetable oils. That can't be good. Just look at the name: Hexane. You almost have to hiss it. Can you ever imagine saying "Boy! I'm thirsty! Give me a cold hexane!" Of course you can't. You CAN, however, imagine some supervillain telling Batman "Now I will leave you to your doom, as you are slowly lowered into a vat of boiling Hexxxxxxane!"
Screw eating, I'm going out to play with my jar of mercury.
Bobb Alfred wrote: "I think it's incredibly stupid to suggest that the only way to "live" or have "real fun" is to involve some element of danger, especially when many of those risks are easily manageable."
Then, what you're saying is that everyone who lived in the past was far more stupid than, say, you.
The fact is, even with all the countless rules and restrictions that have been imposed on society in the past 40 years or so, has it radically improved life expectany and the quality of life of people?
You see, for many of these restrictions, there are trade-offs. For example, the elimination of DDT had positive effects on the environment, but has led to the deaths of millions EACH YEAR in Third World countries because there is no longer and effective way to kill mosquitos carrying malaria (http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=4032). In addition, insect pests like bedbugs are now coming back with a vengence because there is no effective way to easily exterminate them.
And while child injuries from certain hazardous toys that have been banned, look at all the serious injuries kid get from toys that haven't been banned that are far more dangerous: skateboards, ATVs and bicycles.
And what about those under the age of, say, 25 who are allowed to drive, when statistics clearly show that tens of thousands of these folks are killed or permanently injured each year in motor vehicle accidents?
And why isn't alcohol banned, since it kills, leads to injury, or causes serious health problems for millions each year in the U.S. alone?
Yet, what "serious" problem in this country gets the most screaming headlines these days? Toys painted with lead-based paint.
And you think I'M stupid?
Can't argue with what has been said in the past, Bill, but most of what passes as Public Service Announcement type news stories is corporate propaganda.
Margarine was never good for us, butter is only bad for a few people. Good Cholesterol is actually needed by the body. At one time, my cholesterol was 137. My doctor told me to eat more high quality meat. He said at 137, I couldn't possibly have enough good cholesterol. Some people with cholesterol at 250 never suffer any of the supposed associated negatives.
Essential fatty acids, Omega's 3, 6, 9, are also needed by the body, but must be in a certain balance. 9 is easy to get, so many people need more 3 and 6.
I deliberately did not mention Genetically Engineered (Genetically Modified) foods because writing about everything that I know (and I actually know so little) would take forever. Long posts get boring to me, and I assume others, too. I just last weekend did some research on GE foods. The key point is---they have not been properly tested by the FDA. Are you eating GE foods today? Possibly. Soy, corn, canola oil, and cottonseed oil are GE to some extent, depending on the variety grown. Why do farmers use GE seeds? Because they get higher yields with less fungus and insect problems.
www.biointegrity.org
=====
In a discussion at Newsarama, a poster questioned in anybody knew if I was in the comic book industry because I was posting so often in the thread about internet piracy. He asked "in the interest of full disclosure". I am not. But in the interest of full disclosure, I am not involved in the natural health field. I have no investments in natural health. It is something about which I just happen to be passionate.
Lead based paint.
The local news station (back when I still watched television, which I will not do again until the strike is settled) telegraphs its news items with its promos of upcoming segments.
"Dogs are banned from City Hall except for one! Which one? We'll tell you all about it next Tuesday, right here on XXXX-TV!" Gee, which one might it be? Lemme guess: the Mayor's dog, because the Mayor had been in the news about his dog a week before. (I was right, but it was too easy.)
"Do you have toys in your house that are unsafe? Join us at 6 tonight as we tell you about these toys that could cause death!" Well, it was lead paint. I knew that one, too, as the national newscasters had been talking about it for 2 days. While it is true that lead paint can cause death, it is almost always a slow, slow process.
And that gets to the crux of the problem: sensationalism. Make it flashy. Get people's attention. Make their heart race. Then go on to the next big scare the next day. As long as the media continue with sensationalism, the real facts will continue to be unimportant.
For well over a week, the same channel teased their testing of smoke detectors, saying there was one type that did not go off until 8 minutes after the others. If they were truly interested in the Public Good, they would have run the piece immediately, and not waited until sweeps week.
If you want to learn something these days, you pretty much have to do so on your own.
Alan, I agree with what you write...but it confuses me that you would then wonder why so many people respond to the latest bad new with ridicule and doubt. It's an intelligent response to repeated sensationalism, even if it ultimately isn't the best response.
Right after I wrote that came the latest in the "Oh, never mind" sweepstakes--remember the Gospel of Judas that made a big splash and even inspired a thread here. Well...never mind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/opinion/01deconink.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Basically, National Geographic botched the translation in ways that made it pretty much a 180 degree opposite of what the text was really saying.
Oh well, they got the publicity they wanted. Very disappointing, coming from the National geographic.
Alan Coil wrote: "If you want to learn something these days, you pretty much have to do so on your own."
Yeah, I agree with that statement wholeheartedly.
On the whole issue of risk/safety, as a youth I took hundreds, maybe thousands of risks, by today's definition of risks. Some I was aware of, others I wasn't.
As I reached my 20s, I took less and less risks as my risk awareness grew, but as I also quickly realized that there was no way to eliminate most risks without severely limiting one's lifestyle.
Thus, in certain situations I avoid risks, and in others I take calculated risks. But unfortunately, some of those who have the power to legislate can FORCE me to abide by THEIR definition of what is and is not a calculated risk -- whether I want to or not -- and regardless of how much I disagree with their assessment or rationale. That is what really torques my jaw.
Maybe, maybe not, Bill. She is out trying to sell a book and she’s making a few points that aren’t that strong.
She raised an objection to the National Geographic translation of “daimon” because daimon is almost always accepted to mean “demon” when looking back at old Coptic texts and translating them. Thing is, that’s how we look at it now. The Coptic term daimon was borrowed from the Greek language and is a Greek derivative for the term demon. However, the Greek term "demon" means "replete with knowledge." They also believed that there were good and bad demons (eudemons and cacodemons) and the word was actually used when adopted by other cultures in a like matter for some time. Socrates even mentions having a daimon that offered him guidance over his life without ever forcing him to take a particular action. The word was from a Latin root, daemon, which meant an individual guardian spirit.
It wouldn’t be the first time that a Coptic, Greek or Latin word caused this type of argument. The Latin based “malus peior pessimus” means bad, wicked or evil. This caused a fun bit of “common wisdom” misinformation due to a phrase in the Bible that used a variation of that. From the same word, but having no meanings in common at all, the Latin word for “apple” is “malus.” The most commonly accepted translations of the word “malus” in ancient Coptic translations is “evil” and the bases for the modern “malice.” Still, that didn’t stop the word “malus” from being confused for the word “malus” more then a few times over the centuries even when the reading should have been clear to the translators.
As to the rest, I’d have to better research her claims VS theirs again. Still, I’ll hold being swayed to either side until I see a bit of a point counter point. I will admit to a lifelong bias here. I’ve always thought the story of Judas as a bad guy didn’t quite add up. If God sent his only begotten son to die for our sins and the whole crucifixion, resurrection and all the events around that were what God meant to happen to begin with, wouldn’t it be necessary for Judas to “betray” Jesus? Moreover, if you believe that Jesus was merely a man who was martyred for his cause, wouldn’t he have had to be “betrayed” and martyred somewhat by design in order to solidify his movement and the creation of Christianity’s founding belief in its savior?
Well, sure, but just because good can come from an evil act it doesn't follow that the perp was any less evil.
The problem of free will vs God's omnipotence is one that I certainly can't solve. I don't even get quantum physics and that's based on the natural world. What chance do I have of getting the supernatural.
Anyone else see that article that said we may have set in motion the destruction of the universe by observing it? There are times when science sounds kookier than religion. Scientology excepted.
But is it actually evil if it is in fact God's will and plan?
Yeah, saw the thing. It was in November's "New Scientist" magazine. The weblink is:
It's... interesting?... reading.
Sorry, I forgot that you have to be a subscriber to get their full pages up. Try The Telegraphs version if you're not a subscriber to NS's mag.
I'd rather err on the side of overprotection when it comes to children
The problem with that rationale is that it gets to where we are today: where once you're overprotective of one thing, you become overprotective of another thing, and another, and another, and another.
In the end, I think there's something to be said of letting Darwin's theory do its work in the world at large rather than trying to remove anything that could possibly hurt anybody.
In certain areas, like with mercury, lead, and DDT, we lived just fine before these things, so we can certainly live after them. But we also lived with dodgeball in PE classes, letting kids actually lose games rather than worry about their having hurt feelings, and so on.
Shooting myself in the eye with a Johnny Reb Cannon that, unlike toys today, could probably stun or kill a small animal at 20 paces. I didn't lose the eye, but after the bleeding stopped, I had to wear a much-hated eyepatch for a long time....
The fact is, I spent the majority of my youth in what today would be considered an extremely hazardous environment, yet I, along with my friends and siblings, somehow managed to survive. We played outside on the hottest days (most of us had no air conditioning, so what difference did it make?), and the coldest days (after all, it takes quite awhile to build an igloo or a king-sized snow fort)...
I'll take occasional ringworm, scrapes, cuts, bruised eye sockets and sunburn any day. Hell, at least we were out there living and having fun!
I think it's incredibly stupid to suggest that the only way to "live" or have "real fun" is to involve some element of danger, especially when many of those risks are easily manageable.Then, what you're saying is that everyone who lived in the past was far more stupid than, say, you.
I think Bobb is saying anyone who doesn't know to keep the eye-'splodin' cannon out of the hands of children now is stupider than him, and I don't see how that isn't true.
The fact is, even with all the countless rules and restrictions that have been imposed on society in the past 40 years or so, has it radically improved life expectany and the quality of life of people?
Yes. the damage of cigarettes has been portrayed as reducing life-expectency of the average smoker by 5 years. My understanding is that life expectency has been raised more than 5 years in the last 40 years. Therefore, health has been improved in the last 40 years for everyone better than for all smokers if they were to stop smoking immediately.
The problem of free will vs God's omnipotence is one that I certainly can't solve. I don't even get quantum physics and that's based on the natural world. What chance do I have of getting the supernatural.
My understanding is that Vonnegut's portrayal of non-linear time (where the only real difference between the past and the future is that we can remember one, but not the other, and which is incompatible with the notion of free will) in Slaughterhouse Five and Sirens of Titan is in accord with the physics the atomic bomb was built on.
Anyone else see that article that said we may have set in motion the destruction of the universe by observing it? There are times when science sounds kookier than religion. Scientology excepted.
I don't see how you can't say the same "sounds kookier than religion" observation applies to the observer effect (often confused with the uncertainty principle) for what seems to be the same reason. I find the universe seems uncannily orderly where our fate is portrayed as unknowable but written.
Perhaps I glanced to quickly at the article I'd read but wasn't the Observer effect the very thing they were talking about?
I've always thought that Schrödinger's cat would be a great basis for a zombie story.
Other than that i've never really found this sort of thing understandable enough to be interesting. Probably a failure on my part--I'm a biologist, not a physics guy. Cut open a frog, it bleeds, I get that.
One question--if observing the universe destroys the universe isn't the universe fundamentally doomed, given the likelihood of life in a universe of 70 sextillion stars in the observable universe? I mean, who's to say we are the first to make the observation? Maybe the denizens of Pinkus East doomed the Universe years ago. I don't want us to take the rap without cause.
My point about the lead-based paint is that while lead can be hazardous when ingested in significant amounts, there are a thousand other ways a child can get seriously hurt or killed that lawmakers and other do-gooders never address.
For example, while dodgeball is being eliminated from schools, there is no big push to eliminate the far more dangerous sports of football, gymnastics or wrestling.
The reason for this is simple: Politicians and do-gooders generally only go after the easy targets. This form of moral cowardance leads to crazy and conflicting stances on issues such as health, safety and the environment.
And sometimes, as in the case of the DDT ban, eliminating one problem has lead to another that has, based on the numbers I've seen, killed far more people in the past 30 years than did, say, Hitler and Stalin during there murderous reigns.
So, while I'm not against smart safety measures, such as seatbelts, other safety laws mandated seem arbitrary, unrealistic and just not very well thought out.
Yet even in the case of seatbelts, why do all cars and planes have them, but not trains and buses -- especially school buses? Think about it. In most (all?) states, you can be ticketed for not wearing your seatbelt in your car, but most school buses don't even have seat belts. How dumb is that?
R. Maheras, you're making two widely different arguments...I'm not totally certain, but I think you're trying to straw man me.
Do I think people 40 years ago were stupid for letting their kids do many things considered too risky today? Not really. Maybe people didn't really understand the full extent of the risks involved in, say, lead paint. Hard to call someone stupid when they didn't know better at all.
But as Mike stated, suggesting that we allow kids today to take the same risks we, their parents, were allowed to take, when we know to a greater extent that dangers of such actions, yeah, I'll call that stupid all day long, and well into the night. What good are we as parents if we don't act to protect our children from the dumb things we did as kids?
As for the numerous other things that pose risks to kids that are still allowed, that's neither here nor there. The fact that some more risky actions have not been targeted does not invalidate the actions taken against other dangers. If you don't care for legislative actions, vote for candidates that share your concern, lobby those elected to make such changes, run for office yourself and make that your platform, etc. But to suggest that such inaction is a reason to invalidate action is...again...stupid.
Given that this conversation occurs under the title of the return of rickets...due in part to parents' actions taken to protect their kids against other dangers, and possibly changing entertainment choices at home...I find it pretty ironic that you'd spout off the "every action itself comes with new risks" line. I don't think I've made any statements suggesting that I'm unaware of that. But once again, that reasoning leaves one no way to act...if they change their behaviour, they may make things worse, but to allow such behaviour to continue means certain risks will be taken, and we know some of those existing risks are considered unacceptable. That reasoning can paralyze you and lock you into a cycle of accepting known risks, and prevent you from seeking safer and better alternatives.
Perhaps I glanced to quickly at the article I'd read but wasn't the Observer effect the very thing they were talking about?
I didn't see the observer effect referred to specifically in the article, so I didn't want to put words in its mouth, but you seem to have confirmed my observation.
In a discussion at Newsarama, a poster questioned in anybody knew if I was in the comic book industry because I was posting so often in the thread about internet piracy.
I missed this post of yours, Alan.
I must admit, that was pretty funny reading that over on Newsarama. There's nothing quite like such leaps in "logic" ('you say this, so you must work for them, qed') to brighten one's day.
R. Maheras said: "And while child injuries from certain hazardous toys that have been banned, look at all the serious injuries kid get from toys that haven't been banned that are far more dangerous: skateboards, ATVs and bicycles."
I understand the point you're trying to make, but a bicycle is not a toy. It is a vehicle, a means of transportation. That bicycles for kids are sold in toy stores sometimes irks me because it reinforces the perception that a bicycle is a toy (not to mention that a toy store employee might not be as knowledgeable about the proper way to assemble a bicycle as the employee of a bike shop).
And where (in my opinion, at least) does the perception of the bicycle as a toy lead us? Well, for one thing, while children up to a certain age, should drive their bikes on the sidewalk, adults on bicycles belong on the road (with a speed limit of 35 MPH or less). That's the law in some states, perhaps all of them. However, this perception that bikes are toys, not vehicles, keeps many people on the sidewalks on their bikes, even as adults.
What's wrong with this? As long as you yield to pedestrians, what's the harm? None, so far as that's concerned, but not everyone yields to pedestrians.
And what's more, you can go pretty fast on a bike. Faster than someone on foot. Sometimes at near motor vehicle speeds (c. 25 MPH or higher). If you cross an intersection, or a driveway, or an alley, or in front of store fronts while biking on the sidewalk, people in cars won't be expecting you. They're alert for pedestrians, not for a human powered vehicle that might be coming along at 25 MPH.
Yes, it's ironic. Even though far too many people seem to think bicycles belong on the sidewalk, they also aren't conditioned to watch out for fast moving bikes on the sidewalks.
Now me, I generally drive my bike through subdivisions to get from one place to another. Even though I have every legal right to drive my bike on roads with a 35 MPH speed limit, the traffic volume (and actual speeds) on some of those roads precludes me from actually doing so. In such cases, I sometimes have to use a sidewalk to get from one lesser traveled road to another. But when I do, I always slow my pace and if I'm crossing an intersection, make damn sure the driver of a car knows I'm there before starting across. But I've seen other people zip through intersections (mostly subdivision streets, not major roads) with sometimes the barest glance to either side.
Last summer, a woman almost forced me off the road (with a posted speed of 25 MPH) as she screamed and swore at me because I wasn't driving my bike on the sidewalk (guess who became the murder victim in the mystery story I began writing that same day?). She insisted that only cars belonged on the road, despite the fact that bicycles are legally allowed (and required in some cases) to use the roads, and the fact that roads pre-date cars by centuries. Unfortunately, she's not the only person I've encountered with this attitude. Again, I believe this attitude stems, in part, from the perception that because kids drive their bikes on the sidewalk, everyone should.
And also because people seem to regard bicycles as toys, they don't get the respect they deserve. Oh, sure, we (hopefully) teach our kids how to be safe when on a bike; how to signal turns and stops; and to look out for cars and pedestrians. But I don't think we teach them-- or least we don't teach them (and ourselves) well enough-- to understand that while bikes are an enjoyable means of transportation, they are not toys.
Rick
P.S. For the record, when it comes to driving your bike on the road, you're to stay as far to the right as practicable, which means someone biking on a road that has no storm sewer grates along the side of the road can get closer to the curb than someone on a road that does have them. Everyone please keep that in mind next time you see a cyclist on the road. And, of course, if there are parked cars, a cyclist can't drive right next to them, but needs to leave room for the possibility someone might open a door or suddenly turn into traffic.
They're alert for pedestrians
As someone who is nearly run over by cars on a regular basis while crossing streets on foot, I'd have to say that for many drivers this is misplaced faith. ;)
Me: "They're alert for pedestrians"
Craig J. Ries: "As someone who is nearly run over by cars on a regular basis while crossing streets on foot, I'd have to say that for many drivers this is misplaced faith. ;)"
Let me rephrase. They're theoretically alert for pedestrians. Or to perhaps put it a better way, car drivers (generally) tend to see pedestrians on the sidewalk, while cyclists are "invisible" when on the sidewalk.
(Not that they aren't also sometimes "invisible" when on the road).
Rick