Child-Safety-News

Invisible Scars

2011-12-16T19:13:00.000-07:00

In his book ‘Invisible,’* artist turned author Hugues De Montalembert, who tragically lost his sight when a burglar threw paint remover in his face, describes a scene that unfolded with a Paris Taxi cab driver. During a Paris trip in a taxi-cab, the Cambodian driver extended his sympathy towards Montalembert for his obvious handicap. The author thanked him for his concern, but remarked that there were “people much more wounded than me.” A moment of silence ensued, before the cabbie opened up and confessed that his wife and children had been slaughtered right before his eyes in Cambodia. “So there he was,” Montalembert writes, “driving his cab in Paris with this huge wound that nobody could see.”

This story illustrates a principle that is very active in our everyday lives, and one we should all try to remember more often: Our perceptions of the world, especially those involving judgments or assessments of others, are limited by what we don't know about them. A primary contributor to many of the problems we face in this world is that everyone is limited by their own perception, and thus blinded by what we cannot see.

We float about our daily lives, bumping into our fellow human beings along the way, relating to each other like pinballs - reacting according to what we encounter on the surface. We all have a tendency to get lost in our own little world, dealing with all the problems and little dramas in our own lives. Amidst this, we tend to forget that others have their own issues that they are dealing with, and that these issues can impact the choices they make or the way they behave. We take in a fraction of a percent of the knowledge about other individuals, yet we turn around and use this sliver of a perspective to make rash judgments that we then hold in the utmost confidence. From the people we judge on news or TV shows to those we interact with in our day-to-day lives, we are all guilty of making surface judgments about others.

Not every taxi-cab driver has had his wife and children slaughtered in a genocide, but every single one of us is the product of our inherent biological quirks interacting against our life experiences, and you rarely see even so much as a glimpse of the behind-the-scenes material that makes the person. We all carry our own scars and woes, our own hidden stressors, and it is usually these hidden issues and underlying insecurities that drive the ugliest behavior we see in others. Perhaps the rude man you ran into at the grocery store just received a foreclosure notice. Maybe the woman who cut in front of you in line is worried about losing her job if she's late getting back from her break. Perhaps the driver who just cut you off is working two jobs to make ends meet and is caving under the stress. Perhaps the ex-convict who was re-arrested for committing another crime had filled out a thousand job applications and could not find a single employer who would give him a chance, and so he regressed back to the only way he knew to make a living.

With every person and in every situation, there are always angles we cannot see. It's a reminder to be a little more patient, a little more compassionate, and perhaps a little more understanding and less judgmental when others do upsetting things or get on our nerves. Nobody wakes up in the morning with a desire to be evil or means spirited; each of us is merely doing our best to manage the unique struggles we each face according the mental and environmental resources we have available. It’s good to remember this when you end up on the receiving end of someone's less-than-desirable behavior. There are always underlying stressors and hidden motivations residing under the surface. So always keep in mind that your perspective is limited - don't let your view of the world be blinded, or your empathy for others dampened, by ignoring the things you cannot see.

Learning Physics While Skateboarding

2011-12-09T19:48:00.000-07:00

A cleaver study by psychologist Michale McBeath of Arizona state University, found that skateboarders are better than college students at answering physics questions related to slope. When give the problem of predicting which ball reached the bottom first on two slopes, one with a steeper incline, then a flat spot in the middle, then another steeper incline, verses a slope with s steady decline and not flat spots, more experienced skateboarders recruited from a skateboarding park got this counter intuitive problem correct (61%) than did college students (27%). The correct answer is that the ball on the slope with the long flat area will reach the bottom first, because it's slightly incline on the other two sections makes up for the level area.

So how does this experiment pertain to you kid? We found it interesting because it shows that intuition about complicated mathematical concepts really does come from experience learned through a child's interaction with the physical world. Weather it be skateboarding, riding bikes, playing sports, or simply getting outside in nature, a child's core intelligence is strengthened through physical activity and interaction with the natural world. So send your kids outside so that they can study physics!

Teen Girls, Competition; and Self-Esteem

2011-11-27T20:01:00.000-07:00

We all want our sons or daughters to be winners and not losers. But when it comes to teens and competition, there may be something more important for your child's self-esteem than whether or not they win or lose.

New research out of California State University, in collaboration with the University of Texas at Dallas, examined two types of competition involving high school seniors: competing to win and competing to excel. The spirit of competing to excel is not necessarily to beat out your competition, but to surpass your own personal goals or improve one's skills. In the study, more boys than girls reported competing to win--a finding consistent with other research. And for boys, who are naturally more competitive to begin with, this attitude of seeking to dominate rivals, annihilate the competition, and prove their superior skill did not significantly relate to outcomes of mental health.

Yet the spirit of competition seems to affect boys and girls differently, and among teenage girls, it was a quite different story. Females who said that they competed to win reported higher rates of both depression and loneliness, as well as fewer friends and social relationships, when compared to girls who said they did not compete to outperform their competition. Meanwhile, in both boys and girls, competing to excel was correlated with higher self-esteem, more feelings of achievement and lower rates of depression.

There could be several reasons for such a finding. More competitive teens tend to be harsher both on themselves and others when they feel they don't measure up. And since these psychological inventories tend to capture traits that leak into other areas, it's hard to say which is causing which. (More competitive spirits may be more often seen in narcissistic and/or self-absorbed teens, as well as in those with a poor self-image, who may use competition as a crutch to make up for other self-esteem issues.) And of course, teens that make a habit of showing off and showing down their peers will tend to drive away friends, thus leading to more social isolation, loneliness, and depression.

Whatever the answer, there is one thing for certain: it's not necessarily whether you win or lose, but the manner in which you approach the competition. It's a message I'm sure most parents would agree with, yet it's one that often gets lost in practice. Too often the focus in competitions rests solely on winning, with awards, trophies, and recognition/praise given solely for beating the competition. Whether as parents or as educators or as coaches, we could all do more to encourage competing to excel versus competing to win. Do we recognize a child's improved performance? Do we comment about how they've improved over themselves? Do we award self-growth in sports and other interests as much as we do dominating the competition? Or is the focus merely on winning or losing?

You don't need to downplay the thrills of winning or pretend that losing can't be unpleasant. We’re not trying to advocate a delicate-flower philosophy where everyone must get a blue ribbon just for showing up. Just try to include the focus on competing to improve oneself, and make it just as much a part of the game as a win/loss column. It will help youth develop a more well-rounded and healthy spirit of competition. After all, few of us can be Tiger Woods or John Elway or Kobe Bryant. If the only goal is getting to the top, it's one that will end in failure for 99.999% of youth.
But when the focus is built as much around improving oneself as it is measuring up against others, it's a goal everyone can feel good about obtaining.

Some quick guidelines for promoting the spirit of "competing to excel":

1. Set individual goals for participants in team sports, and reappraise them at the end of the season.

2. Point out the varying degrees of ability in everyday life. Even among professional athletes who have reached the top tier, there are varying degrees of ability, yet all are an important part of making up the team.

3. When your child loses a game but scores a goal or plays well, do you celebrate their performance? After all, a game is comprised of many parts that are more than just a score card, and these can be praised even amidst a loss.

4. Model this behavior yourself. It's going to be difficult for your kids to adopt this spirit if you treat winning as everything yourself.

5. Make a habit of praising other players, teams, and play. This sends the message that it’s OK to recognize the skills of others without feeling threatened by it.

6. Start early. If you foster this spirit in little league, kids will have healthy attitudes towards sports during the teenage years and for the rest of their life.

The Darker Side of Reusable Grocery Bags

2011-11-19T21:01:00.000-07:00

Kudos to those who have started using renewable grocery bags when they shop. Lord knows our depleted planet needs any relief from the parasites that are us which we can possibly give it. But like all things in life, there are sometimes unintended trade-offs, and a few of these are becoming evident as consumers make the switch from paper or plastic to reusable grocery bags.

One thing people need to be aware of is the possibility for contamination from reuse. For example, if you put a hunk of meat in your bag, and it drips, you could start your own little E-coli culture in the bottom of the bag, which could sicken your family if the next time you place vegetables or other food items in it. A joint study by the University of Arizona and Lona Linda University in California found that half of the 84 reusable bags they tested had coliform bacteria, which is not surprising considering 97% of users said they never wash them.

Also concerning was a recent report by the Tampa Tribune, which found that reusable bags purchased at Winn-Dixie, Publix, Sweetboy, Walmart and Target all contained lead. This is particularly troublesome given that we put our food in them. The good news, according to testers, is that the lead seems to be in paint used for illustrations on the bag, which wouldn't easily rub off on food, though it might eventually flake.

In response, retailers are asking suppliers to make reusable bags with less lead, and some are calling on federal agencies to put a ban in place for reusable bags that contain lead. Don't ask us why it's so hard to make bags without any lead, but apparently, it is.

Reusable grocery bags currently make up 10% to 15% of the market, and are expected to grow to as much as 25% in the next few years. And there's good reason to be using them. Plastic bags are the world's second most common form of marine debris (the first is cigarette butts) according to a 2009 report by Ocean Conservancy, an environmental group.

Just be sure to take proper precautions. Wash your bag regularly, particularly after using it to transport something that is potentially hazardous, such as raw meat. Or you can make an exception for meat products and stick with the stores plastic bags rather than transport it in your reusable one. That way you can have guilt-free shopping while ensuring your family's safety at the same time. Almost guilt free, I should say ...there's nothing to be done about that bag of cookies in the cart.

Parents: No cellphones for toys

2011-11-09T20:01:00.000-07:00

Call phone are like computers: if it is a few years old, it's already out of date. But as millions of parents update their device, many have been giving their old cell phone to the kids to play with. This, however, has created an unintended problem for 911 call centers.

Many parents don't realize that as a safety feature, any deactivated cell phone can still dial 911. It doesn't matter weather the service is shut off, if it still has juice in the battery or some other power source, it can still call 911. Some will even dial the emergency number simply by pressing 9. So as parents let their preschoolers play with a deactivated cell phone that still has power, it has presented an unintended problem for emergency responders.

So if you want to give your child an old phone as a play prop, please make sure that the power in the battery is completely drained. It may be more fun for kids if the buttons work, but not so much for the police and firefighters who have to chase down rogue calls.

Sewage in Your Tap-water...Oh Joy!

2011-11-02T21:21:00.001-06:00

This is America. And in America, you assume there are certain things you can count on. You expect that the electricity will work if you pay your bills, or that you're not going to fall into a giant, unfixed sinkhole while driving down the highway. And you assume that when you turn on your faucet, clean water, and not untreated sewage, will greet your efforts and fill the sink. Yet a new report suggests such simplistic assumptions may be naive. It turns out that your dog may have known something you didn't all those years: the water in the toilet might be just as clean as the water supplying the taps in some areas of the country.

A new report by the American Society of civil Engineers (ASCE) paints a dim picture about the state of America's water system. National drinking and wastewater systems scored a pitiful D-minus on the group's annual report card - the lowest grade in their analysis. Alongside the ever-growing list of crumbling infrastructure problems in the U.S., it seems that our water systems might be in the worst shape.

Most unsettling of all - and you can chalk this one up alongside that memory of the time you surprised grandma in the shower as things you'd rather forget - was the disclosure that as much as 10 billion gallons of sewage flow through America's taps annually. As a result of this and other problems, approximately 19 million people are sickened from degradation in our water delivery systems every year. On top of that, in some places more water leeches out of pipes than people actually drink. It's lost through thousands of miles of old water delivery systems, some of which are made of wood or Terracotta. With shrinking water tables across the continental U.S. and the dreaded "water wars' scientists have warned about for decades just starting to arrive, this water waste is concern enough of its own.

Sewage leeches into the pipes because in some places, both water and waste pipes run along the same routes. So if pipes in these areas are heavily corroded, then puddles of sewage from a leaking waste pipe can find their way into a corroded water pipe. There are also problems in some selective water treatment plants.

The situation in New Mexico is especially dire. More than $1 billion is needed to bring its water system up to snuff, and the ASCE says fixing the water system should take top priority, naming it a more pressing concern even than roads and schools. (Lest New Mexico become even more like the water supply in old Mexico, which isn't a good thing, as many unfortunate tourists can attest to.) The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that nationwide, around $300 billion is needed to bring the nation's water systems up to date and up to code. Cost estimates from the ASCE are even higher. So far, the Obama administration has secured $6 billion, hardly a drop in the bucket. (A putrid, sewage filled bucket.)

On the bright side, the taps in most areas are perfectly safe, and often times less polluted than what you might find in bottled water (which often contains contaminants leeched from the plastic; see 'The SPA Debate: Are Plastics Poisoning Your Children?) but certain problem areas, especially in rural communities that are being supplied by pipes that are old, outdated, or rusted through, it's a much different story.

In the mean time, there is one other thing you can take comfort in: It hasn't killed your dog yet.

Bad Booster Seats

2011-10-14T20:49:00.000-06:00

Booster seats can keep a child safe in a car crash, which is why many states have passed regulations requiring them for children up to 8 years old or 80 pounds. The purpose of the booster seat is simply to make the seat belt fit the child, protecting against paralysis and other serious injuries that occur whenever a child's body is whiplashed in a crash. This can occur when the shoulder strap (which provides vital upper body support) is either behind them or riding too high across the neck, rather than the child’s mid section. Yet a new study by the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety finds many booster seats fail miserably at their soul purpose: positioning the seat belt properly across the child’s body.

The latest test found that half of all booster seats do not deliver a proper fit with all safety belts from different vehicles. They found 6 in particular that were especially bad:

Evenflo Brand
1. Chase model
2. Express model
3. Generation 65 model
4. Siteseer model

Dorell's Safety 1st Brand:
5. Safety First All-in-One model
6. Alpha Omega model

If you are currently using any of the above models, it is recommended you switch safety seats for your child to a higher rated model. The study gave high ratings to Harmondy Juvenile Products, who’s models of car seats all rated as "best bets." Britax Frontier 85 also scored highly. You can check the IIHS's website for more details.

Child Injuries from "Checking" in Youth Hockey

2011-09-10T15:28:00.000-06:00

To check or not to check, that is the important safety question facing youth hockey players, their parents, and the leagues they play in. Hockey is known as a rough sport in general, but the defensive move of checking, which involves slamming another player with either your body or your stick-wielding forearms to keep him from getting to the puck, is proving to be particularly dangerous.

A 2010 study reveals that pee-wee ice hockey leagues which allow body checks among preteens report more injuries than leagues which don't, and most of these injuries are related to the body check. Publishing in the June 9 Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers did a comparative analysis of hockey players from two Canadian leagues; one which allowed checking, and one which did not. They enlisted 150 different youth hockey teams from the Pee Wee league (children ages 11 or 12, most consisting of boys but a few girls as well), and had a physical trainer or other adult record injuries to the team's players throughout the season. All told, the study tracked more than 1,000 players.

The Alberta leagues recorded 209 total injuries during games in this period. That compares to 70 game-related injuries for the non-checking Quebec teams. Among these injuries, there were 73 concussions reported among the 74 youth hockey teams which allowed checking, compared to 20 in the 76 teams in the other league that did not. This is particularly worrisome, because recent research has linked brain injuries among youth to a variety of future problems, particularly when multiple concussions are involved.

Study co-author Carolyn Emery, an epidemiologist and physiotherapist at the University of Calgary in Alberta, reports that "the public health implications of body-checking in Pee Wee ice Hockey are significant. In Alberta, we estimate that if Pee Wee ice hockey checking were removed, it would prevent over 1,000 injuries and 400 concussions per year." The study joins a growing body of research highlighting the dangers of checking in Hockey.

Players who were in the lowest 25th percentile for weight in their leagues proved more prone to injury than their heavier peers. In other words, the littlest kids got creamed the most, which shouldn't be all that surprising.

Many youth Hockey leagues already ban checking among pre-teen players for safety reasons. However, youth in older-age groups often allow the practice. Hockey is a physical sport, and parents can't shield their children from every injury, especially if it involves a game your child loves to play. But you should at least be aware of the risk: with the checking comes a substantial increase in injuries.

Reference:
1. Nathan Seppa, "A check on youth hockey injuries," Science News, July 3, 201 0, Vol. 1 78 ( 1 ) :9

Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for child safety information.

The Goat Bandit Girls

2011-08-31T20:58:00.000-06:00

They might have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for that pesky neighbor. The one who called 911 to report a curious sight; something that seemed out of place for this quiet neighborhood in Mankato, Minnesota: two young girls, in their pajamas, walking down the street in the middle of the night, with a goat.

Apparently, the 911 operator found that a bit odd as well and sent an officer to investigate. (Though in my neighborhood, you might have to through in two chickens and a donkey before it raised anyone's eyebrows.) When police arrived, they found the odd trio just as it was described, and decided to ask a few questions. The girls tried to explain that the goat lived in their closet, and that they routinely took it out for late night walks. Nothing out of the ordinary here . . . just two girls and their goat, out for a midnight stroll. The officer wasn't buying it. He walked the girls home and talked with the parents. Forget about police videos of car thieves or drunks falling over -- I want to see taped footage of how that conversation went down.

As it turns out, the step sisters, ages 6 and 7, had attended a birthday party at the Sibley Park Zoo earlier that day, when they had apparently grown so fond of the goats they decided they would take one of them home and keep it as a pet. (No word on how they smuggled the goat out of the petting zoo.) I must give them props; as a child I surprised my parents with snakes, rescued baby birds that were stashed away in strange places (usually not at the same time), but a goat? That takes ambition.

All things considered, getting caught as they did is probably for the best. Something tells me that a goat in the closet wouldn't have turned out too well in the end. If somehow the trip-trap of hoof prints coming from the bedroom didn't alert mom and dad, trying to explain why you got hungry and ate holes in all your school clothes would have been a dead give away. Although having a goat in your closet might have provided a credible excuses for why you home work got eaten . . . assuming, of course, your teacher bought into the whole goat in your closet story.

How to Forgive a Shark

2011-08-15T21:30:00.000-06:00

When six year old Lucy Magnum was recently bitten by a shark as she boogie-boarded in the shallow waters off the North Carolina coast, she was understandably upset. Thanks to her parents, who acted quickly to get her out of the water and applied pressure to the wound, Doctor's were able to save her leg.

Recovering from her wounds in the hospital, Lucy angrily declared: "I hate sharks. I like dolphins way better." But once her parents explained that the shark had simply made a mistake and didn't know she was a human when it bit her, her attitude changed: "I don't care that the shark bit me," she told her mother. "I forgive him."

It is an amusing story, but we grabbed on to it because it nicely illustrates an important principle of psychological healing: the manner in which you frame experiences can completely alter a child's emotional reaction to it.

People can behave like sharks sometimes in that they often make mistakes that can cause others a great deal of pain and suffering. Yet how you explain those things -- as either the product of intentional malice or the misunderstanding and imperfections of flawed humans -- will determine whether a child finds a quick psychological recovery, or stays stuck in a ruminative state of negative emotions that stays with them well into the future.

Children will suffer injustices in their lives at the hands of others. Yet when they do, parents routinely cause their child far my harm than the event they are concerned about by modeling reactions that teach them a negative, stigmatizing or destructive way of relating to that event. Remember this: while experiences are limited in nature, a child's interpretation of that experience, which is largely garnered by the attitude of adults, will endure well into the future. Whether a child continues to be bothered by a negative experience often has little to do with the event itself, and everything with how parents teach them to relate to that event.

Just like sharks, people sometime make mistakes in the way they act. And just like it feels worse to think a mean-spirited shark is out to ruin our fun at the beach by trying to eat us on purpose, it feels worse when parents react to a child's other negative experience with explanations that involve intentional malice or other stigmatizing ideas. So be very careful in how you teach children to interpret the world. You want them to live in a world where good people sometimes make mistakes, not one where sharks are out to gobble them up whole.

School Bus Fees

2011-08-01T20:45:00.002-06:00

It's a sign of the times, parents in Indianapolis, Indiana will now have to pay for school bus privileges for their children. Franklin township Community School Corp outsourced its busing duties After running into financial difficulties. Parents in the district must now pay an outside firm more that $400 a year for each child to have them taken to and from school. Angry parents packed a town hall meeting to question why the district wasn't tapping it's 17 million dollar rainy day fund to pay for it's own transportation. I guess they figured the school teachers already paying out of pocket for most classroom supplies, and parents around the country filling in for other budget cuts so their school can keep basic services such as a library, why not try to tap that stone for just a little more blood.

We have also learned that Douglas County School District in Colorado, charges it's students for bus rides and will be starting their second year of this pay for the ride program when school starts August 10th.

Off topic, yet interesting:

Biologist from the university of California, Dadis, have discovered that Western Scrub Jays hold funerals. The birds will gather in large crowds around dead comrades and voice themselves loudly. Their calls are different than those that alert of predators, indicating a unique ritual. Interestingly enough, they also held gatherings around deceased birds of other species. Though their calls weren't as robust as when it was their own kind.

Kids, Cellphones, & Cancer

2011-07-29T20:55:00.000-06:00

A long awaited study on brain cancer in children is out, and it shows no link between cellphone use and brain cancer.

The team of researchers let by Dr. Denis Aydin examined nearly 1000 children ages 7 to 19 in western Europe, including 352 with brain tumors and 646 without. It was found that there was no difference in cell phone use between those with cancer and those without. What's more, it was discovered that children had the lowest risk of tumors in the part of the brain that was exposed to the most cell phone use.

Facts about cell phone radiation
Cell phones emit weak radiation that is not strong enough to damage DNA or cause cell mutations under currently know medical process. Your child receives a higher radiation dose simply by walking outside. However, it has been shown that cell phones can increase activity in parts of the brain closest to the phone which has caused some alarm. Parents shouldn't let kids sleep with a cell phone or use it before bedtime because of this potential brain stimulation. Yet this increased activity doesn't mean damage is taking place, only that the cell phone radio waves are activating the brain.

There was one contradictory finding showing a slightly higher risk of brain tumors in kids whose cellphone subscriptions began more that 2.8 years ago. This might be a statistical anomaly considering the brain areas affected by cellphones (and thus, the areas one would expect most tumors to grow if there was a correlation.) had a lower overall risk.

We'll continue to monitor this subject for parents, but so far we've seen no discernible evidence to suggest a link between cellphone and cancer. Parents should proceed with a calm caution: limit your child's cellphone use, use headphone extensions whenever possible, and don't let your child sleep next to it, but don't panic either.

Ear Infections & Prenatal Pollution

2011-07-22T20:20:00.000-06:00

Japanese researchers publishing in the May issue of Environmental Research have found a link between prenatal exposure to dioxin-like compounds -- such as the pollution that comes from waste burning from forest fires -- and an increased risk of ear infections later in life.

The team followed 364 children from before birth to 18 months of age. Those tots who were in the highest exposure group while in the womb were five times as likely to be predisposed to ear infections as the least exposed infants. Baby boys were especially at risk.

So for expecting moms: no dancing near forest fires or holding bonfire parties to burn all you hubbies favorite man-toys. You'll just have to find other ways to have some fun.

Sticks and Stones

2011-07-18T21:21:00.000-06:00

We've all heard the phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." What vicious lies our caretakers told us. This phrase is an absurdity many continue to perpetuate even today. It's all meant in good spirit, of course, uttered to encourage children not to let the harsh words of others get to them. But in doing so, it aims to brush right over the hurt and ignore a child's emotions. It's time we finally put an end to this phrase once and for all.

The reality is that words do hurt us. In fact, the social pain that is caused by vicious words is registered in the same area of the brain that monitors physical pain.(1) Moreover, stress caused by interpersonal social pain, such as that created over name-calling or taunting, causes a higher spike in cortisol (the stress hormone) than it does for other stressors, and this spike in stress hormones also stays on the brain for longer under such circumstances.(2) That's scientific language for: words can hurt just as much, and often more, than sticks and stones. Yes, as we've all secretly suspected, words really do hurt.

This phrase in itself is a recipe for emotional harm. When parents tell a child that words shouldn't hurt, you're sending a youngster several problematic messages by such an assertion:

A) You should just easily brush off someone's meanness (and by default, if you aren't able to show such a steel backbone, something must be wrong with you.) In actuality, the children least able to brush it off are usually those with the highest levels of empathy. You're punishing the good children for being a compassionate person, while sending the message that they should lose this good quality in favor of "not caring."

B) It's dismissive of a child's emotions. You're not comforting the hurt. You're not helping them work through or refute what was said. You're encouraging them to suppress their emotions and bury the hurt deep inside. This pattern of emotional suppression in families can do just as much harm as chronic abuse can over the course of time.(3)

C) Parents may not realize it, but such a phrase actually gives encouragement to teasing, taunting, and bullying. I can't tell you how many times in the classroom I've had a child try to justify their maliciousness by saying that, "it's just words so it shouldn't bother her." Parents utter such a phrase when their own child is on the hurtful end of a statement, but through this phrase, caregivers essentially give the child a license of their own to do the same to others. Not only is the parent not acknowledging the wrongfulness of the other child's taunting, but they're doing this while sending the message that such taunting is "no big deal." This works in both directions. A child who has their own torment brushed off will get the message that tormenting others is "no big deal."

Sticks and stones may break bones. But words can also destroy the psyche. They can cause mind numbing depression and sadness. They quite regularly drive people towards physical aggression, suicide, or even homicide. Another surprising fact for many: verbal abuse (mere words) is actually 7-times more correlated with lasting harm than sexual abuse. (4) The reason is simple: the harm to children comes through messages more often than actions. A beating may be unpleasant, but it's the messages such an action sends that will stick with a child. Negative ideas persist long after an action is done with, which is why verbal abuse does more harm in the long run than just about any other type of abuse. The most harmful acts to a child come not through actions, but through the destructive ideas they are left with after. Although the verbal lashing that comes from peers in an elementary school setting is less potent than that from caretakers, (who, at the time, play a higher role of importance for the child than their friends); this fact also illustrates why it's important for parents to not merely brush words under the rug. Instead...

A) Teach your child that aggression is aggression, whether verbal or physical. All aggression is wrong, and so words doled out with the intention of injuring another are also wrong.

B) When your child feels hurt over someone words, DON'T BE NEGLECTFUL. Do your parental duty and take the time to address it properly. The phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" arose because parents didn't want to take the time to address the very real injury that words can cause. At the very minimum, your child needs to hear that the other child was in the wrong by being mean. Their emotions need to be acknowledged.

C) If it is something silly and ridiculous or minor in nature, help the child to reach that conclusion through reasoning with them, but don't brush aside their emotions.

Our emotions are far from accurate. They have a tendency to over-react, to see the world through distorted lenses, and at times drive us towards ridiculous behavior. But they are hardly silly or unimportant, and can't merely be brushed under the rug. We'll end with a quote by T. Rusk and N. Rusk in their book, 'Mind Traps': "The 'feelings are foolish' trap originates in childhood. To prevent it, adults need to pay greater attention to the comforting of children. Only if children are reassured that emotional hurt is an unavoidable part of life will they be able to learn healthy attitudes toward emotional discomfort. Parents' concern for feelings- their children's and their own - validates feelings as important messages worth understanding. And since feelings come from the core of a person, if you validate feelings, you validate the person." It's time for parents to start validating their child, and let's skip the vicious lies about words not hurting.

References:
1. N. Eisenberger & M. Lieberman, "Why rejection hurts: a common neural alarm system for physical and social pain," Science, 87: 294-300, 2004

2. S. Dickerson & M. Kemeny, "Acute stressors and cortisol responses: a theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research," Psychological Bulletin, 130: 355-91, 2004

3. Global Children's Fund (2009) Child Maltreatment: A Cross-Comparison, Unpublished manuscript, available on request.

4. P.G. Ney, T. Fung, & A.R. Wickett, "The worst combinations of child abuse & neglect." Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 705-714, 1994

5. T. Rusk & N. Rusk (1988) 'Mind Traps,' Los Angeles, CA: Price Stern Sloan Publishers

Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Shop Around for Family Health

2011-07-01T20:38:00.000-06:00

Most families assume that health care costs what it costs, and that all medical centers in their area basically charge the same fees.

Yet a new study shows that the price for medical procedures can vary widely even for clinics within the same 20 mile radius -- by as much as 683%! One provider may charge as little as $230 for a CT scan, while another in the same town may charge $1800. This can affect a family's portion of the bill, especially those whose co-pays are based on percentages rather than a fixed rate.

"Don't assume that the provider you are going to is the best economic deal," says Howard McClure, CEO of Change:Healthcare. For those who are on a tight budget, it may pay to do a little price comparison. Call around ahead of time and ask different clinics what the base price is for things such as X-rays or a CT scan, so you know where to go for the best rates on basic care.

Do Full Moons Really Drive People Insane?

2011-06-29T20:41:00.000-06:00

So...there's a full moon coming up. What should you do? Is it time to A) Show extra caution in your drive home tonight so you don't run over any werewolves, B) Go grab your party clothes and run out to join the fun, or C) Grab the kids from their beds, lock the doors, and huddle in the reinforced cellar until it passes, lest some crazy out there driven by full moon rage decide to rape and pillage your family?

The idea that a full moon alters behavior and incites crime or violence has been around for a while. One recent survey found that 45% of college students believe that moon-stricken humans are prone to unusual behaviors. More interesting yet, other surveys have suggested mental health professionals are even more prone to believe such a thing than the general public. Pop-culture asserts that the moons gravitational pull impacts humans (who are mostly comprised of water) in the same way it exerts a tug on the ocean, thus causing the brain (also mostly water) to behave in altered ways. In fact, such beliefs are so strong that in 2007 several police departments in the UK added extra officers on full moon nights; an effort to cope with what they perceived to be increased crime rates. Even the word "lunatic" originates from the Roman goddess of the moon, Luna. So, is someone really more likely to go crazy against you or your family when the moon is full and bright?

The answer to this question can be derived from examining a few basic facts:

1) The gravitational pull of the moon effects only open bodies of water, such as oceans or lakes. It has no effect on contained sources of water, such as that lump of gray matter inside your skull that some of us occasionally use to think with. (Some people very occasionally.)

2) The gravitational effect of the moon is just as potent during new moons (when you can't see it) as it is during full moons when it hangs bright and prominent in the sky. The stages of the moon are created by reflections of light from its angle to the sun, not because it's any closer to the earth.

3) A mosquito sitting on your arm exerts a more powerful gravitational pull on us than does the moon. So if this is driving us crazy, we have become delicate creatures indeed.

Cold, hard physics aside, this myth is prevalent enough that it's warranted study throughout several scientific papers. A meta-analysis of 37 such studies revealed that there is no effect whatsoever of the moon on crime or human behavior. No research claiming a moon-lunacy link has ever survived scientific scrutiny and held its credibility.

But if this is the case, why do so many people, including entire police departments, still believe it? One factor at work is cognitive consistency: we remember crazy events more when they happen on full moon nights because it fits within our stereotypes and makes such a correlation memorable, whereas crazy things that don't happen on full moon nights don't prompt this association and aren't elevated to the same status in our minds. Therefore our recollection of all those 'crazy things' that happened when the full moon was out are biased in our memory.

There is one aspect of such a myth, however, that does hold some water: people who believe that full moons drive people crazy may be subconsciously driven to behave in crazier ways themselves. Decades of psychological research has shown us that expectations inadvertently alter behavior. The belief influences our actions even without us realizing it, causing us to act in a way befitting of our expectations. To what extent this principle drives full moon madness is debatable, but the research would suggest its effect is limited to general silliness, and doesn't induce a mad-rush towards criminal behavior.

So it's probably safe to let your kids out of the cellar. Assuming, of course, that's the reason you locked them there in the first place.

References:
1. Scott 0. Lilienfeld & Hal Arkowitz, "Lunacy and the full moon," Scientific American. Mind, Vol. 20(1): 64-65, Feb. 2009
2. James Rotton & Ivan W. Kelly, "Much ado about the full moon: A meta-analysis of lunar-lunacy research." Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 97(2): 286-306, March 1985

Childhood Shenanigans & Deadly Decisions

2011-06-13T21:05:00.000-06:00

In Stone Mountain, Georgia, right in the middle of summer 2008, there occurred an incident that defines the very word "tragedy." During their summer break, two brothers, ages 14 and 11, drowned in a pond. Each child died in succession, the older one drowning after jumping in to try and save his younger brother. More tragic still was the situation that led up to their deaths.

Police say the brothers had been playing with a group of children when one child apparently tossed a can into the water. It must have been something of some personal importance, because the younger child, 11-year-old Jaqures Brown, went in to retrieve it. When the lad went underwater and didn't come up, his older brother Jacoby jumped in to rescue him. Sadly, he disappeared under the murky water as well. The bodies of both boys were later found about 10 feet from the shore of the pond.

This is a unique story, but one with a common theme: one child's callous treatment of another child's possessions sets off a chain of events that ends with a child dead or seriously injured. I'm reminded of a similar personal experience that took place several years back. I was returning from child care bus-runs when a scene quickly unfolded in front of me. The school bus had just let off a group of elementary students outside an apartment complex, and so dozens of kids were walking home from the stop. Three boys were walking back in a group, when one of the older boys, apparently acting quite maliciously, threw the younger boys possession, which had been given to him to look at, out in the middle of the road. Instantly this boy’s face contorted into a look of agony and despair, and he burst into tears. I was probably 100 yards away, yet I'll never forget that look. I couldn't tell exactly what it was the older boy had thrown in the road, but it was quite apparently something of significant emotional importance. The child who threw it seemed mighty pleased with himself. Just as suddenly as this boys face had distorted into despair, I found myself overcome with anger and rage over what was transpiring.

I pumped my brakes to try and avoid running whatever it was over, but there wasn't time to stop. I think I missed it anyhow. For a moment I planned to stop and give the pair the scolding of their lives. But considering my emotional state, I envisioned myself chasing them down the road and thought better of it. I considered stopping the van in the middle of the road and helping the child retrieve whatever it was that was thrown. But then I wondered about how wise it would be to stop in the middle of a moderately trafficked road to get out and hunt for a trinket while leaving a van of 14 grade-school kids unattended in the middle of the left lane. There were no sides to pullover to. In the end, my indecision triumphed and I drove right past. Keep in mind this is all going in about 2 or 3 seconds at 35 miles-per-hour. By the time I decided I should have stopped to help the poor kid fetch it, we were already well past. It's a moment I've regretted everyday since. I should have doubled back and found some way to park and help. So to that little boy, wherever he is today, please accept heartfelt apologies for my inaction. To those boys who should have been chased down the road, shame on you.

The reason I bring this story up is because it illustrates an all-too-common pattern for how childhood shenanigans (or just plain meanness) can turn tragic. Other children have died after being hit by a car while trying to retrieve something in the road that was rudely deposited there in just such a manner by another child. I don't know whether this youngster got his possession back, but I'm fairly certain he got through the day safely, because I never heard about it on the news. There were no sirens to be heard from our center, which was only about half a mile away as the crow flies. Still, the potential danger of such a situation cannot be understated.

What happens all too often is that this teary-eyed little boy, overcome with the emotions of the moment, rushes out into traffic to retrieve his treasure and gets nailed by an oncoming car. Or jumps into a river to try and get his toy back, only to be swept away downstream to a watery death. Or falls through the ice and dies of hypothermia after a mean-spirited peer tosses his mitten out in the middle of a frozen pond. Others have been hit by trains or suffered fatal falls from trees or ledges. The stories of tragedy go on and on, each a little different but all with the same theme: They are set into motion by a child chucking something.

Much of child safety and accident prevention is a game of instilling children with a repertoire of second thoughts to avoid ill-advised decisions. Building that instinctual voice that pipes up and warns them of dangerous situations. So if you get the opportunity, either before bed tonight or during the ride to school tomorrow, tell your kids about these two stories. Talk with them about how it's not very wise to throw anything in the road, onto tracks, or into bodies of water. Talk with them about how horrible they'd feel later on for doing such a thing out of meanness. How disappointed you'd be in them. How demented preschool teachers in big white vans might just get out and chase them down the road next time around. Also tell this story from the victim’s standpoint, and emphasize how important it is to stop, calm down, and get help so that you can act safely to retrieve it. Teachers: these stories make a great opportunity for group time discussion.

A little discussion of potential consequences could get kids to stop and think twice and sometimes that extra thought is all it takes to make the difference between life and death. It might also save other children from ever having to manage such an agonizing expression. Either way, it’s worth the talk.

Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for discussion of important safety issues.

When Their Life Is On The Line, Will Your Child Wake Up?

2011-06-03T21:20:00.001-06:00

House fires are one of the most lethal childhood killers that a family confronts. With every year that passes, there are around 380,000 residential home fires, which claim the lives of around 800 kids and seriously injure tens of thousands of others. When we say "seriously injure," we mean it. Anyone who’s ever visited a burn unit knows just how catastrophic and life-altering fire-related injuries can be. Fire safety is also an area where a little bit of planning can often mean the difference between life and death. But while many parents take the time to studiously study any sex-offenders who may be in the neighborhood, few do all that's necessary to protect their children from a house fire; something that poses a far greater threat. (Put in other terms, it would take registered sex-offenders around 1,600 years or more to kill as many children as are killed by fire in just one year, at current statistical rates.) Needless to say, a little bit of prevention focused on this area would be time well spent.

One aspect of fire safety that is especially neglected is the night-time fire drill. Most fatal house fires occur at night. This means that waking up to the smoke detector and getting out quickly is probably what will determine whether or not your child lives or dies. Yet tests done in child care centers during nap time have also revealed that a large majority of kids will sleep right through the sound of your common household variety fire alarm. (Side note: Fire alarms in commercial child care centers and schools are commercial systems which are much louder, so you needn't worry about this issue at their school.) Such tests beg an important question: when their life is on the line, will your child wake up? If not, there is a crucial flaw in your family's fire safety plan, which is why we advocate that all families conduct a night-time fire drill with their children. So...

After the kids have gone to bed (on a non-school night, obviously) and after they've been sleeping for at least an hour, set off the smoke alarms in your house. You want to make sure of two things:

1. Your children are awoken by the fire alarm.
2. They realize what to do and can overcome a groggy state of mind to react quickly and appropriately.

Now I realize that the thought of intentionally waking your children in the middle of the night may sound about as appealing as a double root canal. It may seem like a hassle, and we won't lie: it may indeed be one. But it's a necessary hassle. It will give you vital information about how safe your family really is, and you should only have to do it once. (Though additional practice won't hurt for those so inclined.) If all goes well, hopefully your children are awoken by the alarm and spring into action without hesitation. You'll learn your family is safe and your children the embodiment of safety excellence. If you're like most families, however, you might find that your children's safety net in this regard is a little lacking.

If your children woke up and knew exactly what to do and how to respond, then congratulations: your family is protected and you shouldn't have to do a thing. Yet if things didn't go quite as planned, take heart. Most who try this usually discover some fairly decent flaws that would jeopardize their child's safety in a real-life situation. This is good: It means an opportunity to fix those problems and provide a new level of safety and comfort that you didn't have before. That's the whole point in performing these drills.

If your child failed to wake up at the sound of the alarm...

1. Upgrade the alarm system in your house to a louder model, and place a detector directly outside the child's door if there isn't one already..

2. There are numerous types of fire alarms on the market. One particular type is a voice activated model. Parents record a short message ("Jamie! Get up! There's a fire in the house! Get out right away!") so when the alarm sounds, it plays this message over and over again either by itself or in combination with a standard alarm. Studies have found that children are more likely to wake up to a parent's urgent voice than they are to an alarm. Just like parents tend to get sensitized towards their child's cries, children build sensitivity towards their parents' voice. Such alarms tend to do a much better job of awakening children, and they have the added benefit of providing a groggy child with information about what the alarm means and how to act.

3. Whether you choose to go with additional smoke detectors or a different type, or perhaps both, we have some bad news: you have to do it again. Run another test while they are sleeping, and continue until you find an arrangement that wakes your child.

If your child was groggy, confused, or didn't know how to act...

1. Most often, indecisiveness comes from inexperience and the novelty of this new situation. So if you go over what to do a few times and talk about the experience as much as possible, they should perform much better the second time around.

2. Make sure your child can identify the unique sound of your smoke alarm. It's not enough for children to be awoken by an annoying sound, they need to know what that annoying sound means. This is why parents should regularly set off the alarm so that children become familiar with what it sounds like. This way they can quickly identify it and act appropriately.

3. Make sure to do regular daytime fire drills, so that children know exactly what to do. Repetition builds competency.

In general...

1. Have children sleep with the door cracked, preferably not wide open, as doors are a natural fire barrier and can prevent their room from filling with smoke. Many fire safety experts will tell you to keep them closed, period. But other safety issues (abduction, general welfare) provide better protection when children aren't noise-proofed from their parents. A good compromise is to crack it slightly. It makes the room less soundproof but still serves as a natural smoke barrier.

2. Work into your family's fire escape plan a way for an adult to exit through a route that allows them to check on the child on their way out. Every child's bedroom should have a window to escape through if they become trapped, and adults can simply make this the primary escape route if it's on the first floor. If the children sleep in different rooms, assign a different adult to check on each child. Also always make sure your child has some sort of direct escape route from their room, which might mean purchasing a portable safety ladder for the window if they sleep on the second floor. Post a sticker on the window to alert firefighters of a child's room. Most important of all, practice. Children 4 and up should receive practice about how to get themselves to safety, because you may not be able to reach them in an actual fire

3. Read your children some of our fire safety books. These go over the basics of house fires and escape routes.

Botox and Child Abuse

2011-05-26T19:11:00.000-06:00

You have probably heard the story about the mother who injected her 8 year old daughter with Botox before beauty pageants to reduce the girls wrinkles when she smiled. The absurdity of the parent believing that an 8 year olds' skin needs wrinkle treatment has created a firestorm of controversy. For sure, this mothers' action are highly questionable. Aside from the medical risk, we were most concerned about the psychological messages this girl was receiving (no 8 year old needs a cosmetic procedure to be beautiful).

But I was more disturbed upon opening up a magazine and seeing a news brief that CPS workers had taken custody of the girl. Those who aren't equally horrified by this outcome need to pay close attention to the following information.

Far too many people have the impression that it is somehow a benign process to kidnap a child from their home and place them with strangers. I assure you it is not. (This belief is just as absurd as the idea that an 8 year old needs Botox.) CPS removal is an unspeakable trauma for the child. The fact that the kidnappers are wearing state issued name tags rather than ski masks doesn't make it any less terrifying for the child who finds herself suddenly uprooted from everything and everyone she has ever known. Even when parents are less than perfect, or even flat out abusive, this is a horrible experience for the child. It is usually met with screams of protest and someone physically overpowering the child to yank them away from their loved ones. Research on foster children is bleak: they show far more disturbance than those children who endure actual abuse of other types. Which makes a mockery of our ideas of children being "rescued."

This mothers actions were outrageous, fanatical, and potentially harmful; but what she did hardly warrants snatching this kid from her home; especially in light of the countless other options available.

As for this girl, a small injection to the forehead is nothing compared to the abuse she is suffering now. To those insensitive souls who were clamoring for this outcome to fulfill some sadistic sense of shadenfraude, congratulation: you've succeeded in bringing about unspeakable torment to a defenseless little girl. It makes the mother look like mother of the year in comparison.

Bacteria Act Selflessly in their Battle Against YOU!

2011-05-22T20:49:00.000-06:00

They're one of mankind’s oldest arch enemies. With a stealth that far outdoes that of the most cunning community predator, they lurk all around you, inside your home and around your children's parks and playgrounds, yet you'll seldom notice they're there. They can kill more children in a single year than sex offenders do in a millennium, and now evidence has been uncovered that they're sharing secrets in order to defeat our best defenses against them.

In a new study in the September 2, 2010 edition of Nature, researchers studying the question of antibiotic resistance discovered something that even took seasoned scientists by surprise: bacteria who prove resistant to drugs seem to sacrifice themselves in order to give their fellow bacteria a better chance at surviving the assault by antibiotics.

Working with an experimental Escherichia Coli (E-Coli) colony, they found that the most antibiotic-resistant bacteria amongst the group willingly shared their secrets with others at the expense of themselves, by producing a small molecule called an 'indole' when treated with antibiotics. This protein compound then floods through the communal broth of the colony, triggering similar mechanisms of protection in the less-resistant members.

As surprising as this finding was, equally as shocking was that bacteria do this even though it comes at a personal cost in overall health. This secret sharing ends up weakening the individual bacteria that produce it, leaving them less fit to grow and thrive, thus lessening their own chances at survival. Essentially, they're "taking one for the team," says James Collins, a professor of biomedical engineering at Boston University and one of the study's authors. "It's not that they die, but they would do better if they didn't produce this protein." Who would guess it: Bacteria act altruistically. Perhaps calling someone scum isn't such an insult after all.

This discovery adds a new sense of urgency to worries about antibiotic overuse. Previously, scientists believed that bacteria developed resistance only through random mutation. It's natural selection at work: if you bombard bacteria with antibiotics, most will die off. But the few whose genetic makeup prove resistant are those that will survive and reproduce, passing on their resistant genes to their offspring. Over the course of many generations, the original strain is all but replaced by the resistant strain, precisely because the resistant strain were the only ones surviving to reproduce. This is how 'superbugs' are born.

That situation was bad enough, but the fact that bacteria are actually plotting against us in the here and now, sharing secrets about how to defeat our best medicines, adds a new twist to the debate on antibiotic overuse. In this study, only around 1% of the bacteria were highly resistant to the antibiotics, but they shared this resistance with others in order to help their neighbors develop the same traits.

Bacteria have been around for millennium, and so you shouldn't let this panic you or cause unnecessary anxiety. But in this back and forth tug of war between them and us, between the drugs we try to kill them with and the adaptations they implement to survive, there are a few simple things you can do to fight back:

1. Avoid using antibiotics unless you absolutely need them, and ask your doctor to do the same in prescribing them to you. One of the trends contributing to this resistance is the tendency for doctors to over prescribe antibiotics for every little thing. The more we expose potential pathogens to this weapon, the more bacteria work out defenses to defeat them.

2. When you or your child are prescribed antibiotics, make sure you use them all, even if you start to feel better. The way strains become resistant is by being hit with antibiotics without being completely wiped out. They then come back, more resistant to the drugs used to treat them.

Your immune system can take care of the remaining 1% of pathogens once antibiotics help your body knock out most of the infection to gain the upper hand. But if you stop too soon, the bacteria could come back with a vengeance, and they are likely to be more comprised of this newly resistant variety.

3. Purchase organic meat and beef. At large commercial producers, livestock are literally fed antibiotics in their feed in order to keep them healthy amongst the cramped and deplorable conditions that might otherwise make them sick. This practice has worried scientists and medical professionals for years, not just as a threat to our livestock supplies, (a resistant bacteria wipes out most of our cattle), but that this widespread and indiscriminate use of one of mankind’s best medical weapons could put humans at risk, by making bacteria in general more resistant to such medicines.

So far, there hasn't been a problem. Sorta like a year ago, there hadn't been a problem with deep-water oil drilling, and several years back there hadn't been a problem with the modern U.S. financial system. We can only hope that it doesn't become a problem.

To learn more about child safety issues visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Can You 'Catch' Obesity From A Common Cold?

2011-05-01T20:23:00.000-06:00

In the never-ending cycle of hyper-inflated science "breakthrough" claims making their rounds in the news of late, one in particular is generating a lot of discussion: the idea that obesity may be caused by a common cold virus. But before you press the panic button because your child has the sniffles, you should know a little bit beyond the sound bites.

A study published online September 20, 2010 in the journal Pediatrics found that children who had been exposed to adenovirus-36 were more likely to be obese than children who had not. It found that whereas 7% of normal-weight kids had such antibodies, 22% of obese children did. What's more, it discovered that kids with evidence of previous adenovirus-36 infections were about 35 pounds heavier on average than obese children who hadn't caught the virus.

The study adds to several others, including one of Korean children and one of American and Italian adults, which have turned up higher rates of the virus in those who are obese. About 30% of obese adults carry antibodies x against adenovirus 36, compared to 10% of normal weight people. And there is lab research to back it up. Chickens, mice, rats, and monkeys infected with the virus show weight gain, even when they don't eat more or exercise less. Experiments with human cells grown in laboratory dishes also provide a potential mechanism for such a correlation: adult stem cells infected with the virus make more fat cells, and those fat cells store more fat than normal cells.

These are intriguing correlations to be sure, but before you start believing that obesity is caused by a virus, we need to put these findings through a little bit of a reality check, in order to place this knowledge in its proper perspective.

Why Obesity Can't be Blamed On A Virus
It's important to note that the vast majority of obese kids in the study DID NOT have antibodies for the virus (78%), which means that most kids are getting fat for reasons other than a cold virus. Even if such a cause and effect does exist, it is but a small player in the child obesity epidemic. When you further consider that 7% of kids tested positive for the virus yet were maintaining a normal weight, this would seem to indicate that catching the virus hardly dooms a child to obesity, and that it DOES NOT trump environmental factors. (85% of kids have already demonstrated the virus to be irrelevant, so only 15% of the issue is even up for debate.)

There are other reasons to be cautious. The sample size was relatively small, consisting of just 67 obese and 57 normal-weight children. If I flip a coin 124 times, I may very well end up with a differential of plus or minus 15 for either heads or tales, but that doesn't necessarily mean the results are anything more than random. Since obese kids have weaker immune systems and get sick more often, this finding could be corollary and not causative. Considering that two other studies have failed to provide a link between adenovirus-36 and obesity, this link, while interesting and worth exploring, is still far from established fact.

Even Jeffrey Schwimmer, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of California, Sand Diego and author of the study admits that a link between the virus and obesity doesn't mean the virus causes weight gain: "I don't think we know enough to say, 'Oh, if you get this virus you're going to be obese,'" he told Science News.

So while it's an interesting development that is being further explored, this does not mean that children catch obesity from a virus. The good news is that a vaccine against the virus is already in existence, so if this link does become established, we can easily address the problem.

One last note: you can't "catch" this virus from obese people, as some rumors have already begun to allege. So let's not go getting all silly with prejudice. The virus is long gone before any obesity-related effects would take place.

In the mean time, the tried and proven method for preventing childhood obesity is just as true as ever, and will remain so far into the future, regardless of what happens on this topic: proper diet, filled with fruits and vegetables, combined with plenty of exercise, will always overcome any genetic or viral influence.

Reference:
1. Tina Hesman Saey, "Exposure to cold virus linked to obesity epidemic among children." Science News, 178(8):5-6, Oct. 9, 2010

Death by Nanotoxins: A New Threat To Your Family?

2011-04-20T21:47:00.000-06:00

By now, most people have heard about the new scientific field of nanotechnology. In case you've been out of the loop for a while, it's an emerging area of physics that hopes to build all sorts of wonderful things by designing and putting them together, particle by particle, at the smallest levels. A nanometer is a unit of measurement, and it's extremely small. How small? Well, if you were to take a typical human hair and slice it up into 100 slices of its original width, you would have the measurement of a micron. (One-millionth of a meter.) And if you were to take that micron and divide it again by 1,000, you'd have something measuring one nanometer.

Nanotechnology refers to any type of product designed at these microscopic scales. The technology is still in its infancy, and at this point the field is as much hope and conjecture as it is practical application. Thus far scientists have successfully created nano-fibers; essentially a super-strong type of thread. They're still trying to scale up the process, possibly to create super-light bulletproof vests or clothing, or maybe cables that could support an elevator to space. (No, we're not making that up.) Others promise nano-size robots that would essentially eat unwanted toxic waste and turn it into something useful such as fuel. A lot of work is being done on nanotechnology in medicine. Imagine going to the doctor and getting an IV of cancer-eating nanobots that could restore you to health in a few days. Another team of physicists also managed to put together a crude nano-engine and car, though it proved difficult to control and was more amusing than useful. (It relied on chemical reactions between the molecules to propel itself.)

Though miracle uses for nanotechnology are still theoretical, other less impressive uses are far more here-and-now. In fact, more than 1,000 consumer products containing nanotechnology are already on the market and available to consumers in the United states. Yet some scientists are raising concerns about the safety of this technology.

Some fears are straight out of science fiction movies, such as the concerns expressed by Sun Microsystems co-founder Billy Joy in his essay, 'Why the World Doesn't Need Us.' He argued that self-replicating nano-robots might spiral out of control, consuming everything they encounter and spreading like a virus, transforming the world as we know it into a clump of "gray goo." (Let's hope that doesn't happen.)

Yet another more immediate, and more likely concern may be that the materials created are just plain toxic to humans (or the environment). It's a familiar story: The potential dangers of chemicals such as BPA or Phthalates or lead or asbestos are either downplayed or just plain ignored. Each time, the public is exposed for many years before the government recognizes that we are being poisoned. Then we backtrack. The same concerns and then some exist for nanotechnology. With nanotechnology, we're not only creating new chemicals; but we're actually building entirely new molecular structures that don't exist in nature, and extremely small ones at that.

What do we get when we design entirely new microscopic structures to create nanotechnology? Nobody really knows, and that's precisely the issue. If you bind two oxygen atoms together, you just get good-old oxygen. Add a hydrogen atom to the mix, and you get water, a life-giving resource. But swap out that hydrogen atom and replace it with a carbon atom, and you get Co2, a noxious gas, which is why it's not a good idea to leave your car running in the garage. That one little atom and the manner in which it is arranged can make a big difference in what you end up with.

Moreover, even ordinary materials can display unique properties at the nanoscale level, so even nanometer-size bits of an otherwise benign material might turn out to be toxic. Even naturally occurring nanoparticles can be harmful to human health, because their sheer size makes it easy for them to invade areas of the body where larger particles of matter can't go. For example, when it comes to air pollution, it's been found that fine particles seem to pose the greatest health risk, particularly those 2.5 micrometers indiameter or smaller. Nanotechnology works on a scale hundreds or even thousands of times smaller than this.

Will these nanoproducts prove harmless like water, or will some be toxic like arsenic? Only time will tell. But there's more than a little reason to be concerned. After all, the track record of regulatory agencies over the past century has not been too encouraging. The old "poison you first, ask questions later" philosophy has become a well-established routine that government regulatory agencies play alongside drug or chemical manufacturers.

The good news is that in response to these concerns, the Environmental Protection Agency recently announced they were launching a research strategy to study the health and/or environmental effects of nanomaterials, something concerned scientists have been pressing for in recent years. It's a good start, and we can only hope they remain diligent in their task.

Just as worrisome as any potential toxic threat unleashed is the public backlash that could be caused by such a health crisis, should regulatory agencies fail in this due diligence. Nanotechnology has immense promise, and a public health scare could stifle progress and hamper the industry. Just because one form of nanotechnology is noxious doesn't mean they all are, yet the public has a tendency to think in such categorical terms. Procter & Gamble, for example, has already halted R & 0 on nanotechnology, citing the long-term risk of litigation. Public distrust might provide a roadblock towards its miracle uses, which is why it's so important for the EPA to work proactively.

At this point there isn't a whole lot you can do about it...other than hope for cures for cancer and run away from any self-replicating gray goo you come across. So don't waste worries on uncertain dangers that may or may not come to fruition. We just thought you might be interested in knowing about some of the health issues which are unfolding all around us, as technology continues to expand into new realms.

For more information on child safety topics visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Finally, An Air-Bag You Want Near Your Children

2011-04-15T20:45:00.000-06:00

Automobile air-bags have always been somewhat of a mixed blessing. While they work well in most cases, they can be deadly to children and even small adults. This is because when airbags deploy, it's not exactly a gentle process. They inflate with a tremendous amount of force, which for little ones, hits them in the head and neck area rather than the more durable torso. Hundreds upon hundreds of kids have lost their lives to this safety device, and each case is frustratingly tragic. I can think of nothing more horrible than to lose a 5-year-old boy or girl in a minor fender bender that barely causes any damage to the car, all because he or she happened to be sitting in the front seat when the air bag deployed - a storyline in numerous deaths we've followed. Which is why you don't sit children in the front seat of a car that has air bags.

After more than a decade of development, Ford motor company is about to launch the first airbag designed primarily with children in mind. It's an airbag sewn directly into the seatbelt itself, with bags that pop out into sausage-shaped tubes in a crash. The breakthrough involved working out a new type of cold gas system that inflates the tubes. A cylinder underneath the seat (much like a Co2 cartridge) shoots its contents of cold gas through a special safety-belt buckle and into the bags in the event of a crash. Because of the way they expand, it spreads the force of the crash out over 5-times as much area, which will greatly reduce the jolt children experience, and thus, the degree of injury they sustain.

The seatbelt air bags should be especially helpful in combating seatbelt syndrome - a condition where a child's spine is broken in a crash and they become paralyzed. This happens because of the way in which the seat belt sits on them, which causes an uneven distribution of force. (This was a primary reason for the invention of booster seats, which were intended to combat this problem by better adjusting the way shoulder straps rest on a child. Lap belts alone, however, can be even worse, causing a whiplash action right in the child's midsection.)

As an added bonus, Ford spokesman Wesley Sherwood says that more than 90% of those who tested the belts rated them at least as comfortable as conventional belts, and many said they were even more comfortable because the thickness of the bag folded inside the belts makes them feel softer. This may assist in the battle to get more rear-seat passengers to buckle up; something government data reveals only 61% of rear-seat occupants to do, compared to 82% in the front seat.

These back seat airbags will be optional, at $395 extra, on the 2011 Ford Explorer, which hit dealers this past December. Eventually, Ford plans to include the feature globally in other models and seating positions.

We seldom get all googly-eyed over a safety feature, nor do we generally openly endorse a commercial product. But this is one that, if it works as planned, could help spare at least some children the torment of a debilitating spine injury.

Your World In Quotes

2011-04-09T16:03:00.000-06:00

Sometimes a sentence or two speaks volumes. Here are some notable quotes about issues pertaining to child welfare from around the world:

"In the US, they treat teachers like pizza delivery boys and then do efficiency studies on how well they deliver the pizza." -- Educational specialist Dan MacIsaac, speaking in Time magazine about the broken state of the US school system. He has spent time observing school in Finland, where teachers have more freedom and fewer restrictions. Despite adopting an unconventional educational philosophy (the exact opposite of the "Tiger Mom" approach)Finnish schools recently ranked second in Science and Reading, third in the world in Math, proving that a good education does not demand children spend their childhood engaging in boring drills.

"If your not bruising you child at times, your not spanking the child enough." -- And Independent Fundamental Baptist minister, encouraging his followers to engage in child abuse, claiming that passages in the Bible demand that parents beat their children.

"I'm going to kill you all!" -- Wellington Oliveira, 23, who killed 12 students at an elementary school in Brazil and injured at least 12 others before turning the gun on himself. He apparently roamed the halls of his former elementary school, lining children up against the wall, and shouting this before going down the line shooting them in the head at point blank range. Cell phone videos posted on UTube captured some of the malay, as screaming student attempted to flee for help. The dead included 10 girls and 2 boys in what was Brazil's worst school shooting. We've been monitoring safety for many years so not much shocks us anymore. This sickening event was the exception.

Babies On Ledges

2011-04-04T21:39:00.000-06:00

Babies and ledges--they are two things that seem like they should be diametrically opposed to each other. Yet researchers in child development love to put babies in all sorts of precarious situations to find out what happens, and hopefully learn more about the way children think in the process. The latest shenanigans tested how infants and toddlers of different ages deal with height perception, and suggests that there is a period shortly after they begin crawling/walking in which they may not recognize their own physical limitations.

A 2010 study by New York University developmental psychologist Karen Adolph suggests that young children need to learn (and re-learn) a fear of heights that properly corresponds to their motor skills as they enter a new phase of mobility. Unlike mountain goats, which are born knowing where they should and shouldn't climb, human infants learn their limitations partly through trial and error.

To test this, Karen placed 12- and 18-month-old infants at the top of a wooden "cliff" that could adjust to various heights. They were then beckoned over the edge by their mothers. (Researchers were on hand to safely catch any who actually took the tumble.) It was found that babies who had been crawling for several months generally did not go over drop-offs that were too big for them, even when coached, nor did toddlers who had been walking for a while. But those in the transition phase--the ones who had just started walking or crawling--readily marched right over drop-offs that were beyond their capabilities, including the highest, most hazardous 3-foot plunge. Like teenagers who think they're indestructible, the study suggests that as kids master a new skill, their perception of physical limitations may not keep up with their own ambition.

This doesn't necessarily mean young children are completely without a fear of heights; other research demonstrates that babies do indeed possess a certain amount of innate fear for large drops. (This wasn't the first study to place babies on some sort of ledge and see what happens.) One in particular devised a long, elevated platform for babies to crawl across, while their mothers stood at the other end. In the middle of the platform, the visible "bottom" dropped out, leaving only a glass surface as the floor. When babies encountered this "visual cliff" as an obstacle, they innately sensed danger and looked to their mothers for cues about what to do. Babies whose mothers gave a reassuring look continued right on their merry way. Babies whose mothers were instructed to look worried, however, were able to sense this emotion. They stopped dead in their tracks, sat, and started to cry.

So although young children may possess some innate fears of heights (and may also be coached into disregarding these inclinations if mom says so), the newest study suggest there is a definite learning period, during which tots may lack the proper judgment about what types of terrain are within the capabilities of their new-found mobility. Much like the eyes may want more than the stomach can handle, a baby's brain may envision larger feats than the body is capable of accomplishing.

So as your little one enters one of these windows of recalibration, it's a good time to be extra vigilant. You don't need to protect them from every little spill, but you don't want them taking a 12-foot tumble down the stairs, either. The ledges on stages, landscaping dividers, and playground steps are other potential problem areas. Watch the fall hazards as your tot is learning just what amazing feats their developing mobility can accomplish.

You will find interesting child safety information, teaching materials, books and more on our website at www.keepyourchildsafe.org.

The Medicine Worked Fine, Until His Jaw Came Off

2011-03-28T20:37:00.000-06:00

Eben Byers, a 49-year-old wealthy Pittsburgh industrialist, was looking to ease the chronic pain he was having in his arm. The year was 1927, and Eben was advised by his doctor to try a powerful new drug to cure his pain: Radithor. He became hooked. It appeared to not only heal his pain, but seemingly rekindled his sexual vitality.

It was two and a half years after regular use of Radithor, when Eben began complaining of chronic headaches and weight loss. Shortly thereafter, his teeth fell out, holes formed in his skull, and his mouth literally collapsed. Covering Eben's case, an article in the Wall Street Journal ran the headline: "The Radium Water Worked Fine Until His Jaw Came Off."

Radithor, as its name implies, was radioactive; water containing Radium and Mesothorium. This 'miracle cure' was marketed by the notorious quack and confidence man William Bailey, whose very own Radium Laboratories sold half ounce bottles of "certified radioactive water." In two years of use, Eben had gone through 1,400 bottles, sometimes drinking as many as 3 bottles a day. Unfortunately for him, unlike many other quack treatments of the day, Radithor did actually contain considerable amounts of Radium, its active ingredient. Eben was slowly turning his body into a fleshy pile of radioactive waste.

Eben was not alone in partaking this poison. The radium craze broke out in the early 1900s, and was promoted as a miracle cure for everything from acne to impotence. It's value as a placebo was likely amplified by the fact that it was the only "medicine" that glowed in the dark; a special pizazz that no doubt captivated people and made it easy to believe the miraculous claims. For three decades, doctors and the public alike heralded the seemingly endless health benefits of consuming radioactive water.

Of course, we now know that radioactive materials are quite harmful to human health. That ominous glow-in-the-dark quality means a slow and painful destruction of the cells in your body, not a miracle cure.

Radithor was on the market for over a decade, making William Bailey very rich, before it was removed from the market in 1931. By then, more than half a million bottles had made their way into the hands of consumers around the world. How is it that something so utterly wrong can gain such widespread acceptance?

A century later, there are still plenty of lessons we can learn from this debacle, and Eben's tale provides a cautionary warning that is every bit as pertinent today. We may have figured out the health risks of radioactive water, yet in modern times, our science journals continue to be filled with warnings about how our tendency to leap before looking could be jeopardizing our health, as well as our planet. As a society, we're still just as prone towards quick fixes for what ails us; which usually turn out to be rash judgments that haven't been thought through. We're just as prone to being misled in the name of profit, as recent economic events should make clear. We still have a tendency for sacrificing the welfare of tomorrow for the exploits of today, with little regard for how it may come back to haunt us.

The lesson in all this is one of sensible precaution. With drug companies rushing out new "cures" as fast as they can get approval for them, and studies raising serious questions about the effectiveness of these drugs or even revealing many of them to be deadly after-the-fact, consumers need to understand that not all that glitters in the dark is gold. Especially when it comes to medicating our children, a sense of healthy skepticism is well in order.

The other lesson: just because a practice doesn't seem to seriously harm us in the moment (pollution, greenhouse gases, deforestation, etc.), that doesn't mean its harmless. Most importantly, never take at face value what the man selling radioactive waste has to tell you.

What is today's radium water? What are we doing today that future generations will consider utterly insane? Only time will tell. The important thing is that we stay vigilant in continually asking this question. Because there's little optimism to believe that we aren't capable of repeating similar mistakes.

Rear Facing Car Seats: New Guidelines for Kids Two and Under

2011-03-23T20:42:00.000-06:00

The American Academy of Pediatrics just released updated recommendations about the use of rear facing car seats. It is now suggested that parents put children in rear facing car seats until age two (Or even longer if the child is small) as opposed to the current recommendation that they ride in such seats until age one.

The reason for this change is that rear facing car seats distribute the force of an accident more evenly across a child's body, preventing head, neck and spine injuries in frontal crashes, which comprise the bulk of all accidents. The AAP policy statement sites research which has shown that children under two are 75% less likely to be severely injured in a crash if they're in rear facing car seats.

Most convertible car seats on the market can accommodate a two year old up to 35 pounds, so you don't necessarily need to buy a new car seat. The biggest fuss may come from your toddler, who may whine about having to turn around.

When Firefighters Go Bump in the Night

2011-03-16T20:51:00.003-06:00

Imagine your child alone and on their own in a haunted house. Not the tame, kidsy kind with paper streamers, fake spider webs, and a tub of spaghetti that is supposed to be intestines. I mean the real, actually scary commercial kind that prop up in abandoned malls each year around Halloween. It's dark. They can barely see their hands if they hold them up in front of their face. They're disoriented. They're scared. Terrified, would be more accurate. Nerves are running wild. Then, out of nowhere, a monster emerges from the void, frightening them to wits end. Do you have that mental picture in mind? Good. Now tell me, do they: A) Cower in the corner, B) Run and hide, or C) Extend their arms and grasp for the monster?

This may sound like an absurd mental image to bring to mind, yet this is precisely the type of scenario many children find themselves in during a house fire. They are often alone. It's pitch black from both the darkness of the night and the thickness of the smoke. They can hardly see a foot in front of their face. They're groggy from their sleep and generally disoriented, not knowing exactly what's going on. Then suddenly, a figure emerges into the room. It is carrying an axe, looks like a space monster, and is breathing like Darth Vader. If you're an already frightened young child, what would you do with this sensory input? Unless you've been prepared ahead of time, there's a decent chance you might withdraw in fear. Because of this, during a house fire many children will hide from the one person who is there to save them.

A full-suited firefighter can look scary to a young child. Throw in the fear and anxiety that comes with being caught in a genuine house fire, and this tendency towards a fearful response can be even worse. Which is why it's important that parents and teachers do all they can to alleviate this potentially deadly fear.

There are several different ways to do this. One of the most effective methods is in person. Children need to see a firefighter dressed in full uniform amidst a safe setting, and most local fire stations are happy to oblige. They often host field trips for local schoolchildren, and sometimes will set aside certain dates for safety education. (Contact your local station to ask about safety education programs or to see if you and your children can tag along on the next school-group presentation they conduct.) These presentations will include an explanation of all the different apparatus that firefighters wear when fighting a fire. Step by step, they'll dress up a firefighter (or another caregiver that the children know) with all the gear, so that kids become comfortable with the knowledge that inside all of that protective cover is a normal person who wants to help.

A second method, and just as important for ensuring the message sinks in, is to expose your kids to firefighters through books and other resources. You can find a free printable discussion picture of a firefighter dressed in full uniform on our website at www.keepyourchildsafe.org/printable-classroom-safety-posters.html. The same site also has an assortment of books and coloring sheets on firefighters and fire safety, all available for free online and in a printable format. Your local library is another great source for books and videos on fire safety.

Finally, talk with your kids. Acknowledge that firefighters can look a little scary when all dressed up. But explain that underneath that suit--which is there to protect them from the fire--is a nice person who wants to rescue you and bring you to safety where you can reunite with morn and dad. Explain that this suit represents a ticket to safety and a way to reunite with their parents. So no matter how scary it might be, they should go to them, not hide from them. Use this opportunity to discuss any other particular concerns your child might have.

If your child is the type of kid who hates it when people put on masks or costumes and is unsure about things even when they are shown the person underneath, you'll want to work extra on this topic. It may seem like a remote threat, but keep in mind that with around 600 to 900 child fire deaths each year, letting a fear of firefighters go unchecked is far more likely to kill your child than any sex-offenders living in the neighborhood.

With a little bit of time devoted to this and other fire safety issues, your child can be protected from one of the most prominent dangers out there. Plus, if done correctly, this is one of those safety topics that can be a lot of fun to learn about. After all, what kid doesn't like big shiny trucks and cool space-man looking suits? Let's just make sure they know the kind, helpful person that resides inside that suit.

For more information on child safety in a fire visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org/fire-safety-for-kids.asp

Missing Links in the Search for Causes to Autism

2011-03-11T20:20:00.002-07:00

In the field of child developmental disorders, autism is the current hottest topic. Partly because of the recent debate about vaccines causing autism (they don't), and partly because its become the new ADHD; with diagnosis rates rising faster than the U.S. National debt. It can also be expensive, requiring special schooling or behavioral therapy, and taking a toll on both children and their families. This combination of public exposure and rising rates of diagnosis has left researchers scrambling to find autism's causes and, hopefully, cures.

Scientists and doctors have always suspected that biological or genetic factors might play a role, and past research has managed to turn up a few clues about genetic factors. Now a new study adds more evidence to the genetic-autism argument, by pinpointing errors in the way a child's DNA is coded that may lead to the disorder.

When our genomes are copied, it isn't a perfect process. In fact, nobody's genome is ever replicated perfectly. Sometimes we end up with deletions in certain areas, other times we end up with duplicate copies of a portion of the genome, and in other cases we inherit areas where the coding may be scrambled. These random mutations can alter our genetic expression, for better or worse, if they happen to hit along a section of the genome that is important for development.

Most of the time, such random mutations are benign. In fact, a great deal of the human genome is obsolete, encoding for things that are no longer active in human development. Sort of like your garage, the human genome is full of junk that's been collected over the years but is no longer used or needed. For example, some human beings are born with remnants of a tail, because a random copying error happens to "turn on" an area of the genome that encodes for such backside appendages--which have long since been abandoned from our lineage.

These gene alterations, known as copy number variants, have also been linked to conditions such as schizophrenia or other diseases. Previous research has also revealed that those with autism may have slightly more copy number variants than normal people. The current study uncovered no more such variants in autistic people than in non-autistic people, but discovered them in key areas among some in the autistic group. The researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 996 people with autism and 1,287 without. More than 5,000 copy number variants were found in those with autism, usually cases in which portions of DNA were missing. Many people with autism had areas where large chunks of DNA was missing.

You and I likely have just as many errors or deletions in our genome, but since they don't hit important genes that code for the development of things important to language or social interaction, we don't develop autism.

By themselves, each specific variant was fairly rare, with even the most common one occurring in no more than 1% of the people in the study. Each person analyzed seemed to have a distinct set of genetic variations, suggesting that every person may have their own genetically unique version of the disorder. Though varied in nature, the affected genes all tended to influence similar biological processes: particularly those involved with brain development and functioning.

In some cases, the deleted genes had a strong link to autism: just a single copy error was enough to push a person over the autism threshold. Others had to be inherited together along with other copy number variants in order for autism to develop. One gene with an especially strong link to autism was DDX53-PTCHD1, which is located on the X chromosome. Some women naturally carry a deletion of this gene on one of their X chromosomes. This doesn't doom their children to autism, because such women will almost always carry a healthy version of the gene on the other X chromosome, so the child inherits a healthy copy. But if a random coding error occurs, deleting this area of the healthy gene, the child is left with no healthy copies to draw from and will develop autism.

The group was also able to identify several previously unknown areas of the genome that seem to be involved in the formation of connections between brain cells. All together, 25 places were identified in the present study that may be linked to autism. The hopes are that this information might be used for earlier diagnosis, or down the road, possibly even to treat the condition through some type of gene therapy. Yet such things are still a ways off. Scientists need to better understand how all these factors work together to cause the disorder before any definitive diagnostic tests or gene therapies come about.

Lest you believe that the source of autism has now been explained, think again. Even with these newly discovered genetic markers, scientists are still only able to pinpoint genetic causes in about 10% of autism cases overall. "What causes the other 90% of the cases is still on the table," says geneticist Steve McCarroll of Harvard Medical School, in an interview with Science News.

Many problems still exist in the study of autism, not the least of which being that we still can't pinpoint precisely what autism is. What we group under the generic label of autism is in all likelihood not a single condition but a broad array of different disorders with multiple causes that tend to result in similar symptoms. This is why the diagnosis is officially labeled as "autism spectrum disorder." Each of these variants along the spectrum may be its own unique condition with its own unique cause.

It's not the miracle parents of autistic kids are hoping for, but every little advancement helps. If nothing else, this study shows the complexity of the problem, and how naive it is to try and blame autism on a quick and easy scapegoat such as vaccines.

Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for more child safety information.

Little Known Safety Feats Your Cell Phone Can Perform

2011-03-06T19:53:00.000-07:00

Cell phones have become a staple of modern life, and one of the often overlooked benefits is the huge impact this technology has had on community safety. From its uses in combating crime to calling in emergencies or using the camera phone to document police brutality, it has become a helpful tool that lets citizens respond to emergencies. With this in mind, here are a few safety feats you might not be aware that your cell-phone can perform:

1. Enter your phone number and zip code at wirelessamberalerts.org to receive text message Amber alerts. Messages are free, so you're not burning through your allotment.

2. Note that deactivated phones still dial 911, so you can always reach help even on a phone that isn't in service.

3. Receive early alert text messages from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrator Administration's tsunami warning center. Sign up at www.wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/watcher/tsunamiwatcher.php.

4. Check out 'Nixie,' a service that allows agencies to contact residents using e-mail, text, or whatever method the person chooses to alert them of dangers or other important information in their area. The service is free, but the company sells ads in its messages.

5. If you need help and your signal is too weak, try texting. Text messages use less of a signal, so it might work if your signal is too weak to place a call.

6. Cell phones queue 911 calls, which means that if lines are down it will a keep sending a signal and call you when the call can go through. Text messages also do this no matter who they are to, so if you can't get through, try texting.

An important note:
If you're calling 911 on a cell phone, don't assume that the call center automatically knows where you are. While they can often triangulate calls and find your approximate location, this isn't always the case, especially in rural areas. Moreover, this triangulation isn't perfect--it often only reduces the location to within 500 feet. This could be a block of several houses, not to mention the nightmare rescuers would face in trying to find you if you live in an apartment building. So always give your location first whenever calling 911 on a cell phone.

If Your Daughter Was A Chimp, She'd Still Play With Barbies

2011-02-28T20:10:00.000-07:00

Imagine your child as a chimpanzee. Don't pretend as though this is a big stretch, especially if they're jumping on the couch cushions and making funny noises, as mine are at the moment. As furry little apes, do you suppose they'd still be drawn to the same toys--girls to dolls and housekeeping sets, boys to ninja weapons? Or would they, free from all of our cultural conditioning and television commercials, show no gender preference?

It's a longstanding debate in child development: Are sex differences in play something biological or something we create in children through social conditioning? For all of the back and forth debating this question has garnered, it's been largely impossible to answer, because you can't separate children from culture. As it turns out, child psychologists should have just asked a chimpanzee.

A new study, published in the December 21, 2010 issue of the journal Current Biology, shows that chimpanzees deep in the Ugandan forest display gender stereotyped play without other chimps modeling this behavior. Based on more than 14 years of fieldwork with the Kanyawara chimp community in Kibale National Park, primatologists Sonya Kahlenberg and Richard Wrangham authored the study, which provides the first evidence of a wild, nonhuman animal exhibiting sex differences in play. Their research provides strong evidence that such gender-typed play is a natural component of human children as well.

Young chimpanzees in the wild may not have Barbie dolls or Ninja Turtle swords to play with, but they do have sticks--the toy of opportunity for all chimp kids. So primatologists tracked the way the youngsters used them. Little girl chimps collected sticks that they used as dolls--cradling their stick, feeding it with other sticks, and generally engaging in "play mothering" in the same way a human girl might play house or take care of a doll. Since they could find no evidence that childbearing females or other adults modeled this stick play to young female chimps, they were able to conclude that this tendency arose naturally in the young primates.

Boy chimps, on occasion, would use sticks to mimic child care just like the girls. But far more often they used the sticks to fight with (sound familiar?); something the girls rarely did. As Elizabeth Lonsdorf of the Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes tells Science News: "These new data suggest that sex differences in how children play may go way back in our evolutionary lineage and predate socialization in human cultures."

This does not let caretakers nor culture completely off the hook for gender socialization, however. Studies which demonstrate that adults interact differently with male and female children remain as valid as ever. If you dress the same baby up in either boy or girl clothing, adults treat the child differently depending on what gender they presume the baby to be. Decades of research has shown that social conditioning--from the way adults treat children to what they model and what is modeled by the media--exerts a strong influence on children's behavior. Nature versus nurture is not an either/or proposition, but a two-way street, where each one influences the other.

Parents and teachers should continue to try and battle sex stereotypes whenever possible, particularly wherein it pertains to a child who desires to transcend those boundaries. (Girls can be firefighters too if they want to, and there's nothing wrong with a boy who likes to cook.) Just don't expect girls to lose interest in frilly stuff and boys to drop their lizards and snails and take up a sudden interest in ballet. There is a genetic component to stereotypical gender play, and children may simply be doing what comes naturally to them.

Reference:
1. Bruce Bower, "Female chimps play with dolls," Science News, Vol. 179j No.2, 16, Jan. 15, 2011

Women at Risk for Gestational Diabetes

2011-02-25T20:33:00.000-07:00

A new study released this last December 21 in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology finds that thousands of U.S. women may develop diabetes during pregnancy, yet go undiagnosed and untreated, putting both their own and their baby's health at risk. About a third of women are not currently screened, and 19% of those who ARE diagnosed receive no follow up in the 6 months after giving birth. The study was based on an analysis of more than 900,000 pregnant women.

Gestational diabetes develops during pregnancy, and is associated with several health related risks, including birth defects, premature birth, and pre-eclampsia, a potentially life-threatening blood pressure condition that threatens both mother and child during birth. Furthermore, as many as half of the women who develop gestational diabetes will go on to develop full-blown diabetes. Medical guidelines recommend that women receive a follow-up screening between 6 and 12 weeks postpartum.

In separate research published earlier in December by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, it was found that 6.4% of the 4.2 million women who gave birth that year (or around a quarter-million) had either pre-existing diabetes or developed it during their pregnancy.
Controlling diabetes during pregnancy through healthy diet, exercise and by watching blood sugar can ensure a healthy pregnancy, since "even a slight inability to control blood sugar during pregnancy has a direct impact on your body and your health," says Jon Nakamoto, author of the first study.

On a related note...

Babies & Formula
Past research has shown that formula-fed babies gain more weight than breast-fed babies, which might set them up for obesity down the road. A recent study in PLoS One suggests that formulas based on cows' milk may add even more pounds than soy or protein-based formulas, even though they contain the same amount of calories. The reason is that protein-based formulas are broken down earlier, signaling to the digestive system that the meal is nearly over. Infants who receive other formulas may get that signal later, and thus feed longer.

Strange but True: Military Dogs Get PTSD

2011-02-21T20:19:00.000-07:00

This post is slightly off-topic, but we thought it was something our readers might find interesting.

We all know about the severe toll that combat stress takes on our troops who are serving in a war s zone. It turns out that man's best friend is not immune from this stress either. A report in Army Times discloses that military dogs that are exposed to repeat deployments are exhibiting signs of PTSD, and those who work with the dogs say rates of canine PTSD diagnoses are increasing.

"The dogs that go overseas...we're starting to see some distress related issues," says Dr. Walter Burghardt, who is in charge of veterinary care for the Army. "It results in difficulty doing work.
They're distracted by loud noises. We're not saying it's the same as in people, but there are common things."

Asked whether PTSD in dogs can be treated, Burghardt responds "maybe." Dogs that are so distressed and scared that they're shaking and hiding can sometimes be given anti-anxiety medication, he says. Some dogs may need antidepressants. (No, we're not making this up.) For other dogs, doggie-therapy may be in order, such as desensitization and counter-conditioning therapy (which involves rehabilitating the dogs to loud noises or other stressors in a controlled setting), or perhaps recreational, social and work therapy.

All in all, about 25% of PTSD-diagnosed dogs are returning to service, whereas the remainder are either assigned other jobs or retired and adopted by local families. I guess war really is hell on everyone involved, whether you have four legs or two, and our military dogs are paying a price for combat. However, the fun one can have with the mental image of a doggie taking Prozac, now that's priceless.

Formula Fed Babies Who Start Solids Too Early May Become Obese

2011-02-19T20:38:00.000-07:00

Even thought the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents delay introducing solid food until their baby is 4 to 6 months, 26% of American parents start their infant on solids before they are 4 months old. A new study in the February 7th issue of Pediatrics suggests parents may want to rethink such habits.

Researchers tracked 847 children over a period of several years. It was determined that formula fed babies who started solids before they were 4 months old were 6 times more likely to be obese than babies who started on solids later. (By age 3, about 9% of the children overall in this study were obese.)

In line with other research, they also found that breast fed babies faced no additional risk of obesity, regardless of when they started on solids. (The AAP advises mothers to breast feed exclusively for 6 months, then combine nursing with other foods for at least a year.) Just something new parents should keep in mind ... there is no rush to start a baby on solid food.

Be sure to check out oursafety facts and statistics on www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Mom Jailed for Trying to Send Kids to a Decent School

2011-02-16T20:40:00.000-07:00

A mother's attempt to secure a better education for her children has earned her a status as a convicted felon. Yet her case exposes a much larger and much more harmful crime that has been going on in the U.S. school system for decades.

Forty-year-old Kelley Williams-Bolar, who worked as a teacher's aide, broke the law when she claimed on enrollment forms that her two daughters lived in a nearby suburb with their father. In actuality, the girls lived with her, in the Akron housing project, where the schools are sub-standard. Hoping to get her children out of a poor-performing and underfunded school to give them a chance at a better education, she flubbed the truth.

A jury convicted her in January, and she was given two concurrent five-year sentences. Judge Patricia Cosgrove reduced that to 10 days in jail, two years of probation, and 80 hours of community service, but only after a good scolding. She told the mother she had to serve some time "so that others who think they might defraud the school system, perhaps, will think twice."

Seeing hypocrisy from U.S. judges is as predictable as the rising of the sun each day, but judge Cosgrove really should check herself before she gets too carried away with self-righteous condemnation. It's not just Williams-Bolar who committed a crime here. The state of Ohio and its government officials (including judge Cosgrove) have been perpetrating a much more extensive fraud millions of times over, and one that harms children (and society) far more than what Williams-Bolar did.

Under Ohio's constitution, written in 1851, Ohio's General Assembly is required to "secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state." Yet Ohio provides only a portion of the cost for educating its children, leaving the rest up to local jurisdictions. This, however, fuels an unfair imbalance that punishes the schools of the poor.

Since 1997, Ohio's Supreme Court has ruled on 4 separate occasions that the state's approach to funding public education is unconstitutional. The state has essentially ignored these rulings, disregarding law and leaving in place its system of funding that favors the rich and punishes the poor. Elected officials continue to offer nothing more than symbolic and meaningless band-aids that keep the status quo in place.

It's not just Ohio where these grave disparities exist. In fact, ,all 50 states in the Union rig funding for schools in similar manners, and child advocates have for decades cried foul about how this distorts the system and creates unequal opportunities. Middle class and upper-income kids get schools in richer areas with a higher tax base to properly pay for education, while lower-income students get the shaft. As McLanahan & Sandefur point out, "public school financing is community-based and schools with a high concentration of minority students usually have a low tax base." (*1)

This has long been one of the most fundamental problems with our education system, cited by numerous experts as one of the top reasons that lower income students under-perform. It's not as though elected officials are unaware that this injustice is going on...they just choose to look the other direction. Low income areas pay fewer income taxes, have low rates of home ownership (a primary source of educational funding is property taxes in most districts), and fewer sales tax revenues. This means less money for their schools, which means fewer programs, run-down equipment and facilities, and less funds to pay the type of salaries that would keep quality teachers from defecting to districts that can afford to pay more.

What's worse, these disparities will only widen as the budget crunch many states are in drags on. Time magazine reports that in many districts, parents are chipping in to pay a portion of the school's budget to fund a librarian or PE and music teachers, so that the schools can keep such programs for their children. Yet parents in poorer neighborhoods can't afford such things. As a result, there are "PTA wars" cropping up, in which parents from different schools are at each other's throat because one school is able to fund programs for children that another school cannot.

Meanwhile, the injustice lives on. Small potatoes like Williams-Bolar are held accountable to the law, while judges and state officials are allowed to disregard it with complete impunity. We'd like to see Judge Patricia Cosgrove stand behind her position, and put her own children or grandchildren in the school next to the housing project. Or better yet, charge herself with a felony for depriving lower-income students of their lawful right to a fair education--a theft of epic proportions. Perhaps then she'll consider enforcing the law on behalf of poor children too, and not waste time defending an unjust system that is breaking its own constitution, while defrauding Ohio's children of an equal opportunity for a decent education.

References:
1. Sarah McLanahan & Gary Sandefur, 'Growing Up With A Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps.' Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1994, p. 121

Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for books and teacher worksheets.

The Debate Over Tiger Mothers: What Isn't Being Said in the Media About Chua's Book

2011-02-12T16:31:00.000-07:00

I had been doing my best to avoid the debate recently started by Amy Chua's controversial book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, on account that spending time addressing selfish, self-serving and abusive mothers seems, well, a waste of time. That, and the first taste I got made me mad, so I generally try to avoid unnecessary frustration. But after reading an article in Time magazine that attempted to partially defend Chua's approach while evoking some parenting advice severely out of context, I couldn't sit quiet any longer.

For those who have been out of the loop, Chua's book is a personal memoir in which the author promotes her extreme parenting style while making claims about the superiority of Chinese parenting styles over American parenting styles. But to say it's a debate over parenting styles is to put it mildly. The book is akin to a parenting guide written for aspiring evil stepmothers everywhere, filled with stories of blatant child abuse and a whole lot of poor parenting practices.

In the book, Chua makes no qualms about calling her older child "garbage" after the girl behaved disrespectfully. She talks about forcing her 7-year-old daughter Lulu to practice the piano for hours on end, "right through dinner into the night," without breaks for water or even to use the bathroom, until Lulu learned to play the piece. When upset with her daughter's progress, she is said to have threatened to burn her daughter's stuffed animals: "if the next time's not PERFECT, I'm going to TAKE ALL YOUR STUFFED ANIMALS AND BURN THEM." She refused her girls any play dates, sleepovers, television, computer games, or even school plays. And when little Lulu drew a card for her mother's birthday, Chua threw the card back in her daughter's face, exclaiming "I don't want this," and adding that she expected to receive a drawing that Lulu had put some thought and effort into. "I deserve better than this," Chua barked, "So I reject this." She also describes battles with her children in which "'all out nuclear warfare' doesn't quite capture it," in which arguments escalated to screaming competitions and glass smashing fights, all started because her daughter couldn't stand any more violin practice. Suffice it to say, Amy Chua won't be winning any mother-of-the-year awards anytime soon.

The book has sparked plenty of outrage and debate. Meredith Vieisa even called Chua "a monster" to her face when she appeared on the Today show. Chua isn't a monster, just a self-centered, misguided mother who happens to engage in abusive tactics with her children. And like many abusive parents, her harshness is inter-generational: Her own childhood is filled with stories of being slapped with chopsticks or having her father tell her, "Never, ever disgrace me like that again," after she received second place at an awards assembly. However, the tactics she talks about are not to be taken lightly, either. (For example, we're about to publish a book 4-years in the making on various forms of child maltreatment, which outlines a wealth of research from different studies showing that the type of verbal abuse and high-anxiety environments Chua talks about can be just as harmful to kids as more conventional forms of child abuse.) So many of the tactics she appears to advocate is akin to the promotion of child abuse.

Time magazine pointed out (perhaps correctly) that part of the anxiety the book has stirred up may be about our secret fears that China and other rising powers are overtaking us. Students in Shanghai recently took the PISA test for student assessment, the first time Chinese students had been included since PISA began its rankings in 2000. They blew everyone else out of the water, taking a decisive first place in all three categories of the test. This comes as American test scores continue their slow and steady descent towards remedial school. As Annie Murphy Paul writes in the article: "With a stroke of her razor-sharp pen, Chua has set a whole nation of parents to wondering: Are we the losers she's talking about?" (*1, p. 37)

The article goes on to pull many facts and quotes out of context in an effort to defend Chua's philosophy:

"Research demonstrates that children who are protected from grappling with difficult tasks don't develop what psychologists call 'mastery experiences,'" she writes, quoting Psychology Today editor Hara Estroff Marano.

Yes, but there is a big difference between over protection or not allowing children to solve their own problems and the type of abusive practices Chua promotes.

"Kids who have this well-earned sense of mastery are more optimistic and decisive; they've learned that they're capable of overcoming adversity and achieving goals."

Once again, a well-earned sense of mastery has little to do with being forced to play the violin for hours on end. That's not a child's mastery, but an appeasement to their master.

Citing studies by Carol Dweck, which we're well familiar with: "The kids who were praised for their hard work...were eager to take on the demanding new exercise."

Chua did not praise her kids for hard work, she verbally abused them, calling them trash and telling them they weren't good enough.

Perhaps Paul's boldest statement follows a couple loose and misquoted examples about the science on memory drills, when she exclaims, "Cognitive neuroscience, in other words, confirms the wisdom of what the tiger mother knew all along."

No, actually, it doesn't. In fact, research on both neuroscience and child brain development blatantly refutes just about everyone of Chua's principles. Set aside for a moment the verbal abuse and domestic violence, her style commits several cardinal sins that are well documented to harm children:

1) The promotion of perfectionism
2) A rigid, stressful, high-anxiety environment
3) Developmentally inappropriate practices with severe detriments in free play time.

Perfectionism holds children up to unrealistic and/or developmentally inappropriate demands in order to please parents, who are generally more concerned with their own interests than the child's. In doing so, perfectionist parents also tend to teach their children, either directly or indirectly, that parental love is conditional on a self-worth that is measured by how they perform, and could be lost at any moment if the child doesn't measure up. This fits Chua's parenting style like a glove. So is this healthy? Let's turn to some quotes from Hara Estroff Marano that aren't taken out of context:

"And if ever there was a blueprint for breeding psychological distress, that's it. Perfectionism seeps into the psyche and creates a pervasive personality style. It keeps people from engaging in challenging experiences; they don't get to discover what they truly like or to create their own identities. Perfectionism reduces playfulness and the assimilation of knowledge; if you're always focused on your own performance and on defending yourself, you can't focus on learning a task...perfectionism reduces creativity and innovation--exactly what's not adaptive in the global marketplace." (*(*2, p. 82)

She goes on to add:

"Pushing for perfection clashes with children's developmental needs."

"Criticism implying that affection or approval is conditional on good performance is lethal."

"In the grand scheme of things, perfectionism is an intrusive form of parenting that attempts to control the psychological world of the child."

"The push for perfectionism comes at a high cost to children."

That hardly sounds like an endorsement of Chua's philosophy. So what about the hours of violin practice and boring drills with no free play time? Does neuroscience indeed back up Chua's philosophy here, vindicating the tiger mother's ruthlessness as Paul alleges? Once again, the answer is no.

A primary problem with Chua's style, and that of overly demanding regimens like it, is that they limit the type of spontaneous, creative free play time that is crucial to a child's social, emotional, and intellectual development. A healthy allotment of free play time has a direct link to child mental health, and has been shown to lower children's anxiety levels. Play releases brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein critical for neuronal growth. A lack of play has been shown to cause underdevelopment in crucial problem solving skills. As renowned neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp observes, "play is the major mechanism whereby higher regions of the brain get socialized." (*3)

Chua's philosophy also promotes a high-stress, high-anxiety environment.
This bathes a child's mind in cortisol, the stress hormone, which has been shown to actually kill off neurons and shrink areas of the child's developing brain. (*4)

Children are capable of enduring quite a bit, but just because you can push a child to accomplish something doesn't mean you should. What Chua and others like her fail to take notice of is that this highly demanding environment takes its toll. China may have great test scores, but they also have youth suicide rates that are more than four times that of the U.S. Recent research shows that 25% of Chinese University students have suicidal thoughts, compared to 6% in the United States. Sadly, it's all-too-common to see Chinese youth kill themselves when they get a B on a test or endure some other seemingly minor academic setback. They would rather take their own life than face the wrath of their parent's disappointment. (*5) This push for achievement at all costs exacts such a heavy toll that many break, withdrawing into the fantasy of video games 24/7, a major epidemic in Chinese society. (*5) A Chinese father, talking about the enormous pressures on his daughter, admits: "It's too much. Something has to change." (*6) And for all this work, a primary problem China faces in its economy is a lack of innovation and creativity: hardly surprising given what we know about child development in such rigid environments.

A Deeper Question About What We Really Want For Our Children
As frustrating as this debate is, I'm more deeply disturbed by the insinuation that such neurotically aggressive parenting is necessary in order to keep up with the world economy. There's a scene in Jurassic Park where Malcom points out that scientists "were so obsessed with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think whether or not you should." I'm reminded of that point here. We feel compelled towards the idea that we must get on top at all costs, never stopping to question whether this game we are playing is really in the best interest of our children or humanity at large.

Capitalism is a recent social experiment in human history; a fact lost on most people simply because it's the only system everyone alive today has ever known. Yet capitalism in its current form is also a failed social experiment, though most people don't realize it yet. (You will in anywhere from 20-100 years, depending on how the cards fall.) Capitalism has brought us wonderful gadgets and gizmos. Many principles of capitalism are noble and good. But the type of consumer-capitalism and cut-throat, get ahead at all costs marketplace we've been promoting is also as unsustainable as the housing bubble, and those who pretend that world GDP can grow indefinitely are the same idiots who said housing prices would go up and never come down.

We live on a small earth with limited resources, and this push for constant economic exploitation is akin to the nuclear arms race: a lunatic’s exercise in self-destruction. If the whole world lived as we do in the United States, we would need 10 to 11 earths just to produce it all. We don't have 10 earths, and we're well on our way towards utterly destroying the one we have. The same China that brags of superior test scores, all part of its plan to climb to the top of this capitalist machine, also has air so polluted that its children are suffering major health problems and even early death, all in the name of this pursuit for economic superiority. (*7) We don't need more tiger moms to fuel this self-destructive machine. We need to step back and think about what we really want for our children: an anxiety-filled childhood devoid of fun; all in preparation for a lifetime of unfulfilled, anxiety-filled enslavement to the economic marketplace, so that we can keep this machine that is destroying our planet going? At what point do we step back and ask ourselves what type of world we want for our children, and at what cost? Even Chua admits that her parents "didn't think about children's happiness. They thought about preparing us for the future."

Parents should push their children to excel, they should set the bars high in whatever they do, and they should sometimes push their kids into areas that may be uncomfortable so that they can learn to conquer adversity. Many U.S. parents are far too overprotective, a style which can also be as unhealthy for children in the long run as Chua's. But that's a far cry from verbal abuse and replacing the wondrous exploration of childhood with violin practice for hours on end.

The sadder fact in all of this is that through a focus on unbridled competition, we've reached a point where an iconic U.S. magazine is pondering the question about whether we need to adopt verbally-abusive, overly demanding, age inappropriate approaches to parenting in order to keep up with the Chinese. If that type of cruel, rigid, robotic upbringing is what it takes to keep up with China, count me out.

References:
1. Annie Murphy Paul, "The roar of the tiger mom." Time Magazine, January 31, 2011, pp. 39-40

2. Hara Estroff Marano, "The making of a perfectionist." Psychology Today, April 2008, pp. 80-86

3. Melinda Wenner, "The serious need for play," Scientific American Mind, Feb./March 2009, Vol. 20(21 ):23-29; Dorothy G. Singer, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff and Kathy Hirsch-Pasek, "Play=Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children's Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth.' Oxford Univ. Press, 2006

4. B. McEwen & H.Schmeck, 'The Hostage Brain.' New York: Rockefeller University Press, 1994

5. Taylor Clark, "Plight of the Little Emporers," Psychology Today, Vol. 42(4): 86-91, August 2008

6. Bill Powell, "Tiger daughter." Time Magazine, Jan. 31, 2011, p. 41

7. Dan Fagin, "China's children of smoke." Scientific American, Vol. 299(2): 72-79, August 2008

Dangers of Pesticide Exposure During Pregnancy

2011-02-10T19:02:00.000-07:00

A new study in the February 7th issue of Pediatrics, warns that exposure to a type of pesticide used for Spring pests could increase the risk for pregnant women that their baby will suffer learning disabilities. Lead author Megan Horton of the Colombia Center for Children's Environmental Health says fetuses exposed to the highest levels of the chemical Permethrin, which is commonly used in agriculture as well as pest control to get rid of termites, fleas, and other household bugs, were 3 times as likely to have a mental delay as those exposed to lower levels. Children with the highest prenatal exposures also scored about 4 points lower on the Dayley Mental Developmental Index, in intelligence tests -- about the same IQ detriment that is caused by lead.

A study last month in the journal of Environmental Health found that nearly all of the 268 women studied had detectable levels of 8 types of chemicals in their blood or urine, and that the typical pregnant woman had dozens of potentially toxic chemicals in her body, including ingredients that are found in flame retardants and rocket fuel. Many of these chemicals pass through the placenta and can concentrate in the fetus.

Too Many Potty Accidents Gets Three-year-old Suspended from Preschool

2011-02-07T20:21:00.000-07:00

We come across a lot of absurd cases of children getting in trouble at school for ridiculous things. But this next case is especially unique.

A three year old Virginia girl, Zoe Rosso, was recently suspended from preschool for the crime of peeing her pants one too many times. The child's mother, Betsy, was stunned when she received such news from the preschool's principle who added that "Zoe has had enough chances." Betsy thinks the school is being too strict, saying that potty training varies by child and that a three year old having accidents "is totally developmentally normal."

Having worked in the field before, I know what a pain accidents can be. It requires an extra staff member to get the child changed; it means often time hunting down spare clothes when parents forget; and there are even some government regulations that require children in certain classrooms to be potty trained. But c'mon, give the kid a break. Suspending the tot seems just plain silly, especially since there are things the teachers could be doing to assist in this process. Let us know what you think.

GCF Blog Posts: Women at Risk for Gestational Diabetes

2011-02-05T20:29:00.001-07:00

A new study released this last December 21 in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology finds that thousands of U.S. women may develop diabetes during pregnancy, yet go undiagnosed and untreated, putting both their own and their baby's health at risk. About a third of women are not currently screened, and 19% of those who ARE diagnosed receive no follow up in the 6 months after giving birth. The study was based on an analysis of more than 900,000 pregnant women.

Gestational diabetes develops during pregnancy, and is associated with several health related risks, including birth defects, premature birth, and pre-eclampsia--a potentially life-threatening blood pressure condition that threatens both mother and child during birth. Furthermore, as many as half of the women who develop gestational diabetes will go on to develop full-blown diabetes. Medical guidelines recommend that women receive a follow-up screening between 6 and 12 weeks postpartum.

In separate research published earlier in December by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, it was found that 6.4% of the 4.2 million women who gave birth that year (or around a quarter-million) had either pre-existing diabetes or developed it during their pregnancy. Controlling diabetes during pregnancy through healthy diet, exercise and by watching blood sugar can ensure a healthy pregnancy, since "even a slight inability to control blood sugar during pregnancy has a direct impact on your body and your health," says Jon Nakamoto, author of the first study.

On a related note...

Babies & Formula
Past research has shown that formula-fed babies gain more weight than breast-fed babies, which might set them up for obesity down the road. A recent study in PLoS One suggests that formulas based on cows' milk may add even more pounds than soy or protein-based formulas, even though they contain the same amount of calories. The reason is that protein-based formulas are broken down earlier, signaling to the digestive system that the meal is nearly over. Infants who receive other formulas may get that signal later and thus feed longer.

Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org to learn about child safety.

California's Other Catastrothy

2011-01-31T20:30:00.001-07:00

People who live in California live with the thought of the next big quake in the back of their mind. Yet Lucy Jones, chief scientist of the United States geological survey's multi-hazards initiative, says California's next big disaster may actually come from the sky. She warns that moisture-laden air currents 200 miles wide and 200 miles long that flow from the tropical pacific waters to the west coast could dump as much as 10 feet of rain in just a few weeks.

This flooding would created a vast "inland sea" about 300 miles long and 20 miles wide, spanning from north Sacramento all the way to Los Angeles. Geological records show this last occurred during the winter of 1861 to 1862. "We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as out big San Andreas earthquake," Jones told Science Daily. In modern times, such a disaster could cause $300 billion in damage.

So take that, California. If the earthquake or Tsunami's or billion dollar budget deficits or crumbling schools or gang violence or illegal immigrants don't get you, you just might be done in by the rain.

Second Hand Smoke and Hypertension in Kids

2011-01-26T20:36:00.000-07:00

Adding to the long list of reasons for why you should not smoke around kids, a new study out of Switzerland finds that children living with a parent who smokes are more likely to develop high blood pressure.

Researchers analyzed data on 4,200 five and six year old kids, and found that those who lived with smokers are 21% more likely to have dangerously high blood pressure, or hypertension (Defined as blood pressure values in the top 15% for their age group). This is especially concerning considering that high blood pressure in childhood tends to carry over into adulthood, putting them at risk for heart disease and stroke later on. Some 46,000 non smokers die each year in America due to heart disease brought about by living with second hand smoke.

To learns more about child safety visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org.

Do Kids Have Too Much Freedom?

2011-01-23T11:02:00.000-07:00

I was browsing through an article in Family Circle by Elizabeth Foy Larsen. The subject was bad ethical decisions among youth. As I was reading, I came across this statement listed as one of the primary reasons kids go astray: "They have too much freedom."

Such a phrase likely slips right through the psychology of most parents without raising any red flags or questions. Many are probably wondering what Liz had to say next, eagerly awaiting instructions on what liberties should be revoked from our offspring. The tendency amongst parents when things don't go as planned is to want to find ways to rule their children’s' lives through force. And why not? After all, it seems to work just fine throughout the early years.

Here's our issue with such a statement: Since when did freedom become a bad thing? Where else on the planet would someone get away with using "too much" as a qualifying word describing freedom? I'm reminded also of a quote by Dr. James Hollis, who writes: "Love asks independence of both parties, freedom, not control, not guilt, not coercion, not manipulation." Good parenting, too, requires NOT that children be kept as virtual slaves lest they act inappropriately, but that they be given the freedom to explore, and that we use those magical years of childhood establishing a desire to act ethically towards others. While many parents get away with such principles and even offer one another encouragement to the idea that children are slaves whose lives must be micromanaged, it is these ideals more than anything which cause many of our current problems.

If an adolescent hasn't learned how to act ethically by the time they're into their teenage years, when do you expect them to learn it? And is ethical behavior really something you can instill through sheer parental force? Unlikely. Responsibility is not something that can be micromanaged.

Freedom and responsibility depend on each other, and the idea that responsibility can be imposed is really making an oxymoron of the word. Responsibility can only be present when one is free to act in a variety of competing ways, yet still chooses the kindest and most ethical choice at the time. Restricting freedom does not create responsibility. All it does is avoid the issue.

The problem is not freedom, the problem is not technology, the problem is not all of those other things adults like to pinpoint as the root cause of the problem whenever citing testimonials about how ill-behaved youth these days are. The problem is that parents spend too much time treating their children as property to be commanded around, and too little time when young helping them develop the empathy and compassion to want to act properly, when given the freedom to do so.

Acknowledging ones children as free and independent human beings is the first step towards fixing this problem. In fact, the problems of adolescence are most commonly brought about because the type of dictatorship parenting style so many families rely on in early life starts to slip away. Because parents have spent the bulk of their time dictating restrictions and demands (often with little explanation or guidance) rather than developing responsibility through freedom and support, there's nothing for the teen to fall back on. When "do it because I told you so" starts to fail, and parents haven’t spent enough time allowing their children to make choices while talking to them like adults about WHY they should do this or that, this is when the biggest problems tend to emerge. When parents are inclined to see children as free and in dependent people with their own wishes, dreams, and desires, and when they take this perspective from a young age, they'll tend to spend a lot more time teaching and less time preaching. Just as importantly, they'll be less concerned with what children do, and more concerned with they do it and how.

Parents mistakenly assume they have 18 years to train their children. The reality is you have more like 12. It's not as though parents lose all influence during the teen years, they can still matter a great deal and still play a prominent role in the lives of their children. It's just that when a child hits adolescence, it is peers who will hold their attention and captivate their lives, and if the first twelve years haven’t been used building a strong foundation of empathy, ethics, and responsibility, adolescence is not the proper time nor place to try and develop these traits through force. Just as you need to board up windows before the hurricane arrives, rather than trying to haul around sheets of lumber in 150 M.P.H. winds, children need constant practice and instruction in empathy and responsibility when young to counter the onslaught of negative influence they'll withstand from peers during adolescence.

If your children are 7, 8, or 9-years-old, now is the time to be talking with them about some of these issues they might face later on. It is now you should be having discussions about how horribly words can hurt, and how important it is to be kind towards everyone, regardless of the circumstance. Now is the time you should model these traits yourself. Now is the time you should bring up stories about how a mean-spirited prank might cause another person so much hurt that they kill themselves. If it's not seeded early, it won't have enough staying power later on.

Most of all, remember that the measure of good parenting is not determined by how much stuff you can take away, how many freedoms you can restrict, or how well you impede your child's transition to adulthood. Unfortunately, this is precisely the premise behind a lot of the parenting advice out there today. Parents have succeeded when they can give a child full use of the computer or other technology, and be confident that the child won't use it to bully or harass others. Not because they're forced to, but because their conscience wouldn't allow it. Parents have succeeded when we can support our teens' modes of expression, even if they're not aligned with our own, knowing that it is from their heart and for the right reasons, and that any path they choose will be inclusive and considerate towards others. True success as parents can only be realized when we allow our children true freedom to do what they want to do and be who they want to be, while trusting the foundations are in place to guide them through whatever course they choose responsibly. They are bound to make mistakes along the way and may choose a path different than what we might have dictated for them, but freedom is a necessary part of responsibility. The core principles we want our children to have thrive on freedom, they aren't impeded by it. This requires parenting by means of a lot more explanations, a lot more freedom alongside guidance in empathy development, and a lot less sheer force, but the payoffs are well worth it. When you do this, children will make ethical and responsible choices all their own. Not because they're commanded to, but because it's the right thing to do and they want to.

Reference:
1. James Hollis, 'Why Good People Do Bad Things,' New York: Penguin Publishing, 2007, p. 95. This book can be purchased through our Child Safety Store, with a portion of the purchase price going towards various children's causes.

For other articles and resources to help you raise your kids, visit www.keepyourchildsaf.org.

Skittling: A New Teen Danger

2011-01-15T20:33:00.001-07:00

Do you know about skittling? If not, there's a decent chance your adolescent son or daughter might. It's a dangerous new party trend among teens that is sweeping the nation, and even being copied by some preteens.

It goes a little something like this: If youth are going to get together for a party or even just to kill time, they might ask each teen to steal whatever they can from the parents medicine cabinet. They then go to a gathering and dump everything into a bowl at the door. Then, you guessed it, every youth will simply grab a handful of this prescription drug cocktail and down them in the hopes that it will produce a psychedelic experience; hence the name "skittling." Like grabbing a handful of skittles and sampling the different flavors, prescription pills become the skittles and are ingested in assorted variety just like candy.

The goal is to get a high/buzz/psychedelic experience of some kind or another, no matter what it is. In the quest to cure teen angst and boredom, any sort of altered experience will do. Making matters worse, alcohol is a common companion to such gatherings. In fact, alcohol is sometimes used precisely because it will interact with prescription drugs in dubious ways.

Needless to say, skittling can best be described as downright stupid and potentially deadly. But that doesn't mean your child won't try it. (Being stupid and doing dangerous things is part of a teen's job description.) Considering the dangers, it might be worth it to ask your child what they know about skittling, and have a discussion about the potential dangers.

Give your kids the facts:
1. Drug overdose deaths have shot up remarkably in recent years; so much so that they now rival motor-vehicle accidents for the #1 cause of accidental death in the US. It's something your teen should know. While everyone's aware of the danger driving a car can pose, overdoses are still largely regarded as a freak phenomenon among youth...something that rarely happens to anyone, and certainly not to them. Knowing the reality of the danger may give them second thoughts.

2. Make sure they understand that certain prescription drugs can cause serious problems when mixed with alcohol, which is precisely the combination likely to come about by skittling parties. It may not take much of either (alcohol or the drug) to turn deadly.

3. Talk about how exaggerated the actual experiences one might get from skittling likely are. Kids may hear all sorts of wild stories about what so-and-so experienced while skittling. But here's a news flash: teens often exaggerate and tell stories to impress their peers. More often than not, skittling will produce feelings of faintness, dizziness, and general queasiness...hardly sensations that are worth the risk.

4. Keep your prescription pills locked up and accounted for!

Also keep in mind that younger kids who may see or hear about their older siblings doing this may be inclined to try it themselves. It's well suited for copycatting by tweens: It's free, and they have ready access. So while this is primarily a teen thing, keep an eye out for the younger ones as well.

Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for more resources on child & teen safety topics, including free educational materials for children.

Memo To Doctors: Stop Snorting Cocaine

2011-01-09T20:18:00.000-07:00

As if you needed any more reasons to be scared of the hospital, Italian hospital director Giuseppe Di Maria was scolded this past December after he sent out a memo to staff asking the Doctors and Nurses to stop snorting cocaine while on duty. Although government officials say he was right to act on tips that his staff was using cocaine while on the job, they say he erred in trying to address it via a memo: "The alleged consumption of cocaine in a hospital environment should certainly not be dealt with in this way," said an official.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of yesterdays tragedy in Arizona.

Wakefield Fraud Uncovered in the Vaccine - Autism Study

2011-01-05T20:43:00.003-07:00

There was a new development today in a debate that won't seem to go away; The false belief that vaccines cause autism. Dr Wakefields 1998 study, the first and only study to ever find a link between vaccination and autism has long since been discredited by other research. Last year, the Lancet finally retracted the study after learning that the children used in it had been hand picked by lawyers who were trying to sue vaccine companies. Now it turns out the study might have been more than sloppy: it was outright fraud.

A new report out today in the British medical journal studiously rechecked medical records of the children involved against the data reported in the study. Wakefield's original premise was that autistic symptoms supposedly appeared in children in average 6.3 days after receiving an MMR vaccine. Medical records from the children show this premise to be outright fraud: many children displayed autistic symptoms before the vaccine, others not until many months later, and he changed dates to invent his correlation. The bottom line: the study was a bold faced lie.

After the study was originally released, the medial outlets picked up the report, and vaccination rates dropped dramatically. As this happened, more kids got sick from diseases that they were no longer vaccinated against. An unknown number died, and countless more experienced significant suffering, lengthy hospital stays, and permanent disabilities. In exchange for the lives of these kids, Dr Wakefield received $750 thousand dollars in blood money from the lawyers who were suing the vaccine company.

If true, Dr Wakefield's fraud will go down as one of the greatest in history; at least on par with Bernie Madoff. Yet as sickening and infuriating as this news is, we're more troubled by another aspect of it all.

This story shows the power of media to do vast damage through the promotion of incorrect information. The original study involved a mere 12 children; such a small sample size that even if the findings were true, they would still be highly suspect. Numerous other large scale studies based on real data have debunked the myth over and over again. Yet for more than a decade, myth was winning against fact, and with some people it still is.

There is more proof that unicorns and lawn faeries cause autism, if only because unicorns and faeries haven't been studied yet as a potential cause, whereas vaccines have. Yet the myth lives on and is widespread today, aided in no small part by irresponsible celebrity "advocates" such as Jenny McCarthy. Nor is there any hope that this recent news will now make it go away.

In our own work, we watch on a daily basis as myth and lies propagate among the public, destroying kids and families in the process. So much of what parents think they know about many issues are actually myths created by people with an agenda. These myths generate hurtful, damaging responses and disastrous public policy. It is deeply angering when people spread ignorance about things for which they haven't taken the time to explore in detail nor fully understand. Cockily, defiantly, McCarthy and other reckless advocates in any number of areas spread false information to the masses ... myths that kill and injure children. The vaccine autism myth is but one example of this among many.

This fraud was sad. But the fact that we live in a society in which any self serving fool can create a harmful myth with a small, self-selected study; whereas no amount of fact can succeed in killing it because people put more weight in celebrity opinion than in science, now that's flat our terrifying.

Skating Through Life

2010-12-26T20:16:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time, someone sat down to figure out how they could combine the clumsy awkwardness of childhood with the improved control one gets while stumbling around on roller skates, in order to bring the two together into a total package intended to grace a child's feet as they go throughout their daily lives. Oh, if only we could bring the thrill of skating out of the roller-ring and into our homes. Rather than a flat, wide open surface buffed to perfection, we can have our kids skate around tables and chairs, up and down stairs, all with the thrill of sharp, pointy objects a mere arms-length away. At least, these are the thoughts that run through my mind anytime I see a child with roller-shoes.

Of course, it didn't start out that way. I remember the love affair the first time a child showed up in the classroom with a pair. There were the 'ooohs and aaahs.' The drools from the other children, alongside a well placed "well I'll be darned." There we sat, marveling at this wonderful feat of human engineering. Both awestruck at the ingenuity of our fellow mankind and ashamed that we didn't think of it first. Any 'ole fool could dream up space flight. But to put skates on the bottom of everyday footwear? Now that's true genius.

Then came the inevitable: "can you try them out Megan?" Happy to comply, the little girl popped out the wheels and was helped to her feet. For several moments she strolled around the carpet at a safe pace to exclamations of "that's so cool" and a low-pitched murmur of coos coming from the other children. Then she hit the tile area. The first skate was planted without a hitch. However, as she shifter her weight to put her other foot in front, like a child stepping on a sudden ice patch, her feet were swept out from under her. She plopped butt first to the ground, sending a chair flying across the classroom in the process. Apparently no worse for the ware, she looked back to the class with a big smile on her face. We all laughed and laughed.

It turns out; this little trendsetter wasn't the only one taking a spill. Doctors around the globe report treating injuries such as cracked skulls, broken wrists, arms or ankles; and dislocated elbows, all in children whose spills didn't go as well as Megan's. In the U.S. alone, around 1,600 emergency room visits occur each year after children take a spill while on shoe-skates, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't exactly a child's most pressing danger, but it's hardly chump change either. As a result, many schools have even taken steps to ban the trendy footwear.

The skates come in several different varieties. Some are set up so that a wheel in the back of the shoe engages when the child shifts their weight to their heel. (So not only are they skating, but they're off-balance.) Others function like regular roller skates, with pop out wheels that a child can use to transform their everyday shoes into a pair of wheeled recreation devices. Whatever the style, the concept is to combine roller skates with everyday shoes.

We won't fault parents if they want to get their child a pair. Be honest, we know you can hear the voices in your head urging you towards them. One reason parents buy them, I suspect, is because laughing at kids when they fall is half the fun of the experience. Just be aware of the potential for danger, and remember that a skate is a skate, no matter what form it's in. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons recommends a child wear full wrist and knee pads, along with a helmet, anytime such shoes are in skate mode. Kids should at least have a helmet anytime they want to skate around. As for their use in everyday life to zip around malls or down sidewalks, we don't see any more harm in it than usual, so long as a child is holding the hand of a firmly anchored adult. This should prevent any serious injuries if they slip. A couple of extra bumps and bruises won't hurt. It's good to toughen them up, or at least that's what my Dad always told us as he was trying to stop the bleeding. We just don't like seeing hospital visits.

In the meantime, I'm working on a little patent of my own. It's called the fire-cycle, and it combines the joy of fireworks with the utility of bicycle riding. There's a button on the handlebars that shoots bottle rockets and another one that releases jumping jacks and cherry bombs at will, which is great if you need an impromptu obstacle course, or if you just want to keep your little brother from following you. Nobody steal my idea.

Please visit us at http://keepyourchildsafe.org for more child safety information.

Warning about Sleep Positioners

2010-12-22T20:31:00.000-07:00

The FDA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission recently issued a warning infant sleep positioners. Parents should avoid using them, as they increase the risk of SIDS. At least 12 babies in the last 13 years have been suffocated by infant sleep positioners, likely because they slid down and got their face wedged up against the foam device.

Other interesting tidbits from around the world:

Attack of the Elderly
A chiropractic center in Wicheta Kansas, found itself under particular attack, after two different cars crashed through the front of the building on the same day. First, and elderly woman rammed through the front of the building and landed in the reception area. A few hours later, an elderly man crashed into a different wall, shattering a window. Thankfully, no one was injured.

Twitter Birthing
Most women in labor are focused on the process of childbirth. Rachael Ince, a woman from Lancaster, England, was also focused on her Twitter account. She posted a 190 tweets while she was giving birth, including: "Ohh, I actually groaned during that contraction -- things are looking up!"

How to Survive An Avalanche

2010-12-18T21:58:00.000-07:00

Squarely in the realm of "you'll probably never need to know it but just in case you do..." category, sits the topic of avalanche safety. To some people, it may seem akin to learning how to dodge a meteor strike; information that isn't pertinent to their life and probably won't ever come in handy. Yet if you and your kids are winter sports junkies or prone to exploring avalanche prone areas, then it doesn't hurt to take a moment to sit down with them and cover the basics of how to survive an avalanche. During the 2007~2008 winter season alone, 36 people in the United States were killed in avalanches, a record that experts largely attribute to the growing popularity of back-country sports. And as remote as the risk my be, it's still higher than the likelihood of your child being murdered by a registered sex-offender. So before you head out to the back country, take a little time to go over avalanche safety. It can be entertaining if nothing else.

1. Don't bother trying to outrun the snow. An avalanche can pick up speed to 80 M.P.H. in a matter of seconds. If on skis and you think you're far enough ahead of it, your best bet is to veer sideways at a 45 degree angle and try to have it miss you. When you're the one who triggers it, you've got about 3 to 5 seconds to ski off it. But racing it is a losing cause.

2. If that doesn't work, grab a tree and hang on for dear life. No, that's not a joke. If you can manage to keep your grip, trees often form natural air pockets on the opposite side of the avalanche. It may buy you extra space or even provide the ability to climb out once things settle. It can also act as a shield against some of the deadly debris. Even if you can't hang on for the duration, the more snow that slides past you, the better your chances are. It's always best to be at the upper end of the avalanche as opposed to buried under the bottom of the pile.

3. Paddle. That's right, paddle. Humans are 3-times denser than dry snow, so if you're not swimming, you'll sink like a log. Either that, or perhaps safety experts just have a sense of humor.

4. Create space, or make air pockets. Once the snow stops moving, it will set like concrete. So as the snow slows, cup your hands in front of your mouth, and take a deep, breath so that your lungs will create extra space. Try to move as much as possible. The more space you create to move, the more air pockets and maneuverability you'll create, and the better your chance for survival.

5. Reach for the surface. As you're tumbling along, raise a hand and try to break through to the top. If you can manage to get any body part or piece of clothing showing it will help rescuers find you.

6. Stay calm, and breathe slowly. Don't bother yelling until you hear rescuers directly on top of you. Any farther away and it's unlikely they'll hear your muffled cries for help. It will only use up your precious oxygen, while filling your air pocket with carbon dioxide.

7. If you or a loved one is out in the high country often, invest in a good avalanche beacon or some of the other safety products that are available. You can find these in our safety store.

The key to surviving an avalanche is getting out quickly and avoiding collisions with deadly debris, such as rocks or tree trunks. Those who are uncovered in the first 15 minutes have a 90% survival rate. Yet as time ticks away, spending between 15 minutes and 45 minutes under the snow lowers your odds of survival fall from 90% to 30%. So there you have it. Information you'll probably never need but that all winter sports junkies should have just in case. See us next time for tips on how to dodge a meteorite. Hint: it involves using the Michael Jackson moonwalk.

For more safety tips visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

The New Owner of the Sun

2010-12-13T20:49:00.001-07:00

Off Topic (Yet amusing)
In the realm of the utterly absurd, a spanish woman recently filed legal papers claiming she owns the sun. 49 year old Angeles Duran claims in notarized documents that she is now the official "owner of the sun, a star of spectral type G2, located in the centre of the solar system, located at an average distance from earth of about 149,600,000 kilometers." What comes next? Why, she wants to charge a fee for usage of the sun's energy, of course. Where others might see a telltale sign of diagnosable insanity, she sees a business prospect with a fortune to be made: "Anyone else could have done it, it simply occurred to me first," says Duran. Yes, anybody could have done it; just like anybody could, if they wanted to, wear their underwear over their head and run down the street singing "Are You Sleeping," if it occurred to them. Most of us don't, because we have an ounce of common sense.

Let me know how the biz prospect goes, Angeles. Especially since I hereby lay claim to legal ownership of the earth's atmosphere, of which the rays from Angeles' sun could certainly pass through . . . for a hefty fee, of course.

Childhood Obesity In 16 Minutes A Day

2010-12-10T21:01:00.005-07:00

For all the complicated, hyped up weight loss theories out there, scientists have long known that the obesity problem boils down to a simple equation: if you take in more calories than you burn you will gain weight. Period.

A new study by the University of Southern California, conducted for the National Institute of Health, explored one half of the equation. They found that the tipping point between health and obesity for children may be as little as 16 minutes a day. That is how much more exorcise normal weight gain kids get over their obese friends. The kids in the study (N=3,106) wore accelerometers to track their levels of physical activity for a period of 4 days. Normal weight children ages 6 to 17 averaged 59 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity a day, (right in line with NIH recommendations that all kids get at least an hour), while obese kids logged in only 43 minutes daily.

This may not seem like a lot, but averaged out over weeks, months, and years, it is a significant difference ... one that would certainly distort those calories burned equations in the wrong direction. (30 minutes of bike ridding, for example, can burn more than 250 calories.)

Girls, who averaged 20 minutes less daily physical activity than boys, are particularly in need of more exorcise. There was also a disturbing drop around adolescence, when daily physical activity plummeted -- to an average of 33 minutes for kids 12 to 15 years, and a mere 25 minutes for teens 16 to 19 years.

In the fight against obesity, little difference and daily habits matter. That is why parents should do whatever they can to squeeze in more physical activity -- weather it be getting up to dance, doing jumping jacks during commercials, or taking time to chase kids around the yard. Because it turns out that 16 minutes might make a world of difference.

For more information on the safety and health of children visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Get Your FREE Anxiety-Free Child Email Seminar!
“The Art of Raising Anxiety-Free Kids”

More Dangers to Kids from Third hand Smoke

2010-11-29T20:53:00.002-07:00

As most people are aware, smoking is bad for one's health. Also as most people are aware, second-hand smoke can be bad for anyone who breathes it in, particularly children. Yet a recent field of research has been documenting the dangers of third-hand smoke; a term used to describe the residual chemicals that can be left over from cigarettes even after the actual smoke clears. And a new study published earlier this year in the February 8 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA shows just how harmful such exposure might be.

A research team from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory warns that third hand smoke may be even more hazardous to children's health than first or secondhand smoke. The reason is that the remnants of cigarette smoke do not just benignly settle on surfaces to create a harmless chemical coating. Rather, their study found that leftover nicotine compounds can react with nitrous acid vapor--a chemical that is "environmentally common," and emitted from a variety of everyday sources; everything from gas appliances to vehicles. When this happens, the reaction produces carcinogenic compounds referred to as tobacco-specific nitrosamines, or TSNAs for short.

It's not merely the presence of these compounds that make third hand smoke so dangerous. After all, secondhand smoke contains TSNAs as well. But the presence of nitrous acid in a room or car can increase the numbers of these compounds several times over in the hours after a person stops smoking. More importantly, because this nicotine residue can linger on surfaces for weeks or even months, it can be a more persistent form of exposure than first or secondhand smoke, exposing children to carcinogens on an ongoing basis. This is what makes it so potentially dangerous.

TSNAs can be inhaled, ingested and absorbed through the skin. As usual, children are the most vulnerable to third hand smoke, just as they are with any cigarette smoke. Their small size means they get a much higher exposure per body weight, and with still developing bodies they also have the most to lose from hazardous chemical exposures of any type.

Though these findings are preliminary, they join a body of other research which has documented the dangers of third-hand smoke. Cigarette smoke--complete with all of its toxins--does not just vanish into thin air, despite the visual illusion that the wafting smoke gives of such. Its contents settle onto the surrounding areas in microscopic amounts too small to see, but they're there. Smoking and non-smoking parents alike need to be aware of this.

Children, and young children especially, are then exposed to these chemicals when they sit on a couch, put a toy in their mouth, or do any of those other things normal kids do. Perhaps the most toxic form of exposure can occur when a parent smokes in a car. Even if they do it when their kids aren't present, it's a confined space that will concentrate nicotine residue. If parents then use the same car to transport their kids, it can expose them to these TSNAs.

Public education campaigns have gotten most people to cease smoking around their children. Yet this needs to be taken one step further. Parents should avoid smoking anywhere their children share space, which includes the house or the family car. If you're not one of the 20% of Americans who smoke, you might tactfully spread this information to any of your friends that do.

To learn more about all child safety issues visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

How to stop a misbehaving child

Traumatizing Tadpoles

2010-11-14T15:24:00.002-07:00

Just admit it. Somehow, someway, I've managed to peer inside your head once again to find out exactly what you're thinking. Or are you going to try to deny that such a thought has ever crossed your mind? The idea of intentionally traumatizing baby tadpoles apparently crossed someone’s mind, as I was intrigued when I came across the practice in a science article. Why would anyone want to traumatize tadpoles, you ask? Aside from giving the future axe-murderers of society ideas for something to do on Friday nights, the concept was employed to test the ability of tadpoles to learn from their environment, even before they hatch.

A research team at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada exposed wood frog eggs to water which had been doused with slurry of freshly ground-up wood frog tadpoles. Naturally, such an environment could be scary to aspiring tadpoles. Imagine taking your child to a daycare with ground up baby bits everywhere. Researchers then paired this experience with water from the tanks of fire-belly salamanders. Since the salamanders don't live around wood frogs in nature, their scent by itself shouldn't provoke any reaction, as they're not a natural predator.

Yet when the eggs hatched, tadpoles that had been exposed to the scent of the salamander alongside the slurry of their ground-up nursery school friends, considered the scent of the salamander by itself to be threatening. Un-traumatized tadpoles didn't have the same reaction.

In a follow up study by another team led by Maud Ferrari of the same University, the same type of embryos were exposed to salamander scent, this time with no morbid slurry of dead comrades. Instead, they exposed them to this mix of salamander scent and dead playmates after they hatched. In theory, this alarming exposure could give the youngsters a life-long fear of the salamanders. Yet tadpoles who had already been exposed to the scent earlier in their life, when nothing seemed to be amiss, disregarded the scent as irrelevant. So tadpoles are capable of learning not only what to be afraid of, but they also learn when it isn't time to panic. Turns out the little fellas are smarter than most people would have ever thought.

What all this nonsense accomplished, other than allowing us to create one of the most intriguing blog post titles ever, is to show that even among some of the earth's lowliest creatures, learning takes place from the very beginning. Its part of a new wave of research revealing that right from the start, baby creatures of all kinds show an extraordinary knack to absorb their environment and adjust accordingly.

The moral of the story: fetuses can be aware of their environment to a degree that most don't fully appreciate. That, and under no circumstances should you expose pregnant women to a slurry of ground up baby bits. If a tadpole is capable of learning before birth, imagine how much more so a baby human picks up from their surroundings.

When I read about this study, I began to think about all the other research I've explored regarding the consequences of things such as conflict or maternal stress on fetal development. The studies are numerous and the research conclusive: negative environments can adversely affect fetal development. Yet something about this study gave me a whole new perspective on things, and maybe it will you as well. At the very least, it's an interesting example of how wonderful and complex life can be even at the smallest levels.

So before any future little ones get here, remember: friendly voices, calm tones, and a healthy, nurturing environment babies are learning from you, even before they're born. They're absorbing their surroundings; reading any conflict in the environment and observing the tones of voices in their future caretakers, and even adjusting their development accordingly. Let’s make sure to give them lots of happy thoughts.

Reference:
1. Susan Milius, "Smart from the start," Science News, Vol. 176(4):26-29, August 15, 2009

To read more interesting child facts visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Bouncy Houses Full of Lead

2010-10-31T15:24:00.002-06:00

You know those inflatable bouncy houses for kids, a common staple at fairs, flea markets, and children's parties. Well it turns out that some of them contain dozens of times the amount of the federal legal limit of lead, according to a suit filed by California Attorney General, Jerry Brown. The manufactures have responded by down playing test results and recommending that children should wipe their hands and faces after jumping to get any lead off. It is also uncertain if, and how much, would actually make its way to the kids who use it.

So what is a parent to do? For lead conscious parents this could create quite a conundrum at a party. You can let kids play a potentially risk a brief period of mild to moderate lead exposure, or exclude your child from the fun and risk the rage that will follow. This is a safety issues that is more of a personal choice. While not ideal, such brief, isolated exposure is unlikely to matter in the long run. (Do have your child wash up afterward if you decide to through precaution to the wind.) Also, be sure to ask about any lead in the structure before renting one and ask for a test. Basic lead tests can be bought at most stores that sell baby or child proofing supplies.

For more safety facts visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org.

How long do germs stay active on money?

2010-10-15T22:09:00.000-06:00

Generally speaking, viruses stay active for only a few hours, but certain forms of bacteria can keep alive for several weeks on money or anything else. Considering the likely number of people a dollar bill has exchanged hands with over two weeks, however, and it's likely you'll encounter more live germs on the door handle to the store you walk into or the counter of the fast-food restaurant you touch. People are everywhere. They've taken over the planet. There's no way to completely avoid their germs.

To learn more about family safety go to www.keepyourchildsafe.org and explore

Where Abductors Lurk, 7 in 10 Kids Unprepared

2010-10-10T20:20:00.000-06:00

Strangers on the news. Strangers in the park. Lurking at the grocery store. Following behind you in their cars. With your kids at the park. Each one unfamiliar, a potential for snatching your child at any moment. We've all heard the stories of strangers, and most of us have repeated such stories of caution to our children: don't talk to strangers, never go anywhere with a stranger, and on and on. You'd think by now they'd surely get the message.

Yet according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 7 out of 10 kids will still go with a stranger despite parental warnings. Individual tests done periodically by various news stations all over the country confirm such fears, repeatedly showing that some children will willingly wander off with complete strangers under some of the classic ploys an abductor may use. And it always happens with the parents claiming beforehand that, surely, their child would never walk off with a stranger.

The problem is not that kids can't follow directions, but that they lack context for the instruction. Most parents tell their children not to talk to strangers, but provide little practical knowledge that can be applied to everyday situations. They may tell a child not to talk to strangers, but then proceed to carry on conversations with them themselves in supermarket lines. They may also tell a child to respond when a stranger at the store asks their name or inquires about their day. Of course, we the parents know the types of situations where strangers pose a potential danger. But we do a lousy job of conveying this knowledge to our children.

As a result, the child ends up getting mixed messages, and lacks the context for the instructions. The consequence is that they have difficulty discerning a dangerous situation from an everyday one. Parents need to make sure that their discussions go beyond the mere "don't talk to strangers" command. Proper stranger danger training needs to include the following:

A) Rather than telling children "don't talk to strangers"; do a slight variation on this command and tell them they can only talk to strangers when you (or another caretaker) is around. Clearly define "when I'm around" to mean when their caretaker is right there in their presence and clearly visible, not upstairs or inside the house or in a different room. Apply this rule to answering the door as well. We know of at least 3 cases (and there are likely more) where a child was snatched right from their doorstep as they answered the door alone and later found murdered.

B) Parents need to provide examples of ploys an abductor might use. Merely discussing some of the basic ploys will help children develop a pattern of recognition that will make their senses tingle should anyone use a similar (or even identical) ploy in real life.

C) Role play. This gives kids a chance to practice the correct actions in advance. Kids learn better by doing than they do by someone barking commands at them. When you give them a command, it often remains an intangible concept, much akin to remembering the birth date of George Washington. When you act out that knowledge it becomes tangible, and much more accessible in a clutch situation.

D) Put them to the test. Try to arrange for a friend or colleague that they don't know to test them and see what happens. If they fail the test, a stern (but pleasant) talking to should be enough to greatly increase their odds of acting correctly the next time around, should it ever come up.

E) Repetition. Telling a child "don't talk to strangers" once and calling it good is not enough. Once is never enough with children, who learn through experience and repetition. Our child safety books on stranger danger provide a great way to offer this repetition. You can read them online, print a copy yourself, or order a set for your household.

The good news is that these tests also inevitably reveal well-trained children who do exactly the right thing in a clutch situation. One 20/20 episode showed a girl, perhaps about 7 or 8 years old, not only saving herself but preventing her younger brother from going along with an abduction attempt. They were playing in front of their house when a stranger (who in this case was an undercover safety specialist) approached. The girl was weary, watching the situation unfold from a safe distance. Her brother was enthusiastic, and readily went along with the ploy. But big sister intervened, quite literally grabbing him by the shirt and dragging him inside the house under protest to prevent him from going to see the toys in the man's trunk. Yes, kids can and will perform life-saving feats if properly trained. The thirty percent is evidence of this. It's just that too few parents adequately get the message across.

Another thing few people realize is that there are usually numerous abduction attempts for every successful abduction. An abductor need not be successful every time, just persistent enough to come across the child who allows them to be successful once. The question is, will your child be that one? For seven in ten parents, the answer could be yes. Let's fix that.

Learn more safety tips from www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Why for Some Kids, the Lure of a Gun is Irresistible

2010-09-29T20:36:00.000-06:00

It goes without saying, or at least parents assume it should, that little fingers should never wrap themselves around a real firearm. Just in case it doesn't, be sure to tell them anyway: If you come across a gun, don't ever touch it, don't ever play with it; run and get an adult. Yet time and time again, there are children who ignore such warnings anyway. Should they happen across a gun, they just can't help themselves...they feel a compulsive need to explore it. And at least part of this is our fault.

As a society, we must own up to the fact that we live in a gun-crazed culture; one where the use and allure of firearms is talked up, romanticized, fictionalized, and broadcast into our homes on an everyday basis. It's not just on TV, either. Many kids have parents who proudly display their gun-toting ways, not to mention older brothers, uncles, and other adult friends. Most adults who own them treat guns as a status of power and authority, further adding to the allure. Then, of course, there are jack-ass fools who show up outside town-hall meetings carrying assault rifles. In the midst of such displays~ what message is a kid to receive?

When children are surrounded by this gun-crazed romanticism with firearms, the lure of a gun can become simply irresistible. It's a classic one-two punch of psychology. We talk guns up and romanticize their power and significance, while simultaneously turning around and telling children' not to touch. There are two surefire ingredients to use to get a child interested in something: 1) Tell them they can't have it, 2) In everything that surrounds them, send a message about how wonderful and powerful that thing which they can't have is.

Some die-hard gun advocates would say the solution to this is of course to provide children with ways for safe gun usage so that they don't feel a compulsion to experiment. Yet this tends to backfire as well, leading to overconfidence and the likelihood that kids will handle a gun when they shouldn't, or 'show off their gun skills with a friend, who also might use it irresponsibly. Not to mention that since gun accidents commonly occur through everyday use, ANY exposure to a gun increases a child's risk of dying and lowers their overall safety, and that of the kids around them. The problem is not the restriction; kids can handle this when the danger is clearly explained to them. It's the romanticism that goes along with it.

Not only is this romanticism unhealthy, it's flat out wrong. The cold hard facts don't lie, and they reveal that a person is around 60 times more likely to use their gun in a tragic manner (murder, suicide, accidental shooting, etc.) than they are to use it for a legal purpose. When you further take police-officer statistics out of the equation and focus on true life or death situations as opposed to simply "legal use" (many states allow the use of a firearm against any felony, regardless of whether a person is actually in danger at the time) and the situation gets even bleaker. In terms of legitimate self-defense, the odds shoot up to at least several hundred to one that a gun will be used tragically rather than defensively. If you own a gun for self-defense, you own a gun for the wrong reasons, and your family is in more danger, not less, on account of your fun ownership.

Then there are the movies. Movies aren't just unrealistic in terms of the obviously dubious action involved, but in terms of the end result of all the gun play depicted in them. In real life, when guns get drawn, their shooters are every bit as likely to hit an innocent civilian as they are their intended target. Yet in movies and drama shows alike, hundreds of rounds can be fired off without a single innocent child going down in the process. You see people diving behind cars in the process of shooting at their target while sideways and off-balance in mid air...a shot that in real life even a professional marksman would find virtually impossible. Yet this sort of acrobatic marksmanship is quite common on TV, and it gives kids a fantasy-land mentality about how easy gun use really is. Just point and shoot, and the bullet hits the bad guy. This portrayal couldn't be farther from the truth.

As is always the case, parenting plays a crucial role. We're not an organization that advocates a prudish approach of hiding your kids from any media exposure that might be disagreeable. Violent media exposure in children should be limited wherever parents can, but it's also not as though letting your kids watch that action movie they're dying to see is destined to do them any harm. But by golly, never let such scenes in a movie or television show go by unchallenged. Television offers numerous examples of brute violence and unrealistic ideals, but this also means it provides a lot of wonderful opportunities for discussion.
So the next time your family is watching Mr. Hero do a triple back flip off a high-rise building while catching a gun out of mid-air and miraculously firing off a shot that hits the bad guy square in the chest, take a little time afterwards to talk about what actually happens when guns get drawn. Television can be a wonderful teaching tool, so long as parents use it. No matter how ridiculous it’s content, it always provides opportunities for discussion.

The good news is that many kids do the right thing, so it's not as though talking to your kids about guns is a lost cause. Far from it.
For every child who brings a gun to class, there's often a friend he's showing it to who runs off and tells the teacher. Kids who do the right thing when parents are vigilant in safety. We just need a little more talk...not only about not touching guns, but also talk to combat the romanticism and high regards in which guns are elevated to in our culture.

References:
*For more info on some of the talking points within this post, look for our upcoming publication, 'Guns for Protection?' scheduled to be released in the next month or two.

1. Hahn, R.A. et al., "First reports evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for preventing violence: Early childhood home visitation." Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, V. 52, No. RR-14, Oct. 3, 2003

Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for more safety information.

How Many deer to car accidents occur every year?

2010-09-26T22:04:00.000-06:00

It's hard to get an exact number, because many such accidents are never reported. An insurance industry estimate by State Farm insurance puts the number of annual deer-vehicle collisions at around 1.5 million nationwide. (That's an awful lot of deer-jerky!) Numbers are especially high in the east, an area where white-tailed deer are abundant. Such collisions are no threat to deer or raccoons, whose large numbers hedge them from extinction. Yet such collisions can take a toll on many other endangered animals, such as the Florida panther, which just might go extinct if Grandma nails any more of them.

People, too, often come out on the losing end. Around 200 people lose their lives every year as a result of wildlife to auto collisions. Efforts at curbing these accidents, such as car whistles or sensors, have shown little success. Most experts believe the only real solution is to build underpasses and overpasses for wildlife that get all sorts of animals, deer included, across the roads safely. Of course, getting them to use them is the challenge here.

Reference:
1. Thomas Hayden, "Deer Crashing," National Geographic, October 2008

Find more Safety Information at www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Why Parents Murder Their Children ... And How We Can Prevent It

2010-09-03T20:52:00.000-06:00

If you follow the news at all, by now you've probably heard about the recent case of a South Carolina mom who allegedly confessed to murdering her two children. Police say 29-year-old Shaquan Daly left for a motel after an argument with her mother, which apparently started over how she was caring for the kids. (Tragically ironic) She booked into a room at around 1:30 a.m., and it was there that police say she killed her two boys in the early morning hours by placing a hand over their mouth. The older tot had defensive wounds, suggesting he had struggled.

She then allegedly strapped them into their car seats, and drove off, ditching the car in the Edisto River. She then made up a story about getting into an accident and having to walk some ways to flag someone down because she didn't have a cell phone. Police received a call about a car in the water later that morning, less than 5 hours after Daly booked into the motel.

Police say the young mother was unemployed and "had no means of taking care of her children," according to Orangeburg County sheriff Larry Williams. "She was fed up with her mother," says Williams. "She just wanted to be free. ...she truly felt, if I don't have these toddlers, I can be free." She is currently being held without bail on two counts of murder. And so it is the sad conclusion to another senseless tragedy.

Catastrophic events happen all around us, but I'm always struck by the feelings of "what a waste" amidst such stories; I mean, surely, someone out there could have wanted these children and would have taken care of them, sparing the lads such a horrible fate. For those of us who value and treasure children, the act seems so needless and tragic. It's sort of like watching someone toss valuable jewels and works of fine art into a hot lava pit while arriving just a little too late on the scene to salvage them. You just want to scream out, "Wait! Don't do that! I'll take them if you don't want them." If she had only sampled random people she met on the street, or heck, put an ad on eBay, someone out there would have been happy to take possession of this treasure. The motel owner was reportedly in tears when he heard about the news. I wonder what would have happened if Shaquan had simply brought the kids to his office and said, "I'm at my whit’s end, I can't take care of these kids anymore, will you please do it or help find someone who can?" In an ideal world, no parent would be driven to the point of premeditated murder as a way out.

Of course, we don't live in an ideal world, and our modern society often puts roadblocks in the way of such solutions, preventing more rational and accommodating escape routes for frustrated parents. Had she done such a thing, the police would have been called, and she'd be arrested on neglect charges. She'd be shamed and humiliated by an army of policeman and social workers. Little sympathy would be shown for her predicament. She would be judged, ostracized, and thrust into all new battles. It likely wouldn't solve her problems or absolve her of her parental duties, but only exasperate them. She would be met with resistance and hostility rather than support. This is why she instead hatched an elaborate plan to try and dispose of the kids and make it look like an accident. People have a tendency to take what they presume to be the path of least resistance to solve their problems.

What's also striking about this case is that Shaquan's other child, a 5-year-old girl, was left at the Grandmother's house, and thus, spared the murderous plot. (Grandma now has temporary custody of the child.) Neighbors say Daley lived with her mother in Orangeburg, a town of 13,000 about 40 miles south of Columbia. Considering the police say the fight was about the children's care, and the older girl was left with Grandma while the younger two were toted off with mom, this makes one wonder about the caregiver dynamics that were at play here. Perhaps Grandma was willing to help with the girl but not the boys, or maybe she simply found the younger children too much work to take care of. (As most readers are probably aware, there is a world of developmental difference between a two-year-old and a five-year-old. Infants and toddlers demand constant and intense attention, making it hard to do anything else, whereas a 5-year-old is much more autonomous and can largely care for themselves with limited supervision.) Maybe mom wanted and loved her daughter but found her sons to be too much work and a source of continued frustration. (Police were unable to locate the father of the dead children.) We can only speculate as to the specific family dynamics that played out, but one way or another, we ended up with a situation in which two kids were left out of the mix, with no one vying to care for them.

Time and time again, we watch as situations like this unfold. This wasn't the first such incident, and it won't be the last. In our quick-to-judge society, it's easiest to demonize this mother and her actions, but that doesn't get us anywhere or do anything to help kids in the future. The reality is that people are imperfect, some parents are better than others, and some parents find themselves in situations where they can't take it anymore, and need some type of escape. This doesn't make them monsters, even as barbaric as this mother's actions were; it makes them imperfect, frustrated parents at their breaking point, parents who need some kind of help and act in their own self-interest~ And there are a lot of such parents out there.

We got a glimpse of the scope of the problem when Nebraska’s recent safe-haven law, which was meant to allow for the safe abandonment of newborns at area hospitals, unintentionally made it legal to abandon any child at a hospital, because the law failed to specify age. Thirty-six children were abandoned in a period of three months before the loophole was fixed. None were infants. Sadly, when legislators saw what was happening, rather than address the underlying problem, they merely rushed to put the genie back in the bottle, plugging the loophole and burying the problems from public view again. Nebraska is a fairly small state, at least population-wise, and they were on pace to have an annual abandonment rate of around 150 kids. Which means nationwide, there are tens of thousands of kids in similar predicaments, with their parents at their breaking point and desperately needing assistance. From this sea of unacknowledged frustration come tragedies such as the recent one.

These are parents and children living right underneath our noses, and society isn't doing much to acknowledge or address the issue. Nor is traditional state intervention by CPS the answer. Our child protection system is an oxymoron if there ever was one; bogged down in the normal government bureaucracy, exhibiting the normal incompetence, and built around an antagonistic philosophy that causes children far more harm than they prevent. It is our utter lack of informal resolutions that poses the biggest problem. What we need is not more bureaucracy that works against parents - precisely the opposite. We're so caught up in laws and formality and punishment and finger-pointing and a community that operates at a distant arms-length that, for a few select individuals, disposing of the kids through one means or another seems an easier solution than obtaining the relief they so desperately need.

We need to make it easier for someone, anyone, to be there for such parents and provide care for their kids during times of need in an informal capacity ... without the government feeling a need to complicate the procedure with persecutory laws, criminal charges, and licenses/ paperwork/procedural guidelines from here to the moon. Moreover, such a support network needs to work with parents (not against them) to provide relief on the fly when they desperately need it, and it needs to be as easy and painless as ordering a cheeseburger, so that no parent ever considers murder the easiest way out. The Nebraska safe-haven law was not necessarily wrong, in principle. In fact, it uncovered a hidden problem with enormous need. Something similar with a few fundamental tweaks and alterations could provide a support network that keeps children alive, and offers frustrated parents the support they need.

This may sound like a romantic vision, but it's hardly unworkable. I remember as a child a campaign of helping hand stickers on houses, which were meant to be safe places for children to turn to if they needed help. We need a similar type of informal support network, in every community, that parents can utilize to seek help...whether it be to drop off their kids for a couple days, seek support on an ongoing basis, or otherwise alleviate the stress and keep such children safe. It needs to be readily available and widely known about. Similar programs, known as 'crisis nurseries,' are already available in certain communities to individuals who have already been cited for child abuse or neglect. There are precious few of these available, but those that do exist have been the most successful and child-friendly abuse-intervention programs to date. Yet we can't wait for someone to be arrested for child abuse to offer such help, and we can't link help with criminal prosecution, judgment, or disruption of parental rights if we truly want to assist families in crisis.

We need to stop pretending that those who injure children are monstrous individuals who enjoy being evil, as opposed to people who for one reason or another have reached their breaking point. This mother's actions were horrific and inexcusable. But we're not exactly doing all we can to prevent such tragedies, either. We need to worry less about laws and rules and procedures and persecution, and start worrying more about building a supportive community. People will always act as imperfect people do, and for those parents at their breaking point, we can expect they might do injurious things out of self-preservation. This is basic human nature. Expecting every parent to be wonderful and selfless and skilled in handling their children at all times and out of every situation is simply foolish and naive. Not all people were equally cut out for the parenting role, especially when under severe stress. We need a system that offers better support for all levels of parents, especially those who are less skilled, caring or devoted to their children. This will not occur by snatching children away from their communities only to thrust them into an abusive bureaucracy, but by making support available, and readily available, at the times and in the places and in the ways they need it.

I don't know about you, but I'd gladly join some type of register and submit to background checks, and would be happy to help provide care to those invisible children in our community whose parents are surviving on the margin of sanity, in order to prevent those kids from being beaten or murdered. And I’m sure there are enough other parents or retired grandparents who would be willing to do the same, so that we could have a crisis drop-off house on every block. One way or another, we need to build a support network into our communities, so that no parent ever feels that murdering their children is the only (or easiest) way to obtain the relief they need.

To learn more about child safety issues visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

The Purse Invasion

2010-08-27T21:20:00.000-06:00

You do your best to make your castle a safe place for the children to play. You get safety latches for the cupboards and plugs to cover the outlets and safety gates on the stairs. You be sure to set all knives, medicine, poisons, matches and lighters, etc., safely out of reach. You childproof your living spaces in every way you can, so that prying little fingers won't be able to get their hands on anything that could hurt them.

Yet one of the most prominent dangers is often something most parents completely overlook: the purse. It's dangerous for several reasons: First, as any parent knows, young kids love to get into it. It sits there like a kiddy magnet, sending out mischievous vibes and calling out to any child with a curiosity that happens to be in the vicinity, beckoning them to inquire as to what's inside. Second, what's inside can often be dangerous to kids. People commonly carry medicine or lighters or pepper spray or stun guns or other little things that can pose a big hazard. Finally, this bag of potential death and danger easily breaches the security of your fortress. It's carried right through the front door and often set on the counter, a bar stool, or even right on the floor within easy reach of little fingers.

A significant number of accidental poisonings occur when children get into grandmas purse during a visit, which is often filled with medication, as elderly people in general are much more likely to be on some kind of medical regimen. Since they don't have small hands prying in their purse themselves, they may not think twice about what's inside. Furthermore, medications kept in a purse are often removed from their childproof containers. Adults often make a "traveling pack" of medication, keeping pills in a pouch or another container that a child can easily get into. A young child who discovers their stash pops a few pills, and the next thing you know you're rushing little Suzie to the hospital.

Children who die in house fires they started while playing with fire often retrieved their fire making tools from an ill-placed purse or handbag. A number of choking deaths can be linked to children swallowing trinkets found inside a purse. There's also the occasional accident with handguns, self-defense weapons, or the other potentially dangerous items people carry around with them. With so many dangers lurking inside such a small bag, there are several things parents can do to avert a potential disaster:

1. When you have guests, be sure to ask them if they have anything dangerous in their purse that the kids might get a hold of. Or just keep all purses and handbags in a clearly visible area where both they and the kids can be monitored.

2. Consider setting aside a high cupboard in which to keep your own purse or those of guests, so that children aren't able to get into them.

3. Another idea is to install a high shelf directly above the entryway for which to keep purses, car keys, or other materials. It also makes a convenient spot for hanging notes.

These precautions aside, simply be aware and vigilant. Extra awareness that purses pose a danger is the first step in proactively ensuring they don't. Always be aware of what's in your own purse or handbag and where these purses are in relation to any prying little fingers that may be around.

For more child safety information visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Does Too Much Sugar Turn Children Into Violent Criminals?

2010-08-11T20:22:00.000-06:00

Parents: A strict warning--you'd better withhold that bowl of fruity pebbles from your child, because if you don't, they might grow up to be a violent criminal. Or at least, that's the nonsense that some out there would have you believe.

A recent (2009) study from Cardiff University in the U.K. found that children who ate more sugary foods were more likely to commit violent crimes as adults. Sixty-nine percent of violent offenders were daily sugar eaters, they say, compared with 42% of non-violent people. Therefore, sugar must be turning our kids into future delinquents.

But before you rush to rid your home of the devilish powder, we thought we'd shed a little light on the subject, because it annoys us when people misuse science to create fantastic headlines in order to gain media attention that will mislead the public while scaring them about a whole lot of nonsense. Phew...that was a long sentence.

We start with the first rule of research: correlation does not equal causation. Just because two things can be linked together does not mean one causes the other. This is all the more true when something has no established mechanism for the outcome. That is to say, there is no credible evidence indicating how slightly elevated levels of sucrose in a child's body would alter brainwaves in order to change their behavior and lead to violence.

Claiming sugar causes violent crime is a bold statement. So does sugar really have such powerful effects? Unlikely. Let's talk about the more rational causes for such a correlation:

A) Those with higher daily sugar habits are also those who are likely to exhibit less self-control. Less self-control is an established link to violent crime and delinquency, and it is the lower inhibitions that lead both to increases in crime and increases in sugar intake.

For example, the famous marshmallow experiment at Stanford University provides the perfect analogy. Researchers put children into a room with nothing but their own devices to entertain them. A marshmallow was placed on the table in front of them, and the preschoolers were told that if they waited until the researcher .came back into the room to eat it, they would be given a second marshmallow. About a third of the kids managed to hold out the full 15 minutes, a third ate the marshmallow right away, and around a third broke down somewhere in-between.

Years later, a follow up study was done when the kids were young adults. (2) It found that those in the most impulsive group scored significantly higher on delinquency rates and significantly lower on general life measures. Those kids who as preschoolers had waited the 15 minutes to earn a second marshmallow had significantly higher marks in education and everyday life skills. So does this mean eating marshmallows causes future delinquency? No. It means that a lack of self-control in childhood, as evidenced by the marshmallow test (or impulsive sugar intake) is a predictor of future delinquency.

B) Those parents who largely fail to monitor a child's diet when young are likely to also be parents who are less-competent and caring in general. Less competent parenting is a proven link to crime, and low parental caring is a proven link to antisocial behavior. So those who were able to eat candy for breakfast would tend to be those with more irresponsible and less involved parents.

C) Low socioeconomic status (SES) is a proven link to crime; and there is also an established link between low SES and poor, higher-fat, higher sugar diets; simply because junk food tends to be cheaper and more readily available than healthy food.

The idea that sugar alters behavior in kids is a widely held myth. At least a dozen large-scale trials analyzing what children eat have been unable to detect any differences in behavior between the children who ate sugary foods and those who hadn't. Even studies that singled out children who were labeled as having "sensitivity" towards sugar found no behavioral differences between a high-sugar and sugar-free diet. If a child was an obnoxious twerp before downing a bag of skittles, they'll be one afterward too. And if they were calm and in-control before ice cream, they won't suddenly grow devil-horns afterward.

No doubt there are parents out there convinced that sugar makes their kids hyper, and they are no doubt gritting their teeth reading this.
Such parents have been the subject of study too. In one example, researchers divided children and their parents into two groups. In one group, parents were told their children were being given a drink that was full of sugar. The other was told their children's drinks were sugar free. In truth, both groups received sugar-free drinks. The parents were then asked to grade their children's behavior. Naturally, parents who thought their children had received a sugar-boost graded them as more hyperactive than the other. (6) Our beliefs shape our perspectives, and create an altered version of reality. We find evidence for what we expect to find, while ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Of course, too much sugar does do many unhealthy things: it rots your child's teeth, leads to obesity, and is generally the sign of a poor diet, because too much of sugary foods generally means not enough of the other, healthier variety. But turn children into budding psychopaths it does not. Moderation and self-control are the keys. In fact, I'd wager that the kid whose overprotective parent never allows them any sugary treats is more likely to go insane and become an ax-murderer than those reasonable parents who allow sugary treats in healthy moderation.

References:
1. Discover Magazine, 'The Bad News,' December 2009, p. 16

2. Y. Shoda, W. Mischel & P.K. Peake, "Predicting adolescent cognitive and social competence from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions." Developmental Psychology, 26, pp. 978-986, 1990

3. M. Kinsbourne, "Sugar and the hyperactive child," New England Journal of Medicine, 330(5): 355-56, 1994

4. D.A. Krummel, F.H. Seligson"& H.~. Guthrie, "Hyperactivity: is candy causal?" Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 36, (1-2): 31-47, 1996

5. M.L. Woolraich et al., "Effects of diets high in sucrose or aspartame on the behavior and cognitive performance of children." New England Journal of Medicine, 330(5): 301-07

6. D.W. Hoover & R. Milich, "Effects of sugar ingestion expectancies on mother-child interactions." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22(4): 501-15, 1994

For more information on child safety issues visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

The Cell-Phone Stalkers

2010-07-19T20:40:00.000-06:00

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, the only thing that telephones did was allow people to speak to one another. Those times are far past. Nowadays, cell-phones take pictures, read email, surf the web, play songs, offer games, GPS, a calculator...about the only thing it can't do is cook your dinner-yet. But all that technology requires computing power, and with computing power comes the ability for people to do not so nice things with it.

One of those sinister things is to use stalking software to track your every move. A teenage girl and her family were surprised when they started to receive threats and intimidating phone calls by an unknown person. "I know what you're doing," he said. "I know where you are." And somehow, he always did. It turns out this girls' stalker knew about all the conversations she was having, and all the places she had been.

So the family went to the police with their complaint. The police told them it was impossible for anyone to do what they were describing. Unfortunately, the police were wrong. Not only is it possible, but it's surprisingly easy. Anyone with $400 to burn and moderate IT skills can download software that will allow them to tap into any modern cell-phone, effectively hijacking your phone-and everything you do with it. They can read your email, listen in on your conversations, and track your web surfing. If your phone has GPS, they can even use it to know exactly where you are at any given time. A bit of information no professional hit man or neighborhood stalker should go without.

It's therefore our recommendation that you stop using your cell phone immediately. Yeah right. We thought you'd get a good chuckle out of that one. To be honest, there's not a whole lot you can do about it right now, nor are we an organization that goes around trying to scare people about the thousand different things that could go wrong. We just wanted to make sure parents are aware of the danger. Anyone can tap into your phone and track everything you do with it. So it's best to keep those deep-dark intimate secrets (which you happen to be sharing among friends) to land lines. That way, the only person listening in will be some bored technician from the National Security Administration.

Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for more safety information.

Why do children need a booster seat?

2010-06-19T21:47:00.000-06:00

Children do not have the same pelvic anatomy as adults, so regular seatbelts tend to ride up into their stomach area. Their hips are more rounded and less boxy. They also have a tendency to scoot forward in the seat so that their legs hang comfortably over the edge, which further causes the seatbe1t to ride up into their stomach area. This puts all their vital organs in that area at risk.

Children ages 4 to 8 who no longer ride in a booster seat are 25 times more likely than younger children to sustain serious abdominal injuries. Such injuries have become one of the most common injuries, and serious injuries can occur even in slow crashes. Internal bleeding can occur and vital organs can rupture. Booster seats prevent this by sitting a child higher up in the car and guiding the seatbe1t so that it rests near the child's hip area where it should be, and not on their stomach.

Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for more safety tips.

Is It Safe to Show Family Pride?

2010-06-11T20:50:00.000-06:00

There has been a heated debate over the use of personalized family bumper stickers, window decals, and other personalized merchandise. In many areas, it's become all the rage to get a personalized window sticker for the car that lists all the members of ones family alongside little stick figures, including the names of the kids. Some even list the children's ages. Other parents use personalized return address labels that list the members of the family. Such displays are done as a way to show family pride. But wait...many safety advocates have come out against such things, saying that advertising your family or your children's names in such a manner is like putting a target on their backs. You might as well advertise them to kidnappers and molesters with a sign that says "come get me," or so they say. Are they right?

We hate to go against our brethren in arms and contradict the advocacy trends, but we must cry foul on this one. It's one of those areas where an overactive imagination and hyper inflated fears lead to bogus conclusions. The reason for advocating against personalization on things such as a child's backpack or clothing or lunchbox is because some abductions are crimes of opportunity. A potential abductor targets a lone child walking home from school, and in such cases, knowing their name can be an advantage. The chances of this ever mattering are remote, but why take the risk if it isn't necessary, right?

Here's an area where a different situation renders this common advice completely irrelevant. Unless you're going to be leaving your child alone in the car while you shop, (in which case they have much bigger safety issues to worry about) the crime of opportunity setting doesn't apply. Unlike a backpack, a car is something that the family drives around in together, and something that would be tethered to the child's parents or other caretakers. The lone-child element and crime of opportunity is removed. As far as the likelihood of someone stalking your family or targeting your children because of names on a bumper sticker or address label, this is an imaginary fear. It's not at all hard to get a child's name in about a thousand other methods. I could walk around the grocery store and get you the names of just about every child in there. Just wait for the first "Jessie, put that back" or listen for siblings talking amongst one another. Or heck, just smile big and ask the child's name in front of their parents while in line at the checkout counter. The bottom line: it's not as though your child's name or identity is some guarded secret that nobody can find out unless you advertise it. The only time it will ever play a role in abduction is if a stranger happens upon your child alone in the right place and time, and can befriend them easier because of the big name tag. This is why it's not a good idea for your child's name to be engraved across the back of their backpack or on the front of their shirt. In all other situations, it matters not in the least, and a bumper sticker depicting your family doesn't make it any easier to snatch a child.

So go ahead, show your family pride. It doesn't jeopardize your children's safety in the least.

Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for more safety information.

Taking the kids to the playground? Bring a rake.

2010-05-24T20:47:00.000-06:00

As we point out in our publication 'Community Risks & Those Menaces to Society,' although people spend a lot of time worrying that a sex-offender might be lurking around their parks, waiting to snatch their child away forever, few recognize that the playground itself is actually a much bigger threat; killing around 30 times the number of kids on an annual basis that registered sex-offenders do. Kids need play spaces, and this should not discourage parents from using them, but it IS meant to drive home the point that a little effort redirected towards playground safety would be time well spent; and is far more likely to save a child's life than worrying about any sex-offenders that may be living nearby.

"The top three things to pay attention to at a playground are surfacing, surfacing, and surfacing," says Gary Smith, a pediatric emergency physician with the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. "It's everything." *1 The reason for this is that most serious playground injuries and deaths occur from falls from the equipment. Much like a helmet can save a child's life in a bike crash; proper playground surfacing could save a child's life or prevent serious injury during a fall.

But who is paying attention to this life-saving surface? The answer, quite often, is nobody, especially when it comes to public parks. Once a public playground is built, its maintenance is left to the parks and recreations department. While they will usually fix something obvious when it breaks or may replace the surfacing once every couple of years, on a day-to-day basis the upkeep is often left to its own devices. The current recession has likely only made things worse, with communities everywhere slashing their budgets on basic state maintenance.

Those who use these play spaces can take it upon themselves to do some basic maintenance of their own. One of the easiest and most effective ways to reduce the risk of playground injury is to pay attention to the raking of the surface. As kids use the play space, natural bare spots form amongst high-traffic areas, often displacing the surface down to bare earth. Unfortunately, these high-traffic spots also tend to be the areas that pose the greatest danger for falls; such as below the slides or the areas underneath the swings. As children drag their feet underneath to stop themselves, the surface is worn bare. We say one playground at a child care center which had large exposed rocks and compacted dirt underneath their swings. It's precisely in this area that a protective barrier is most needed.

So the next time you take your kids to the park, try to remember to bring a rake. Rake some of the wood chips or other surface material that builds up in the lesser used areas back towards those spots that really need it. You're trying to create an even surfacing cushion all around. Even using your feet to kick wood chips or other surface material from one spot to where it’s needed can help. Try to make this a regular habit. Every time your child gets on the swing, or as you are swinging them, kick the material that builds up around the edges back underneath the swing. The same goes for other climbing equipment. You want to try to keep the surface as uniform as possible, so that a child has cushioning to land on wherever it is they may fall.

Children can be killed by falling from a bike, being thrown from a horse, or by taking a tumble off a swing or a slide. While most falls DO NOT end up so serious, all it takes is the wrong landing on the wrong surface. One of these scenarios can be easily prevented by ensuring kids have the right surface to land upon. ~o~ every death or injury can be eliminated. But if we all do our part, we might be able to knock these serious accidents down quite a bit further.

Reference for quote:
1. Liz Szabo, "Playgrounds: they're safer but still can be dangerous," USA Today, p. 4D, 7-30-09

For more safety information visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

BPA Lurking Where You'd Never Think to Look

2010-05-09T21:12:00.000-06:00

Many parents are taking steps to limit their family's exposure to BPA, worried by studies showing its potentially harmful effects. Since BPA is most commonly a plastic additive, that's where the focus has been, on plastics; particularly food containers and baby toys, where the chemical might leach out of plastics and be ingested. Yet it's important to note that the chemical can also be absorbed through the skin.

As such, there's a newly discovered and unlikely culprit in the battle against BPA: cash receipts. According to early data from the Warner Babcok Institute for Green Chemistry in Wilmington, Massachusetts, cash register and credit card receipts are one of the most toxic sources of BPA. Spot checks typically turn up between 60 and 100 milligrams of BPA per receipt--a level well above what has been found to leach from PCB plastic food ware. "The biggest (BPA) exposures, in my opinion, will be these cash register receipts," says the institute's co-founder John C. Warner.

What is this world coming to? You can't even choose between paper and plastic anymore. It's important to note that we still know little about which forms of exposure are the worst, so we don't know if touching higher amounts on paper might cause less of an exposure than ingesting lower amounts through our food. So it's probably not necessary as of yet to say you should bring gloves to the grocery store, although pregnant women should avoid contact as much as possible.

You can read more on this topic with our article: “The BPA Debate: Are Plastics Poisoning Your Children?” available on our website. www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Reference for quote:
1. Janet Raloff, "BPA in womb linked to childhood behavior," Science News, Vol. 176(10): 12, Nov. 7 2009

Should Pregnant women wear a seatbelt?

2010-04-21T20:43:00.000-06:00

Yes. A study done by the University of Michigan, published April of 2008 in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, determined that roughly 200 of the 370 fetuses killed every year in motor vehicle crashes in the United States could be saved if all pregnant women wore seatbelts. You're not doing yourself or your unborn baby any favors by foregoing the safety restraint. You're much more likely to damage your baby by going without a seatbelt.

Visit keepyourchildsafe.org for more safety information.

Bees to the Rescue

2010-04-03T21:47:00.000-06:00

Studious little insects, they are. Pollinating plants of all kinds and providing us with much of the food we eat. Protecting plants against pests. Creating delicious honey for our enjoyment. Organizing themselves into sophisticated colonies and formulating ways of arriving at group decisions to do what's in the best interest of their colony. Using the "waggle dance" to communicate with other bees. It seems they also wear suits to work, have furniture in their tiny bee houses, and are each assigned a different position at the corporation that employs all bees. I saw that in a movie once, so it must be true. Amidst it all, scientists have found yet another use for this busy little insect.

It turns out that bees also have an extremely keen sense of smell, and can pick up scents that canines can't. And because of this unique talent, scientists are currently working on ways for bees and wasps to hunt down hidden explosives, screen luggage at the airport, or sniff out trace amounts of drugs. Wasps are 74 times more sensitive to fungi than the current mechanical devices, and 94 times more sensitive to plant odors.

So it's possible they could be trained even to snuff out anthrax spores or other potential biological attacks. They might be used to detect old land mines, which in many parts of the world maim and kill thousands of children each year. Just release tens of thousands of bees in a field, and they should swarm towards the hidden devices and form a bee-blanket that pinpoints a mine's exact location, so that it can be safely destroyed.

In case you might be contemplating how one would go about training a bee, they are trained in the same manner as Pavlovian dogs. The bees are taught to associate a certain scent with a sweet reward, so that whenever they detect the scent they are conditioned towards, say a small amount of TNT or trace amounts of drugs, they will swarm towards it. Follow the swarm of bees, and you find the loot. "The general premise is, if it smells, we believe we can train our bees to detect it," says chemist Robert Wingo of Los Alamos Stealthy Insect Sensor Project.

I thought airport security lines couldn't possibly get any more stressful or invasive. I was wrong. Just wait until passengers are forced to walk the bumblebee gauntlet. Security officials say they are only eying the insects for use in detecting bombs in luggage or at the post office, but you know some NSA official somewhere is thinking about it, especially after all the recent fears of shoe bombs and toothpaste explosives. The thing I like most about this story: go get your kids and tell them that bees are being trained by the National Security Administration to hunt down bombs and fight terrorists. They'll think you're so full of $%?#, and yet it's totally true. Crazy 'ole world we live in.

References:
1. Susan Gaidos, "Sting operation," Science News, vol. 174, no. 7, pp.
17-19, Sept. 27, 2008

News Briefs: Childhood in Germany; Chimp Rehab; Vitamin D

2010-03-26T21:34:00.000-06:00

Saving Childhood in Germany
Kids in Berlin can play freely again, after the city government ruled that making noise is "an essential part of a child's development." Grumpy residents living near playgrounds and other kid friendly places had long complained that children make too much noise; even going so far as forcing some day care centers to close. The new ruling declares the noise of children falls into the same category as tolerable nuisances such as church bells or street cleaning vehicles. Berlin children must still observe quiet times at night and all day Sunday, however.

Chimp Rehab
A Chimpanzees at the Rostob Zoo in southern Russia made headlines recently, after he was sent to rehab for alcohol addiction. Zhora the chimp became hooked on both alcohol and cigarettes when visitors repeatedly gave the popular attraction the substances for their own amusement. "People laugh when they see an animal drinking and smoking," said one zoo staffer. "But viscous habits damage his health, and many do not understand this period."

Still not enough 'D'
A new study has suggested that most babies receive a daily supplement of vitamin D, after finding that only 5% to 37% of American infants meet the standard criteria for vitamin D intake set by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Vitamin D strengthens bones as well as the immune system, and also helps prevent other health problems. Infants can receive a daily dose via inexpensive drops. Consult your physician for further advice. To learn more about this subject, read our article: Vitamin D Deficiency in Children.

Novelty Lighters & the Danger They Pose to Kids

2010-03-19T20:25:00.000-06:00

I remember from my high school days (back in the 1820s) how Zippo lighters were all the rage. Like a lava lamp, there was something transfixing about popping the lid open and shut, watching as the flame lite and extinguished at your command with the flip of a finger. By observing those who smoked, you'd get the impression that playing with the lighter was as addictive as the cigarette itself.

It turns out such novelty lighters can amuse more than a crowd of stoned adolescents. They can be mesmerizing to younger kids too. To make things worse, manufacturers have recently started marketing the lighters in figurines that look like little toys. They come in little animals, miniature cars, mobile phones, cameras, fishing lures, stacks of coins, markers, doll accessories, and just about any other little trinket you can think of. These hot commodities are tons of fun for the adults who buy them up. The problem is they're tons of fun for any kids who might get a hold of them as well.

Playing with matches and lighters takes more young lives every year than does playing with guns. While most people would never leave a loaded .44 magnum lying around, they often hardly think twice about what they use to light up with. When you combine a dangerous tool with an attractive, kid inviting package, it makes for a potentially deadly situation. At least two children have been killed from such lighters thus far, and several states have moved to outlaw the gadgets altogether.

Our advice to parents: If you smoke, stay away from such novelty lighters and stick with the boring kind. It's not worth the risk. The added allure could mean the difference between life and death. Of course, any fire making tool needs to be kept track of and regarded with the same-dangerous potential as a gun in-so-far as children are concerned.

Window Treatments and Child Safety - Guest Post

2010-03-10T15:20:00.000-07:00

http://child-safety-news.blogspot.com/

Window Treatments and Child Safety

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced this past December that since 1990 more than 200 infants and young children have died from unintentionally strangling themselves with window blind and shade cords. A national recall was ordered for about 50 million units and the Window Covering Safety Council is urging those with small children to “go cordless” with their window treatments. Fortunately, the window treatment industry now offers a number of control options that do not necessitate these long, hazardous cords.

Going electric is the first option. Most window blinds and shades can be motorized now, totally doing away with the need for cords. With electric window treatments, you have the choice of a remote control or a wall mounted switch. You can also decide whether you want the treatment to be plugged into the wall or battery-powered. For child safety purposes, it may be best go with a battery since a cord plugged into the wall may draw your child’s attention to the power outlet. This is the most expensive child-safe control option and may be out of the question depending on your budget.

An alternative option that is significantly cheaper than motorizing is using a pole to open and close your window treatments. With this option, there is a hook on the end of the pole that fits into a small hole on the handle used to push the treatment up and down. You will more than likely still need to pay a little bit extra to have this option added, but not nearly as much as the cost of motorization. Almost all styles of custom ordered shades and blinds are able to have this option added.

The option that will cost you the absolute least amount of money is just going with window treatments that do not require cords. As far as style goes, this may limit your options, but it will give you peace of mind about your child’s safety and not cost you an arm and a leg in the process. An everyday curtain or drape will work for this as they can just be opened and closed by hand. There are also some types of blinds and shades that do not need cords; you just have to do some searching. The main thing is that if you have small children in your house, it is crucial that you go cordless with your window coverings.

School Violence Put in Perspective

2010-02-27T20:09:00.000-07:00

School shootings and classroom violence have captured the public's attention in recent years, starting with Columbine and continuing with a host of periodic school shootings that have taken place since then. The most recent is the shooting at Deer Creek Middle School in Colorado. It has many parents questioning the safety of their children during the time they spend in class. Aside from the fear of abductions, this threat has to be second on the list in terms of stoking a parent's emotions. Nothing is more anxiety producing than the thought of sending our kids to school in the morning only to have them never return home. So let's take a quick look at the statistics, and examine exactly how concerned parents should be.

From the July 1992 to June 2000 period, an annual average of 29 homicides and five suicides occurred throughout U.S. schools. This may seem like a lot, the equivalent of about 2 1/2 Columbines per year, but not when you look at the larger perspective. These numbers represented less than 1% of the homicides among youths aged 5-19 years and less than 0.5% of the suicides among youth in the same age group. Considering that kids spend around 30-35 of their waking hours a week in class during those times when school is in session throughout the year, such numbers overwhelmingly indicate that your child's time at school is far safer than their time away from it.

The picture becomes a little less clear when talking about non-fatal crime, however. In 2003, approximately 740,000 violent crimes were committed at schools against adolescents aged 12-18 years, a rate of 1.3 incidents per 100 students each year. Of these, approximately 150,000, or 20.3% of the incidents overall, were classified as "serious." The period of getting to and from school can also pose a potential risk. Research shows that a disproportionate amount of crime occurs during this relatively short period of time. Kids from school often take this opportunity to fight or bully each other, and children also become more susceptible to muggings and other crime.

Although violence at schools captures the public spotlight and garners a great deal of media attention, it is but a small representation of the violence that occurs in society as a whole. The research overwhelmingly shows that your child is much less likely to die a victim of violence while at school as they are in the world at large.

References:
1. J. DeVoe et al., "Indicators of School Crime & Safety: 2005," Washington, DC: US Gov't. Printing Office; 2005 (NCES 2006-001/NCJ 210697)

2. Robert Hahn et al., "The effectiveness of universal school-based programs for the prevention of violent and aggressive behavior." Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, Aug. 10, 2007, vol. 56, No. RR-7, CDC

For more child safety information visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Ear infections - Premature Birth

2010-02-17T20:14:00.000-07:00

Ear Infections
A new study finds that air pollution appears to increase the rate of frequent ear infections in children. The study of 126,060 children found that ears with high levels of sulfur dioxide, the rate of chronic ear infections (3 or more in a year)increased from 6.6% to 8%. They theorize that pollutants may increase the likelihood of infections by increasing mucus levels in the ear.

A Link to Premature Birth
A new study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in Chicago found infection fighting genes may be linked to premature birth. In one out of every three premature births, the mother has an infection in her uterus but no symptoms. The genes that fight infection may also cause fetal rejection, but may help more than they hurt overall.

Your World In Review: Vaccine-autism link removed, toddler terrorist, Toyota advise

2010-02-03T20:36:00.001-07:00

Here are some recent headlines you may have missed.

And Now It's Official
The one and only study finding a tenuous vaccine-autism link, the study that started it all, a study that for many years has been discredited by all it's original authors except Dr Wakefield, has now been officially and voluntarily withdrawn from the Lancet. In voluntarily removing the study, all it's authors agreed that "several elements of the 1998 paper are incorrect." So will this stop the vaccine-autism debate? Unlikely. It's a lot harder to erase irrational fears than it is to create them. Look at the number of people who still search a child's Halloween candy for razor blades.

Toddler Terrorist
The PSA made headlines recently when it confiscated a toddlers play-doh. And thus, I think it's safe to say, the terrorists have won.

Advise for Toyota Users
By now you are probably aware of Toyota's mysterious accelerator problem. If you own a Toyota, you should be aware of what to do if it happens to you: 1) Apply the breaks forcefully with both feet if necessary, 2) immediately shift the vehicle into neutral and bring it to a safe stop. If you can't get it into neutral, turn the engine off...but don't remove the key. If you remove the key you loose your breaks and steering. You might want to practice this maneuver a couple times under safe conditions, so that it becomes second nature and you don't panic should an emergency arise.

The Steak-Knife Fugitive

2010-01-27T20:24:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while we get busy (I'm sure you know the feeling) and something slides under the radar that we mean to address at the time but never get around to. Eventually, if that something is such a thing of enough importance, we'll revisit it later, or perhaps again and again and again, until you get so sick of it you want to puke. This is one of those things we meant to write about at the time, but never got around to. It's one of those things we just couldn't let go without mentioning it. Even though the original event happened in December of 2007, it snuck under the radar in many places and will probably be new to most of you reading this.

You see, a 5'th grader at Sunrise Elementary School in Florida, packed a lunch for a special outing at school. And in this lunch she packed a steak. (Which could be a story in itself. I'm lucky if I get a soggy, crushed PB & J in my lunches, but that's a whole new article.) In this lunch where her mother packed her a steak, she also packed her daughter a little steak knife for which to cut it with. That's when all hell broke loose.

When teachers discovered the girls’ attempts to eat her steak with this "dangerous weapon," they called the police on her. No joke. The Police responded, and Florida Police, having nothing better to do than to scare the living daylights out of little girls, forcefully handcuffed her, arrested her, and took the crying, distraught child to a juvenile detention facility. She was kept in a cell until her mother retrieved her, and was also suspended from school for 10 days, under the guise of "bringing a weapon onto school grounds." (Me thinks the real reason behind all of this is that the teachers were just jealous...they were all packing Lunchables.)

Sort of reminds you of that KFC commercial, doesn't it? The one where the lady is trying to eat lunch in her office and a coworker screams "she's got a knife!" as everyone ducks behind their cubicle? The school of course cited its no tolerance policy, which essentially means no tolerance for reasonable thinking. 0-tolerance policies are just another way of saying "we're sorry, but our staff possess the intellect of a retarded chimpanzee, and can't possibly be expected to use independent thinking and reason to discern benign situations from legitimate threats. These types of stories happen periodically, but what's really disturbing about this incident is how far it was taken.

Police? Physical force? Handcuffs? Prison cells at juvy hall? Seriously? What is this girl, like 6 foot 8, 295 pounds and the attitude of a hardened criminal? Wouldn't a simple call to the parents have sufficed? Such actions are not benign little procedures, you know. In our society, we've gotten into a bad little habit of thinking of abuse as "things." (Rape, physical abuse, molestation, etc.) But it's really the elements of such things, not the things themselves, which actually matter. Rape isn't harmful because it's rape. It's harmful because it inherently involves pain, fear, conflict, force, a lack of regard for the victim, and a loss of control. The more pronounced such elements are, the more severe the harm. It has little to do with the sex act. Another situation without the sex but that produces these same elements can be every bit as harmful.
What these officials did may not have qualified as child abuse according to our prejudicial category of "things," Yet the conflict, force, fear, anxiety, loss of control, imprisonment, embarrassment and social hurt any child would feel in such a situation makes our labels irrelevant. Those involved can pretend they were merely following procedure, but in real-world terms, this was nothing short of child abuse.

We hope this little girl recovers Ok. We also hope her parents have decided to sue. It’s discouraging to know that school officials would ever behave so nonsensical, and in a way that blatantly injures a child who is merely trying to eat her lunch.

Story derived from (Fox News, 'The Big Story,' 12-18-07, 4:00-5:00) For more information on the laments of abuse and how things not labeled as abuse compare to those that are, read our upcoming book 'Child Maltreatment: A Cross-comparison,' due out shortly.

For information on child safety issues visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Eating Cotton

2010-01-17T14:55:00.000-07:00

Sounds delicious, doesn't it? Bet you can't wait to get yourself some. I'm sure you've all anxiously awaited the day when the phrase "cottonmouth" could be more than just an analogy.

Yet to the more than 1 billion malnourished people in the world, the idea of eating cotton may be the best news involving cotton since the invention of cotton candy. You see, cottonseeds also happen to be a rich source of protein, and the current cotton crop would yield enough seeds to meet the daily protein requirements for half a billion people...if only it could be edible.

The problem has always been that the seeds also contain a toxic chemical called 'gossypol, which must be removed through an extensive refining process to make cottonseeds edible for people. This chemical agent can't be stomached by humans and most animals, but that's sort of the point. Gossypol is crucial in protecting the plant from pests, who would otherwise devour any crop yields before they could be harvested. When scientists genetically engineer the crop without it, the plant doesn't stand a chance in the field, which has always prevented the cultivation of cotton seeds for food.

Now for the happy news: Keerti Rathore, a professor at Texas A & M University, has recently found a way to bypass this problem through genetic engineering. The breakthrough utilizes a process that turns off the genes which produce gossypol in the cottonseeds only while the rest of the plant continues to produce the chemical as a defense against pests. Field trial data released in the second half of 2009 shows that the process appears to be a success: the modified cotton appears to be normal in every other way except that it contains edible seeds.

But how does it taste? The flavor has been compared to chickpeas. Seeds will probably first see their use as a supplement to animal feed, yet this would still free up other grains for the food supply and boost overall food production. They'll also need FDA approval before making their way onto people's dinner tables. We'll try to keep you updated, but if this works, it could be a major breakthrough in food production for a starving world. Considering how dire food shortages are predicted to become in the near future, it's a welcome revelation.

Other quick facts:
*Around 44 million metric tons of cottonseed is produced each year.

*23% of cottonseed is protein

*The plant has been cultivated for its fiber for more than 7,000 years. Today it is grown by more than 20 million farmers in some 80 countries.

*Cotton accounts for nearly 40% of the fiber used worldwide to make clothing.

*Scientists used a new technique called RNA interference (RNA is similar to DNA but regulates chemical signatures -as opposed to proteins) to construct a genetic sequence that blocked the gossypol-producing enzyme in the seeds only.

For child safety information visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org

New Study Links Prenatal BPA Exposure to Child Behavioral Problems

2010-01-09T15:05:00.000-07:00

A heated debate over the safety of biphenyl-A (BPA), a plastic additive used in many common household products from baby products to food liners, has been going on for quite some time now. The chemical mimics the hormone estrogen, and has been linked to numerous problems in animal studies. The FDA claims it is safe; most of the scientific community disagrees.

Human studies are only beginning to come out, since the research is relatively new and it's much more difficult to study exposure in humans (and more expensive). Despite these challenges, some human research is starting to trickle in. A recent study by Joe Braun of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Bruce Lanphear of Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada, and their colleagues monitored BPA exposures in 249 women, beginning early in their pregnancies. They've continued to study the children, who currently range in age from 3 to 5 years, and were able to find a link between prenatal BPA exposure and later behavioral issues.

More than 99% of the pregnant women in the study tested positive for BPA in at least one of their three urine tests. This isn't surprising . . . we've known for some time that exposure is pretty much automatic, since BPA is used in so much of what we consume. Using this data, the team was able to find a correlation between a mother's BPA levels and later gender-specific abnormal behavior. The higher the level of BPA in the mother during the first 16 weeks of pregnancy, the more likely the child was to display atypical behavior. In girls, this was marked by heightened aggression. In boys, it meant they tended to become more anxious and withdrawn.

The behavioral deviations from the norm averaged about 2 to 6 points higher (as measured on the 100-point 'Behavioral Assessment System for Children-2' scale) for every 10 – fold increase in the early BPA levels of mom. The team also found that BPA levels later than 16 weeks of pregnancy did not appear to link in any way with later behavior. Lanphear notes that the significance of these changes is similar to the subtle IQ drops caused by lead exposure in U.S. children.

Of particular concern is that these findings replicate what has been found in animal studies. Research in rats has found that rat pups who were prenatally exposed to BPA tend to show more aggression and hyperactivity than those who aren't exposed. This seems to indicate that the chemical affects humans in the same way as it does rats, which means that all those scary animal studies produced might be just as threatening towards humans. Other studies have shown everything fro reproductive problems, early puberty in girls, and cancer and obesity risk from the chemical.

You can learn more about the potential dangers of BPA, and what parents can do to limit their family's exposure, in our article: “The BPA Debate: Are Plastics Poisoning Your Children?” available on our website. We'll also continue to keep you posted on any future developments on this blog.

Our Strange Universe

2010-01-01T19:35:00.000-07:00

This post is more than a little off-topic, but I think it's something that every person will find interesting and enjoyable. It starts off with a little background in science, leads into some of the latest theories in quantum mechanics (which are more interesting than they sound), and ends with some intriguing thoughts about life, death, and those we love.

For those who aren't familiar, the physics and theories of quantum mechanics are weird. Really weird. They leave even the smartest scientists scratching their head. Many experiments are underway to better try to understand the quantum world. You may have heard stories in the news about that big expensive 'Large Hadron Collider Project' in Europe, whose only mission is to spin particles around at 99.99999% the speed of light (or something like that, pardon me if I missed a decimal) only to smash them into each other. It's the biggest, most expensive scientific toy ever built, all in the hopes of learning more about the quantum world. (And no, it won't create a black hole that swallows the earth. Similar collisions are taking place all around us every day; scientists are merely building the equipment to control and measure those collisions.) It's the biggest question in science right now, and the race is on to better understand the quantum world.

The principles of quantum mechanics are so weird that many are tempted not to believe them. Except for the fact that these same laws of physics are at work throughout the world we live in. Be it nuclear technology, photosynthesis, solar panels, or the cell phone in your pocket, many principles of quantum mechanics are at work all around you. Although still a ways off, scientists are even in the preliminary stages of building quantum computers. I won't pretend to understand it all, but here's a few of the things that leave even the geniuses of science scratching their head:

Physics on the quantum scale seems to ignore all laws of the larger physical world. For example, one of the rules of quantum mechanics is that particles can simultaneously exist in two different places at once. Don't you wish you had this trick? A quantum particle can also seem to skip dimensions in space and time, disappearing one moment in one place only to reappear somewhere else. Again, a useful trick that would come in awfully handy. Quantum theories tell us there might be at least 11 dimensions to the universe we live in, with many parallel universes. Yet another particularly weird aspect of quantum mechanics is that of quantum entanglement. Einstein called this principle, "spooky action at a distance." The gist of it is that particles can become intrinsically linked absent any physical connection, and can thus interact with each other and affect each other from large distances...say, halfway across the universe. It's the equivalent of stomping your feet in Chicago and making a splash in a puddle in Florida. The smallest particles seem to be able to ignore and circumvent the laws of the physical universe we big things live in. If you were a quantum particle, you could watch your sons’ football game while also attending your daughters PTA meeting. You would be at the exact same time in two different places. You could freeze time when desired, or rather, simply 'hop into' the place and time you wished. You could wave your arm in an empty desert and push someone down who is 13 light years away on another planet, all while hopping out of one dimension and into another, only to reappear at your house in time for dinner. Like I said, weird.

The really intriguing thoughts and interesting possibilities come when you realize that our brains are essentially quantum computers. Theoretically, all those particles of thought created by neurons in your head can also be in two places at once. They may share the space within your head while simultaneously existing in a place halfway across the Universe in a galaxy far, far away. Which, come to thin~ of it, may explain the behavior of many of the people I've met. They can also theoretically jump in and out of different dimensions. Of particular interest for this article, they are, in theory, subject to the same quantum entanglement; meaning that as they interact with other particles of thought in other brains, they can become entangled; initiating the potential for this "spooky action at a distance" Einstein was referring to.

Let's go on to another area of science we know preciously little about: the brain. Sure, we understand its basic anatomy, and we can pinpoint certain areas of the brain and link them to certain thoughts or actions with fMRI scans or electroencepholography. We can dissect brains and look at neurons under a microscope, and we even know how the different chemicals work in the brain to influence our moods and emotions. Yet we still know precious little about how that 3 pound garbled lump of gray jelly--a mixture of blood, neurons, electricity, chemicals, white matter, and glial cells, among others--works to compose thought. We know even less about consciousness. It's not for lack of effort. In fact, scientists have even created a mathematical theory for consciousness. The problem is that it is so complex that all the current computing pow3er in the world, if put to the task, couldn't even calculate the state of awareness for even the simple roundworm, let alone deal with the complexity of the human brain.

One thing we do know is that when a person is placed under an fMRI machine, which monitors brain activity in almost real time, (a second or two delay) their brain seems to be altered by outside influences. This is evidenced by the brain "lighting up" in response to others. If a person watches a movie, that movie plays the persons brain like a puppeteer, with the deep brain areas responding to what they are witnessing just as if it were actually happening to them. When people watch others' facial expressions, their own emotional areas light up in response, "feeling" what the other person feels. Our brains come equipped with what are called 'mirror neurons,' which essentially mirror what they witness. First discovered by accident in monkeys, they are neurons in the brain that respond to what others are doing or feeling, thus attempting to mirror (or copycat) their actions, feelings, or state of mind. So we can feel what others feel, share their thoughts and emotions, and seemingly interact with each other through thought alone.

The field of quantum physics doesn't mingle much with that of psychology. So you can call me loony, but the activity observed while monitoring the brain (the quantum computers inside our head) seems eerily similar to some of these principles of quantum mechanics, especially that of entanglement. Our brains seem to be influenced, at a distance and without any physical connection, by our interaction with others, as if these neurons are reaching out and mingling with the world around them. This is why I was intrigued by an article in Scientific American, by science writer George Musser. It was about advances in the quest for quantum computing, but a particular segment leaped out and caught my eye:

"In the modern view that has gained traction in the past decade, you don't see quantum effects in everyday life not because you are big, per se, but because those effects are camouflaged by their own sheer complexity. They are there if you know how to look, and physicists have begun realizing that they show up in the macroscopic world more than they thought. "The standard arguments may be too pessimistic as to the survival of quantum effects," says Nobel Laureate physicist Anthony Leggett of the University of Illinois.

In the most distinctive such effect, called entanglement, two electrons establish a kind of telepathic link that transcends space and time. And not just electrons: you, too, retain a quantum bond with your loved ones that endures no matter how far apart you may be. If that sounds hopelessly romantic, the flip side is that particles are incurably promiscuous; hooking up with every other particle they meet. So you also retain a quantum bond with every loser who ever bumped into you on the street and every air molecule that ever brushed your skin. The bonds you want are overwhelmed by those you don't. Entanglement thus foils entanglement, a process known as decoherence.0

Most scientists tend to ignore ideas about quantum mechanics and the potential implications when it comes to the brain or thought, because it all seems, as this author notes, hopelessly romantic. I'm also a natural skeptic; one has to be to maintain a sense of logic, and most of the things people attribute to supernatural experiences can be easily explained through natural events or laws of randomness. That said, once in a while events in this world seem to defy all explanations, even those skeptics would provide. There are cases where a twin seems to know when her other half is in trouble, and with details that far exceed anything which could be produced through chance randomness. There are cases where a petite little mother gains instant superhuman strength to lift a car off her child. While there are physical explanations for this, (the body is capable of extreme things under stress), it shows that we have hidden abilities that can occasionally be tapped into. There are also so-called "near death" experiences. The ones I find particularly interesting are those among children, who are by nature open and honest, and lacking the knowledge, understanding or inclination to lie about such experiences. These children sometimes describe, in accurate detail, events that were happening in another room down the hall while they were clinically dead. They’ll often describe other things that would be impossible for them to know, such as a bald spot on the top of the head of a doctor they had never met, or the things ER techs were doing to resuscitate them at a time during which they had no brain activity and thus could not have been conscious of anything, according to science.
And to bring up another point, even the way anesthesia works, to this day, is somewhat puzzling to scientists. The subject of consciousness itself is still very much a mystery.

The latest theories coming out of quantum mechanics might allow for such extraordinary possibilities while also explaining the inconsistencies and inabilities to harness such superhuman powers. Quite obviously, we're not all mind readers. In fact, there has never been a documented case of a true "psychic." When put to the test and analyzed with scientific scrutiny, all self-proclaimed psychics fail miserably, even on simple tasks. Yet an inability to harness such telepathic abilities is not necessarily proof that they couldn't exist, and it does not preclude the possibility that our thoughts and minds are connected on some much deeper level that transcends space, time, and yes, perhaps even death. Yet as a result of all the "white noise" so to speak, these connections would be largely obscured.

I remember watching a television show where a woman solemnly proclaimed that her belief in God or something beyond death was shaken, because, after a close loved one had died, she "had not felt anything" at the time, despite it happening while she was alone watching TV. Simply put, she felt that she should have been able to sense that something was amiss, and the fact that she hadn't shoo~ her very foundational beliefs to the core. When I read this other article I also thought of her, and I'm sure such feelings are not unique. So to those out there in similar predicaments, take comfort: the potential for such telepathic connections to happen certainly doesn't mean that they will, and the fact that they didn't does not mean they can't exist.

The laws of the quantum world, the rules governing the smallest building blocks of life, that which comprises everything we see and touch, would seem to imply that we are all interconnected...much more so than we imagine. Not only to each other, but to the very Universe we live in. Principles of quantum theory have also been implicated in explaining photosynthesis by plants and the magnetism-sensitive molecules that birds use as compasses to guide their navigation. There are also other spooky things throughout the animal world that would imply some sort of invisible connection. For example, schools of thousands of fish will all move in precise unison, changing direction in a miniscule of a second...as if they knew what fish number 2, 798 was going to do before he did it. As if their very thoughts were somehow connected by an unseen force. Animals can sometimes seem to sense an earthquake before it happens. Certain dogs seem to know the precise moment their owner heads home, even when that moment is chosen at random and differs from the person’s usual schedule. I believe it was a 20/20 episode that documented this. With synchronized watches, the owner headed out. Later in the day, when the owner was randomly told to go home now, video cameras caught a sleeping dog that suddenly and excitedly got up, tail wagging, and walked over to sit by the door. Another show documented a hospital cat that seems to know when someone is going to die within a few hours, and will go to sit and comfort that person in their last moments of life. In fact, these strange abilities have led some to suggest that it is the very intelligence of our species that drowns out our ability to sense such things.

At the end of the day, none of us truly knows for sure, and perhaps that's precisely the point of this article. Can parents sometimes sense their child's thoughts or predicaments from far away? The answer could be yes, although the amount of interference in the way would render such telepathic links obscured and useless in nearly all situations. Could one of these extra dimensions mathematical equations tell us exist be some sort of 'heaven?' One can only speculate. Could our minds (which are distinctively different from the brain) survive death? We don't know enough to be sure either way. What's interesting is that the more we learn, the more clouded such answers seem to become. If anything, the latest science is only expanding the realm of possibilities, not closing them down. Since both space and time are relative (and this is a documentable theory, not a hypothetical one) could those we have loved and lost be mingling with us right now at a different point in time? (Since time is dependant upon the illusion of space and speed, all times, in essence, are always in existence at once.) Might we meet up again in some other dimension, with the totally awesome ability to hop into places and times all around the universe?

Of course, this is all little more than speculation, and is likely to remain such for some time to come. Even trying to wrap ones feeble brain around the idea that time ceases to exist if one moves fast enough or steps "outside" of space-time is enough to make the average person dizzy. Yet contemplating the possibilities, and all the strange new doors being opened up, gives a geek like me a smile, and I figured there might be other geeks out there too. Regardless of what the answers to such questions may be, and regardless of whether or not we ever answer them, one thing is for certain: what an amazing, wonderful, intriguing place this part of the Universe we all live in is. At a time of the year when magic is in the air and many out there are remembering those they may have loved and lost, perhaps spending a little time just thinking about the possibilities will give some out there a little comfort. With every day that goes by, science is showing us that magic truly is all around us.

References:
1. George Musser, "Easy go, easy come," Scientific American, Vol. 301(5):
25-26, November 2009

2. Christof Koch, "A theory of consciousness," Scientific American Mind, Vol. 20(4): 16-19, July/Aug 2009

3. G. D. Pelligrino et al., "Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study," Experimental Brain Research, 91, 176-80, 1992

4. K. Oschsner et al., "Reflecting upon feelings: An fMRI study of neural systems supporting the attribution of emotion to self and others." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1746-72

5. Tom Siegfried, "Success in coping with infinity could strengthen case for multiple universes," Science News, Vol. 175, No. 12, pp. 26-28, June 6 2009

6. Charles Q. Choi, "Quantum afterlife," Scientific American, Vol.
300(2): 24-25, February 2009

David Z. Albert & Rivka Galchen, "A quantum threat to special relativity," Scientific American, Vol. 300(3): 32, March 2009

Kicking and Screaming

2009-12-30T21:17:00.000-07:00

In an earlier blog post we covered a story about a little boy who was kidnapped by his father with the help of police. (See Police/Judge Help Father Kidnap Boy) When people watch the video they are disturbed to see the police completely disregard the boy's pleas for help. It seems shocking to some that authorities would act so harshly and blatantly disregard a child's wishes.

Authorities certainly dropped the ball in many ways, not the least of which is that they altogether disregarded an allegation of abuse the boy made at the time. But I have yet to hear anyone point out a much more plausible reason for the seemingly callous behavior on the part of authorities: this is a normal reaction by the child anytime they assist in custody disputes or child welfare situations.

On TV, when child protective services or police officers intervene to remove a child, it's always shown with hugs and smiles towards the "hero’s" who are rescuing them from abuse. In real life, however, when children are "rescued," even from parents who are legitimately abusive, it's hardly a happy event. Children usually kick, scream, cry, bite, go mute, and otherwise plead not to be taken. It's an extremely traumatic experience. A child's home and their caretakers, no matter how abusive and imperfect those caretakers may be, are the most important thing you can take from a child. Yet take them away, kicking and screaming, we often do.

As I watch this video, I can't help but notice how much it resembles what CPS does on a daily basis. And I can't help but wonder if the public would still support such measures as a valid response to abuse if they could see the aftermath of what removal is really like. Given this knowledge, it's hardly surprising that the officers would brush off a child's pleas and cries for help. After all, this is just part of the job.

The unfortunate message in all of this is that the system IS NOT set up around the child's best interests, no matter how much people try to tell you otherwise. If it were, police would be helping the child pleading for assistance, not be asked to assist in his torment. If police weren't so often asked to (legally) kidnap crying children, all because some judge or social worker somewhere out there thinks they know what's best, this situation wouldn't have taken place.

A larger problem is that children are often taken, kicking and screaming, away from one parent and awarded to a parent they despise, because a judge, going on limited information of the family, got it wrong. Perhaps dad was more loving and attentive but he had a drug conviction, so the other parent received custody. Too often custody decisions rest on procedures that don't serve the child's welfare at all. Children are also taken, kicking and screaming, away from their abusive or neglectful family (which they happen to love nonetheless). Children are also taken, kicking and screaming, away from families who haven’t abused their children at all. Anywhere from a third to more than half of all removals come in cases where an allegation can't be substantiated. All in all, in most cases where authorities intervene, it very often means forcing a child against their will. Given the current situation, perhaps this is what we should take a look at.

In light of this recent tragedy, there will of course be self-righteous finger pointing and a call to correct the things that led to these egregious errors. The result of this action is destined to be shallow and meaningless. The only real solution will come when we have a system that truly does put the child's interests first. One that listens to them. When children truly are abused in the home, they want the abuse to stop, but rarely (if ever) do they want to be taken away from everyone and everything they know and love. A child's foremost desire in this world is for both parents to be involved in their life. When parents can't get their act together to make that happen, they want to spend their daily lives with the parent to whom their attachment is the strongest. This mayor may not be the same parent a judge deems the fittest according to the statutes-or hiss personal opinion. Of course, it would be nice if all parents merely grew up and realized that their conflict with each other will destroy their child. It would be nice if all parents were perfect and never abused or neglected their children. Yet the system frequently creates added conflict all its own, doing children serious harm because it's set up around rigid procedures and an "I know what's best" attitude, rather than people who help the child's wishes and desires come true. It would also be nice if we had a system that spent a lot more time listening to the kids and less time always pretending it knows what is best for them. While we can't change human nature, this we can change.

The only real solution will come when we have a system that does put children’s' desires first and all of that adult nonsense second, so that having to force an irate, screaming child somewhere with someone that they don't want to go with WILL strike authority figures as unusual.

Read more about children's issues. Visist www.keepyourchildsafe.org

A Lucky Little Girl, A Rare Happy Ending

2009-12-26T15:04:00.000-07:00

What was supposed to be a happy time of the year almost had a tragic ending for one Arizona family. On Christmas afternoon, 5 year old Natalie Rose Flores was playing with her two sisters (ages 7 & 9) outside their home at the Saddleback Mountain Apartments. According to the girls, that's when a man approached them with a camera taking pictures. After getting close to the girls, he reportedly pulled the 7 year olds pants down to take a picture. When she fought back, he then snatched 5 year old Natalie and pulled her into his truck.

At this point, the girls did the proper thing (though they missed an earlier opportunity to escape, but more on that in future posts) and ran for help. One of the girls knocked on the door of a neighbor, screaming, "You gotta help me, somebody has taken my sister!" Meanwhile, the man was speeding off with Natalie inside. In his haste, he hit a parked car. A witness who saw the crash got his license plate number and described the man with a frightened child inside. Of course, at the time the witness had no idea what had just happened.

Police responded and put out an Amber Alert a short time later. Police and everyone in Arizona who had access to the alert were told to be on the lookout for a small child with red shoulder legnth hair and freckles. (By the way, you can sign up to receive wireless Amber Alerts in your area at https://www.wirelessamberalerts.org/index.jsp) Later that evening after dark, an alert police officer spotted the brown ford Ranger the suspect was reported to have been driving. He tried to make a stop, and a chase ensued. The suspect then crashed and tried to flee on foot. After assaulting an officer, he was eventually subdued.

Now for the happy news: Natalie was found inside the truck, alive and as well as could be expected given the circumstances. It is a rare event when such things end so well. When someone alerted me to the situation as it was unfolding, the first thing I asked was how old the child was. The second thing I said is that she's probably dead already. I'm thrilled to be proven wrong.

Perhaps the ghosts of Christmas past came togeather to foil the plan of anyone so callous as to kidnap a child on Christmas. Perhaps it's just a lucky chain of events, or the kidnappers own bungling saved the day. Whatever the case, we can all be thankful it came to the happiest conclusion possible. I only wish all such cases ended so well.

You can help protect your child by learning about abductions from our website.

10 Reasons to Get Your Child A Lump of Coal This Christmas

2009-12-21T21:53:00.000-07:00

10 Reasons to Get Your Child A Lump of Coal This Christmas

#10: with rising energy prices, it may be worth its weight in gold someday

#9: Just to see the look on their face...priceless

#8: It can be crushed into a diamond...if they work hard enough. By that time, they'll have forgotten you got them a lump of coal for Christmas

#7: It can double as sidewalk chalk...which the police can then use to trace you, after your child kills you, because you got them a lump of coal for Christmas

#6: Because somebody's child has to grow up to be a serial killer

#5: They'll be able to say that nobody else at school got what they got for Christmas

#4: Just tell them its ninja face paint and can make them invisible

#3: It may be less toxic than toys from China

#2: If the job situation keeps going the way it is, they'll have to learn cat-burglary sooner or later. So have them use it to cover all exposed skin and have them see what gifts they can find in the neighbor's yard.. Consider it career training.

#1: C'mon, do you really need reasons from us? You live with the brat.

For Child Safety Information check out www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Judge/Police Help Father to Kidnap Child

2009-12-18T20:40:00.000-07:00

Child abductions by parents are not unusual. In fact, around two thousand children are kidnapped by non custodial parents in the US each and every day. But few are able to recruit and entire state department to help them.

That is exactly what happened in Texas, when a father who had his parental rights revoked, recruited Texas authorities to assist kidnapping his son. He went before a Texas judge with a fake custody order from Mexico. Since the order was in Spanish, the judge couldn't even read what it said. Never the less, he issued an order awarding custody to the father. The father then took that order to police, to stop the school bus. Jean Paul (the boy) was riding on. What followed is heartbreaking to watch.

Police then ordered the boy off the bus, despite pleas from Jean Paul. He repeatedly tells officers that he is not supposed to go with his father, that his mother has custody, and that he doesn't want his dad to take him. On more than one occasion he screams out for someone, anyone, to help him. When asked why he doesn't want to go with his dad, he tells an officer that his father hits him. Despite this, the boy is dragged off the bus and handed over to his father. The entire incident is caught on the school bus camera. The two disappeared and haven't been seen since, and are now fugitives on the run. Making matters all that more tragic, this is the second time the father had kidnapped the boy.

Amongst the next few posts, we are going to discuss a few aspects of this situation in more detail. In the meantime, you can learn more at findjeanpaul.com

Your World In Review: Struggling Charities, No Kids Allowed, Gun Laws

2009-11-29T21:07:00.000-07:00

BPA Exposure
A new study by Consumer Reports found that 1 serving of canned green beans or canned beef stew would give a child a dose of BPA close to the level that has been shown to cause harm in animal studies. BPA, or biphenyl-A, a plastic additive, is an endocrine disrupt or that mimics the hormone estrogen. You can read about it in our article: The BPA Debate.

No Kids Allowed
In an effort to keep the swine flu at bay, kids are being turned away by security at the doors of many hospitals. You might want to check on the policy of your hospital if you are planning on visiting a loved one.

Gun Laws
A recent Gallup survey on gun laws found that 44% of 1,013 adults surveyed in October of 2009 believe gun laws should be stricter. That's down from 62% in 2000 and 78% in 1990. Kind of surprising considering the recent publicity involving mass shootings.

Safe Outdoor Adventures
Outside magazine unveiled a new area of their site filled with stories and instructional videos that show you how to beat the odds in life threatening situations. Outdoor adventure junkies and their families might find it useful. Go to: Outsideonline.com/survival

Struggling Charities
A survey of the nation’s 400 largest charities in the journal The Chronicle of Philanthropy says they expect giving to decline by a median of 9% this year. That's on top of the 2% drop last year, when charitable giving fell to $308 billion, the first decline since 1987. The tough economy is cited as the primary reason for the decline. Individuals account for about 75% of all charitable giving.

An Appetite for Human Flesh
A report in a recent Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences tested the carcasses of two notorious man-eating lions that attacked Kenyan laborers more than 100 years ago, once believed to have killed and devoured 135 people. The new research suggests that one Lion likely ate 11 humans and the other consumed 24 people during their final 9 months of life. Either way, it seems safe to say that African Lions can be dangerous and should probably be avoided. Just in case you didn't know.

H1N1-Deaths
A new study out from the-California Department of Public Health shows that the death rate for children under 18 who have been hospitalized with the HINI flu strain is 2%. This rate does not include those who may have contracted the virus but weren't hospitalized.

Druggie Day Care
Officials in Ocean Springs, Mississippi, say they found a meth lab inside a home day care center that was caring for 8 kids. Police discovered three currently inactive meth labs and chemicals, says Curtis Spiers with the Narcotics Task Force of Jackson County. Four people were arrested.

Your World In Review: Roadkill, Little Delinquents, Super Junk Food

2009-11-09T21:01:00.000-07:00

Not Your Average Roadkill:
Driving comes with risks, and one of those risks is the possibility that you may have a run in with some of the other wildlife we share this earth with. Most accept the possibility that you may hit a deer, or antelope, or raccoon on your way home. But how about an elephant? That is exactly what happened to one Oklahoma couple driving home from church last Wednesday night. While driving down a rural highway, their SUV collided with an elephant that had escaped from the family fun circus at the Garfield County fairgrounds. Thankfully, the couple was not injured seriously. The 29 year old elephant suffered a broken tusk and an injured leg.

Little Delinquents
"I'm sure we've got many other devious kids in the district who are trying to figure out -how to duct tape a spoon and fork to their switchblades right now." -David Resler, vice president of the Christina Board of Education, in defense of zero-tolerance policies, speaking after a 6-year-old was suspended for bringing a multi-purpose utensil that including a knife, fork, and spoon to Downes Elementary in Newark, Delaware. Quoted In USA Today, 11-2~09, p. 3A.

See its statements like that which make school officials seem stupid. Seriously, you can't tell the difference between a 6-year-olds show N' Tell and a switchblade with a spoon duct-taped to it? And if you're really this lousy at determining intent among children, who put you in charge, anyway?

Super Junk-Food
Kellogg's is receiving flak for advertising on its Cocoa Krispies box that the sugary cereal "Now helps support your child's IMMUNITY." Kellogg’s claims that because it increased the vitamins A, C and E in their cereal from 10% to 25% of daily value, and since these vitamins help support the immune system, that their claim of Cocoa Krispies as an immune bolstering food is correct. Critics aren't so impressed. "This one belongs in the hall of fame," Kelley Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity told USA Today. (11-2-09, p. 3A) "By their logic, you can spray vitamins on a pile of leaves, and it will boost immunity." This comes as the FDA is cracking down on what it considers misleading labels on cereal and other food products.

Sewage in the Water Supply
In Iowa, raw sewage is being dumped into streams that provide drinking water for up to 500,000 residents, The Des Moines Register reported. (desmoinesregister.com) In some stretches, the waterways carry almost nothing but sewage, and paddlers and fishers report seeing human waist. One in every five of the state's 1,910 city and commercial plants discharged more pollution than permits allowed over the last 5 years, and $3.5 billion will be needed from Iowa communities over the next 20 years to bring sewer systems up to Clean Water Act standards.

Busing low SES kids
USA Today reported that more than 60 school systems now use Socioeconomic Status (SES) as a factor in assignments, busing certain low income students to different schools. Since low income children tend to have more learning problems and do better amongst middle-class students, schools see it as a way to spread the burden.

Bear Thievery
The Journal of Mammaology reported that black bears at Yosemite National Park have begun to discern which cars have the goodies. They found that bears seem to have taken a special liking to breaking into minivans, which seem to get ravaged by bears more than any other type of car. Can't blame the bears. If I were after juice boxes and snacks, I'd probably head for the minivan too.

Vitamin D Deficiency
A new study in the journal Pediatrics estimated that around 6.4 million children, or 1 in 5 U.S. kids ages 1 to 11, are vitamin D deficient. Minorities are especially at risk...the survey suggested that nearly 90% of black children and 80% of Hispanic kids this age could be deficient. Learn more about this problem in our article: Vitamin D Deficiency in Children.

Child Poverty
"When I was 8-years-old, my dad went bankrupt and lost his business. I remember entering our apartment, and all the furniture was gone, our two cars were sold, there was no air-conditioning. Our whole life changed. My parents took me to the park where all the orphans sniffed glue to deal with the tragedies of their own lives. That made such an impression." -Singer Shakira, who grew up in Columbia, speaking about why she got involved in combating child poverty. It might also go to show that as bad as things may seem too many struggling families amidst this economy, there is almost always someone in a worse situation.

www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Teenage Adventures Gone Too Far?

2009-11-09T20:45:00.000-07:00

How far would you let your child go in following their dreams and desires? Would you let them go camping with friends? Take a missionary trip to South America? How about sail around the world alone? The reason I ask is because on July 16, 2009, 17-year-old Zac Sunderland became the youngest person to sail around the world solo. The journey took 13 months, and was riddled with problems. Yet he completed it safely and earned himself a place in the record books as one of the youngest persons to ever complete the journey.

He's got competition. 16-year-old Jessica Watson, From Sidney, Australia, just left in early October attempting the same feat. She planned on taking a more difficult, nonstop version of the journey, with the intention of shattering Sunderland's record in the process. But what really takes the cake is that a 13-year-old Dutch girl, Sailor Laura Dekker, also is planning to embark on the trip and put her name-in the record books. She had planned to launch earlier this year, that is, until Holland's child-protection services took custody of her for two months to block her voyage. She's back with her family, and still planning the trip. Now 14, she plans to wait until the school year ends to complete her voyage, assuming an Amsterdam court allows it. "Before I made the plan, I didn't expect (so much publicity), but now I'm trying to make the best of it," she said in a television interview. Laura has been sailing solo since she was six and says she began dreaming of a quest around the world when she was 10.

Sailing around the world is a daunting task, and accomplishing such a feat puts one in an elite club. Since Joshua Slocum became the first to do it in 1898, fewer than 250 people have solo-sailed around the globe. To put this in perspective, more than 3,000 people have reached the top of Mount Everest in only 56 years of climbing it.

Hearing such stories sorta gives you a new perspective about teen freedoms, doesn't it? Just think about this the next time your teen wants to go out with friends. I can almost hear it now: "But mom...Zac's parents let him sail all the way around the world, and you won't even let me spend the night at Jessy's house? Man you suck!" Whatever you do, be sure not to tell them about this article, because you'll never hear the end of it.

All in all, I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this. If it were my child, my tendency would be to say "You'll do such things over my dead body, because as soon as you leave, I would drop dead of a worry-induced heart attack anyway, so I might as well go down fighting." But there's also a part of me that wants to say "way to follow your dreams, kids." Often times I think society gets way too over-protective of children and adolescents in a way that hinders rather than helps them. After all, it wasn't all that long ago that 13-year-olds would be building their own huts, hunting wilder beast on the plains, and having children of their own. And if a child is really hell-bent on completing such a task, there may be little qualitative difference between letting them do it now versus waiting two to five years until they are eighteen. A lot would also depend on what safety measures could be put into place, and I'm afraid I don't know a lot about sailing. After all, you put your child at risk every time they get in the car to go somewhere. Still, it begs the question: Is this pushing the boundaries too far?

www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Your World In Review: Falling Wages, Buckle up or Loose Your Livestock

2009-11-04T21:03:00.002-07:00

Wage Drops & Child Support Payments
USA Today (10-16-09) reported that average weekly wages have fallen 1.4% this year for private sector workers, and wages are expected to stay depressed for quite some time. Colorado recently became the first state to drop its minimum wage, which is tied to the Consumer Price Index. Nearly 80 million people have either wages or benefits tied to changes in the Consumer Price Index, including union workers, food stamp payments and some child support checks. More difficult news for struggling families. The positive: Amidst times like this, it's a darn good thing to remember that money has little to do with happiness. ;-)

Food Stamps
The number of people receiving food stamps has jumped from 29.1 million in July 2008 to 35.9 million in July 2009, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture recently reported.

Buckle Up . . . Or Loose Your Livestock
Highway safety campaigns across the USA are tailoring messages according to ethnic diversity, as is required of federal laws. Since Somalia essentially has no government, the phrase "click it or ticket" is meaningless, since Somali's generally have no comprehension of the word "ticket." Instead, the safety slogan aimed at Somali refugees is translated as "strap it, or lose your livestock." Seriously? This is the best we could come up with? The NHTSA says that since livestock is a family's primary means of income in Somalia, losing livestock is equated with losing livelihood. I still think there's got to be a better translation out there.

Grumpy Teachers
A new survey finds that 40% of teachers in the USA are "disheartened" about their jobs, and that most of this group consists of the older and more experienced teachers. The biggest drawbacks: testing, children’s' "discipline & behavior issues" and poor support from administrators. A mere 37% overall are "contented" with teaching as a life-long career."

Don't Infect Your Kids
Health officials are warning parents not to intentionally expose their children to the H1N1 flu. A September poll by Consumer Reports found that 69% of all parents would rather have their children build a "natural immunity" to the virus by getting sick. Yet when you're talking about a strain that has already killed 100 children nationwide, and hospitalizes around 1% of its hosts (mostly children), this isn't wise. One mother, whose 3-year-old daughter spent 3 months in the hospital with IV needles and a tube down her throat, compliments of H1N1, says to USA Today (10-2109) "I don't even have an enemy I would wish that upon."

Bioterrorism Warning
A new report by the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction says the nation isn't doing enough to protect itself from bioterrorism, warning that a crop-duster spreading anthrax spores could "kill more Americans than died in World War 2." Programs to develop vaccines against such attacks are not being properly funded, and surveillance programs fall short, the bipartisan commission found.

"Baby Einstein" Refund
Disney announced it was offering a full refund on all of its 'Baby Einstein' DVDs. The move comes to stem potential lawsuits over false marketing. The DVDs have been shown to have no educational value for babies, and since the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends avoiding television exposure in children under 2, critics claim they are harmful by substituting for quality interaction with adults.

Target Discount
Target announced a plan to give customers a 5-cent discount for every reusable bag they use to pack up their purchases. The move is an attempt to prompt customers to use less plastic bags and reduce waste for the environment. Target claims a pilot program claimed to result in a 58% reduction in plastic bags used. But C'mon, Target, 5 cents? If they were serious about this, let's go for something real. How about a 1% discount on total purchases, something that can actually be realized?

Study Less Weight Gain During Pregnancy
A new Kaiser Permanente study aims to see if obese women can eat healthy during pregnancy without gaining any weight. Normally, weight gain is required for a healthy baby, but in obese women, their pregnancy already puts the baby in higher risk because of excess weight. Those extra pounds are associated with numerous pregnancy complications and birth defects.

www.keepyourchildsafe.org

-The Scariest Thing on Halloween Night-

2009-10-29T20:14:00.000-06:00

I get a little loopy during the holidays, (even without too much egg-nog), and it's sometimes fun to get a little off-topic and silly on occasion. So this piece was written for your literary enjoyment.

If you find it pleasing, then I'd like to congratulate you in advance for your good taste, and encourage you to please send your friends our way. If you think this poem might be good at performing the same function as a vacuum cleaner, don't worry, I haven’t quit my day job.

Do you know about the scariest thing on Halloween night?
That something that gives parents everywhere a fright?

A something so scary it strikes fear in us all,
You- never know where it be lurking, on the street or in the mall.

This thing, it even scares all the monsters away,
It's frightening whether you encounter it at night or during the day...

This hideous beast, with a mind of its own,
Ferocity greater than anything this world has ever known.

*

The first time I ever encountered this thing,
It struck me off guard, pounced without warning.

We were just walking along; times as good as they go,
When it started with a simple little word, known as "No."

It happened so quick I was caught by complete surprise;
I saw my whole life flash before my very eyes,

I stared at this thing with a look of surprise,
And it stared back at me, its mouth open wide.

Baring its teeth, its eyelids shooting out a sprinkle,
Its hideous face all contorted and wrinkled,

What before was a child now looked more like a raging beast,
Hungry and angry, seeking parental blood upon which to feast.

Surely, this irate screamin' demon was no child of mine,
My child must be trapped somewhere inside.

*

At first I wasn't quite sure what I should do,
You would know the feeling, if it happened to you.

What to do...what to do...should I run? Should I hide?
Should I try to protect all the people passing by?

I yelled and I screamed, I made a big fuss,
I pleaded and I begged, yet it wasn't enough.

There's little one can do when this beast rears its ugly head,
Other than take its wrath while wishing you were dead.

Kryptonite won't work; no type of medication would be enough,
There is no holy water strong enough to tackle this stuff.

I called out for an old priest and young priest, but they
Got one look at this scene, and promptly ran away.

*

Yet there are some things this monster of all monsters can't stand,
The first thing is kindness, with a calm yet firm hand.

If you can just stand your ground, and stay calm through it all,
Just maintain your composure and the beast will wither and fall.

For time is the enemy of the beast, you should know,
This monster is fierce but it's fleeting, it comes and it goes.

You might think that it can never happen to you,
I assure you it can, and you best be prepared if it do.

So on this Halloween night, amidst the cool breeze of fall,
Be on guard, and be aware, of the scariest monster of them all.

The End.

www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Have a happy and safe Halloween everybody.

Your World In Review: Face paint, Abduction in Florida, FDA & Sugar, Love at First Sight

2009-10-27T18:30:00.007-06:00

The FDA is asking parents to report any problems with face paint (rashes, etc.) by calling its adverse event hot-line at 800-332-1088. The request comes after 43 girls at a girl scout event got a rash from face paint.

Sadly, another Florida girl was abducted this past week (10-19-09) on her way home from school. She was last seen running ahead of her group of kids on their one mile walk home after getting into an argument with another child. Seven year old Somer Thompson, from Orange Park Florida, was later found murdered. Her body was recovered in a dump, and police are desperately searching for her killer. Hopefully the predator is found before another child looses it's life. Now might be a good time to use some of our abduction prevention materials with your kids.

The FDA has gone public with its plan to crack down on food manufacture labels, which it says are misleading the public. Products that contain as much as 50% sugar are often marketed under smart "choices labels."

Little Emily was only in her kindergarten class for one day. During that time, she managed to make quite the impression on another 5 year old boy. You see, Emily suffers from a rare genetic condition. So when she was forced to leave school for a kidney transplant, her classmate wanted to help. He came up with the idea all by himself, of selling vegetables from his wagon around the neighborhood to raise money for her medical costs. He managed to raise $380 thus far. When asked why he does this, he responded: "Because I love her ... She's nice and she used to sit by me, and I really like her." And they say love at first sight doesn't exist. Emily, who is now battling cancer, is still in the hospital. What would really make this a feel good story is if she can manage a full recovery. So if you have an extra prayer or two to send her way, it couldn't hurt. CNN News reported this story October 27th.

Check our our websight at www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Adventures With Balloon Boy: What should Happen Now?

2009-10-23T21:06:00.000-06:00

Oh, what to do about good 'ole balloon boy. It seems like just yesterday when I watched the charade unfold on television, thinking to myself, 'In 20 years of following safety issues, I've never seen anything like this.' But then again, the general rule is that if you have anything in your house or backyard that through some freak chain of events might get a child into trouble, then somewhere, somehow, it's bound to happen sooner or later. Children are masters at initiating the right combination to unleash mayhem, if for no other reason than that curiosity tends to lead them to flirt with every possible scenario. As it turns out, my first instinct was right, and police now say the whole thing was a hoax.

Sure, like most everyone else, I was a little perturbed to find out it was all a sham. I haven’t felt so used since that time I passed out at Uncle Jed's house. CNN cut away from two hours of regular programming,(Of course, anyth1ng that gets Rich Sanchez to shut his trap is a plus) and I, like much of America, wasted a lot of perfectly good worry and a precious tear or two when it appeared that 6-year-old Falcone might have taken a land-dive at 3,000 feet. It's not as though worry is hard to come by, and granted, I also cry during Bambi, but still, I feel a little bit cheated by the whole thing. Apparently, such sentiment is common all across America.

Yet what bothers me more about this whole situation is to hear pundits on news stations or Entertainment Tonight talking about how the state should take the kids away. Now, I'll be the first to point out that this mother and father won't be winning any parent of the year awards anytime soon. And if there was ever anyone who needed to be on medication more than Richard Heene, I wouldn't want to meet him. The kids seem ill-behaved, rambunctious, and out of control. Watching little Falcone throw up on television while (allegedly) being made to lie about it all was almost as heartbreaking as the incident itself. But what would you expect? After all, according to Dad, the entire family is descendants of aliens. Yet is this enough to justify placing the kids in foster care? To those who answer yes, we would say to you: I don't think you realize just how damaging such an action really is.

How many of you would support a person who lurked outside a park, wait for the first child whose parent looked away or wandered off, only to decide they knew better and moving in to snatch them away, bring them home, and keep them in a strange house for months or years? Would we view such a person as a hero or a monster? CPS workers may be wearing a state issued name tag, but to the child involved, it couldn't matter less whether the person is sporting a ski mask or a smug smile of superiority. It's still someone snatching them away from everything they know and love in life, (even if those people and/or environments are imperfect, neglectful, or abusive) and plopping them down into a strange situation with strange people.

As imperfect as a child's caretakers may be, a child's family is important to every child, as is everything else in their environment. (Siblings, schools, their home, their bedroom, all those things familiar that serve as a source of comfort.) Attachment, or a child's bonds with caretakers, is a youngster’s most important need. In fact, the major problem with child abuse is not necessarily the actions themselves, but the fact that when children are abused or neglected repeatedly, their attachment with caretakers is injured. The action of removing a child from their home often causes a profound injury to attachment and emotional security, doing in one swift swoop what even years of abuse might only whittle away at. In fact, if you compare long-term outcomes for foster kids to studies of children from other abusive or neglectful situations, it's not even a close call. Foster care, by leaps and bounds, predicts the most harmful adult outcomes when compared to any other type of abuse. It's an act so severe that in terms of trauma from the child's point of view, it rivals the most brutal assaults or violent rapes. It's not uncommon for kids to go mute afterwards or show other signs of acute shock, something generally only brought about by the most brutal of attacks. Foster care attacks what is more important to a child than anything else in the world: their sense of belonging to a family. Taking a child away from their family may be legal for CPS works, but it’s still an act of child abuse, and a serious and quite devastating form of abuse at that. It shouldn't be taken lightly.

If it does turn out that this thing is a hoax, I'm sure the Heene family will pay dearly for it as it is. The ironic thing is that this stunt will probably eliminate the possibility of them ever getting the reality show they were striving for, so in this regard, it's a little bit of poetic justice. The reality charade they did get will probably not be nearly as much fun as they were anticipating. As for the criminal charges, probation would probably be appropriate, especially since that whole rescue effort looked expensive, and I'm sure restitution is in order. Above all, we need to remember that as imperfect or abusive as families or parents may be, we can't simply swap them out for what we deem to be a better situation, at least not without doing a child the gravest of harm in the process. It's easy to criticize and act superior. But if we do so in a way that incidentally causes a child much more harm than was necessary, doesn't that make us the real child abusers, the real monsters of society?

While we're at it, rather than pointing fingers at a family who (quite obviously) have enough problems as it is, perhaps we should ask ourselves why parent's would be moved into taking part in such an ill-thought-out stunt. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why viewing the naughty, malicious, and self-destructive behavior of other has become a favorite pass-time for hundreds of millions of people. After all, if we didn't watch, if we didn't make it a sport to revel in other people making fools of themselves on television, there wouldn't be families out there who feel a need to stage such things to get on television, or even considers such self-deprecating fame so important to begin with. This episode is as much a reflection on the state of society at large as it is on this family.

These kids will have to face enough as it is, without us screwing them up even more by yanking them out of their home. Look on the positive side: I don't know about you, but after a couple hours of non-stop balloon-expert testimony, I now know more about flying hot air balloons than I ever imagined, which should come in handy if I ever need to make stealth James Bond-like getaway in a hot air balloon.

General references:
1. Nina Bernstein, 'The Lost Children of Wilder,' New York: Pantheon Books, 2001

2. J. Hodges & B. Tizard, "Social and family relationships of exinstitutional adolescents." Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 30, 77-"'97

3. J.J. Doyle Jr., "Child protection and child outcomes: measuring the effects of foster care." MIT Sloan School of Management & NBER, Working Paper

4. Global Children's Fund, “Child Maltreatment: A Cross-Comparison,” unpublished manuscript, Chapter 36, www.keepyourchildsafe.org

For more information on kids, check out our website, www.keepyourchildsafe.org

Your World In Review: Bad Psychology, Racism, Milk Safety, and More

2009-10-21T20:36:00.001-06:00

In case you missed it ...

In the October 12th issue of Newsweek, Sharon Begley reported on the escalating abuse between research psychologists and clinical psychologists. A new yet to be published study scolds clinicians for ignoring science and employing methods that lack credibility and may even do harm.

The scoop: This is the latest chapter in an ongoing feud between psychological research and private practice. Belief and perception is such a powerful force in our mental health, psychologists can hurt as well as help.

"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves. I feel the children will later suffer." - Justice Keith Bardwell, after refusing to wed an interracial couple.

The scoop: The only reason children might suffer later is because of bigotry dished out by people such as Keith Bardwell.

Where do babies come from? No, not the biology question, but the distribution of the world births. A Newsweek compilation found that 57.4% of the worlds babies are born in Asia, 26% in Africa, 11.5% in the Americas, 4.6% from Europe, and 0.5% from Oceania. (Australia and surrounding areas.)

Milk wars are heating up all across the country. The FDA says, drinking raw unpasteurized milk in dangerous. Advocates say it tastes better and boosts the immune system. The sale of raw milk is legal in 28 states, and many laws are being mulled over as we speak.

The scoop: I avoid the hasle and get my milk straight from the nipple. Sure, the cows give you a strange look and farmer Jim has chased me out of the barn a time or two, but it doesn't come any fresher. (Ha Ha)

Toy Guns for Grownups

2008-11-10T19:50:00.000-07:00

The battle in gun safety versus gun rights has recently taken yet another turn towards the surreal. It all started when the mayor of New York made it illegal to paint a firearm to make it look like a toy. It seems as though some unsavory types were attempting to disguise weapons by spray painting them to look like a theater prop or toy. It seemed like a reasonable measure. Unfortunately, gun advocates disagreed.

Gun manufacturers, angered by the mayor's new law, have begun to market an in-your-face response: They've begun making real guns that look like toys straight off the assembly line. I kid you not. (And the NRA wonders why safety advocates are so critical of their industry.) What's next guys, child friendly hand grips? These new firearms, painted bright colors and labeled with cheery paint coatings such as "watermelon red" have begun to hit the market. Pistols in hot-rod red, candy apple green, shiny purple, bright yellow, hot pink, and all sorts of other kid-inviting colors are being bought and sold as we speak. Some even have a little cartoon decal on them, meant to mock the mayor but all too similar to something you might find on a toy car or skateboard design. Naturally, this is more than a little concerning to us.

This means a couple things for your children:

1. Police are going to be paranoid, and the odds of an officer mistaking a juvenile prank for an actual threat are greater than ever. It might be a good time to sit down with your children and talk .with them again about the importance of never, ever, ever pointing anything at a police officer. This is especially important for teens. It only takes one playful gesture to turn an ordinary day into a tragedy, and if you've read the news lately, some trigger-happy cops in many areas seem to be having a hard time distinguishing plastic soda bottles or yellow magic markers for firearms as it is.

2. Gun manufacturers might as well have put a ribbon and lollipop on their merchandise along with a sign that says "play with me." To a child (who may or may not know how to distinguish a real gun from a fake gun) these firearms look like they could be water pistols or toy props. They are, by design and intent, made to look like a toy. They're inviting to children. Numerous gun tragedies (perhaps 20-30 percent of those involving children) start out with the same problem: a child finds a gun and assumes it isn't real. They do what they might do with a toy gun...point it at a friend and playfully shoot them. The chances of a child finding one of these new weapons and mistaking it for a toy are substantial, so make sure YOUR child knows that bright colors and a kiddy look doesn't mean its not a real gun. Teach them to never, ever play with a gun or stay around while a friend is playing with a gun. If there's any question at all, don't touch it and find an adult. Take this time to review gun safety with the many resources for children we have available on our website.

Perhaps after a tragedy occurs, gun manufacturers might come to realize that fixing up guns to look like toys wasn't such a good idea. We hope they get their pants sued off in the process. In the meantime, it's a new twist to a long-time threat. Make sure your children are aware of it.

Jamie Spears Is Pregnant-What Should I Tell My Child?

2008-01-02T21:58:00.000-07:00

Brittney Spears' sister, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears, is pregnant. I know. Shocking, isn't it? How in the world could such a thing happen when ones own sister is such a fine role-model, says you. But alas, it is true. While I fear for this child's well-being for other reasons, (play time with Aunt Brittney, brain damage and seizures induced by the flashes of Paparatzi cameras) it's the teen pregnancy that has the world in an uproar.

You see, Jamie stars in a children's show whose general audience is tweens; 7-12-year-olds for the un-hip. It appears that once again, a Spears has not lived up to parents expectations as a proper role-model. (Hey, at least Jamies not making out with Madonna on national TV...yet).

As can be expected, the innocence police have emerged full force-mouth's agape in shock at the thought of having to talk about that S-E-X word with their kids. Sex: that basic fact of life that kids aren't supposed to know about. Babies come from storks and mommie and daddy were just wrestling-little white lies lest they know about, you know...life.

While the 'sexual ignorance=innocence' myth is a popular excuse for avoiding discussions that may be uncomfortable, reality is that children aren't clueless. In actuality, it's quite normal for children to display sexual behavior or engage in sexual play. The fact is that childhood masturbation is common, and all children display curiosity about sex related issues. The fact is that even kindergardeners gossip about it on the playground, or tell dirty jokes behind their parents backs. (Any teacher could fill your ear with story after story of sexual discussions or acting out among their students). The reality is that kids are immersed with sexuality whether you like it or not; it's around them in nature, it's part of their nature, and it's lurking around every corner throughout society. Yet despite these realities of life, some parents still honestly believe that they are doing their children a favor by pretending sex doesn't exist, at least until the child is older. (Mid-forties, perhaps)

Shielding children from knowledge of sexuality isn't preserving their innocence, it's shirking your parental duties. Like drugs, sex should be openly talked about from early on, not postponed until waging hormones and teen rebellion sets in, when your parental influence will have lost much of its power. While alarmists fear that the knowledge of anything sexual will spoil children, the exact opposite is true. In fact, Sigmund Freud, the Godfather of psychology, even went so far as to declare that the suppression of sexual instinct in childhood was the root of all adult neurosis.

Instead of blasting Jamie, parents should be thanking her for the wonderful discussion opportunity. It's times like this which make ideal chances to bridge the gap with your children in talking about sex. Embrace it! Open the discussion, and talk about things like...

-Do you think Jamie has made a good decision?
-How do you think having a baby will change her life?
-Now that she has a child to take care of, what kinds of things won't she be able to do with her friends?
-What kinds of sacrifices and responsibilities are involved in raising a child? Do you think Jamies considered the full-scope of motherhood?

As always, answer their questions honestly and openly. There is nothing about life that kids "can't know about." While it may be a little uncomfortable at first, there is no logical reason you can't talk about sex as openly as you would any other subject in life. Millions of other parents do, and their children are better off because of it. You just need to slowly work through the decades of conditioning that has trained you to feel embarrassed about the subject.

If you'd rather they learn about sex from their peers, or obtain their views on sexuality through the media, then by all means, continue avoiding the subject. Cuss-out Jamie for her assault against your child's innocence. Otherwise, talk openly with your kids about sex every chance you get. Don't look at this whole teen pregnancy episode as a bad thing, but as a valuable learning opportunity.

General references:
1) The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, translated and edited by Dr. A.A. Brill,(1995) Random House: New York
2) Straight Talk, THe pueblo chief tan, (3-25-07) p. E1
3) Normative Sexual Behavior In Children; Friedrich, W.N., Grambush, P., Broughton, D., Kuiper, J., & Beilke, R.L. (1991) Pediatrics, 88, 456-464
4) Gunderson, B.H., Melas, P.S., and Skar, J.E. (1981) Sexual Behavior of Preschool Children: Teachers' Observations. In L.L. Constantine and F.M. Martinson (Eds.), Children and Sex, New Findings, New Perspectives, pp. 45-61, Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company
5) Roberts, E.J., Kline, D., Gagnon, J. (1978) Family Life and Sexual Learning. A Study of the Role of Parents in the Sexual Learning of Children, Cambridge, Mass.: Population Education, Inc.

Protecting Your Kids From the Dangers of Sesame Street

2007-11-28T21:07:00.000-07:00

Protecting Your Kids From The Dangers Of Sesame Street

Apparently, Sesame Street is bad for us. Our kids that is. I don't actually still watch Sesame Street...much. But a group of child 'advocates' (Lord help us) have come out against Sesame Street, saying the long-time children's show is actually bad for kids. As a result, the makers of Sesame Street have started putting labels on many of their older shows, declaring the program is "Intended for adults, not children." Um...sure. I guess you can't blame the company for trying to protect itself from a frivolous lawsuit.

What's the problem exactly? Well, the show depicts Bert and Ernie sharing a dirty and 'deteriorating' apartment. They say cookie monster was on the fast track to diabetes, and I swear I'm not making this up;

Oscar the grouch had depression that went untreated! But my favorite of all: The show sometimes depicts children running around or playing with "dirty" farm animals, as well as climbing on "dangerous" rocks!

I'm not sure about you, but with video games, television, or the other recreational options available, I'd rather have my children climbing on rocks and playing with 'dirty' farm animals any day of the week. In fact, this particular person (who’s done quite a bit of advocating for children) would tell you that such experiences are healthy for kids to have. They should play with lots of 'dirty' farm animals, climb on many rocks, pick a whole handful of unsanitized daisies, and frolic around in the untreated water of lakes and streams. They should head outside and expose themselves to dangerous UV rays at least daily...sunscreen applied in necessary situations, of course.

Sesame Street taught us all important values. It has been fundamental in the education of millions of children. Oscar the grouch was a character which helped children step back and learn to manage their own temper tantrums or depressive behavior. If I remember correctly, the other characters were constantly trying to cheer Oscar up, and worked hard to counteract his pessimistic outlook. (A form of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, by the way).

But no. Sesame Street is bad. But why stop there? After all, Barney teaches children to play with Dinosaurs. How safe is that? I bet if they tried playing with a real dinosaur, things would get messy. The little mermaid promotes friendship with crabs; swimming in shark infested waters, and depicts an often defiant teenager routinely breaking the rules. what about nursery r9ymes? In Hansel and Gretel, kids learn valuable skills needed should their abusive parents ever decide to abandon them in the forest and leave them for dead. Goldilocks sets a wonderful example...one can only wonder how many little girls walked into the houses of strangers because of her.

Then there's Scooby Doo. A bunch of friends, living out of their van, constantly struck with the munchies...alongside their TALKING DOG. Need I say more? Pee-wee Herman, with his obnoxious laugh and tendency to scream everything may have single-handedly inspired an entire generation of hyperactive children. (We're kidding...sort of). The Telletubbies,..well, they speak for themselves. And don't even talk to me about what was going on with the Smurfs. Living in mushroom houses...poor little smurfette being the only female in the entire village. Don't tell me she didn't have a full schedule. The Mickey Mouse Club...well, just look at how good Brittney Spears turned out.

Is all this really necessary? I can understand the outrage when an old Mighty Mouse episode aired which showed the almighty rodent doing a line of Cocaine to get power before fighting crime. Media often does have a negative influence on our kids. There is something to say about the effect of shows which glorify violent behavior. But this is ridiculous. Leave Sesame Street alone. Morons like this are the reason kids can't play tag anymore, and giving your friend a hug could get a child suspended. I think I speak on behalf of most parents when I say this:

"Come kids. I've rounded up some Sesame-Street-hating crazy people and tied them to a tree. They need to be taught a lesson. Bring your farm animals and some rubber gloves. Today we're going to learn some creative uses for a cow’s excrement."

Please visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for child safety information.