These days, parents are inundated with information on how to “keep
kids safe”. It seems there are hundreds of news reports released each week citing the latest studies on what you should or should not exposure your kids to. Recently, there has been
an overwhelming amount of media reports on the dangers of exposing children to certain chemicals found in plastic, specifically phthalates.
While it is important that parents be aware of potential household dangers,
these chemicals are no cause for alarm. There are several real and more serious risks present in our homes that have the potential to make our families sick.
To help cut through the clutter, the
Child Safety Task Force has compiled a list of the top ten real risks to kids that parents should be aware of. Here is what made the list:
*
Vehicle Accidents*
Drowning*
Burns*
Choking*
Playground Accidents*
Poisoning*
Head Injuries*
Electrocution*
Dangers on the Internet*
Healthcare MisinformationThis list is based on substantiated reports by reputable organizations such as the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the
Centers for Disease Control. In contrast, the scares over plastic additive chemicals like phthalates are often based on flawed
science and hyped
media reports. Parents have a right to be concerned about their
children’s safety, but they must be given accurate and complete information to make proper decisions when purchasing products for their kids.
It is important that consumers understand that not all phthalates are the same, as they are a class of chemicals with different toxicity profiles. The primary phthalate used in children’s toys like rubber duckies, has been tested by numerous government and regulatory bodies and has been verified as safe. This specific chemical, known as DINP, has been deemed safe by the CPSC, the National Toxicology Program’s Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, and the European Union.
Regardless of the scientific evidence, political pressure forced Congress to take action on phthalates. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) went into effect in February and includes a temporary ban on some phthalates like DINP. This provision mandates that manufacturers replace DINP with alternative plasticizers. But
there is one major problem that Congress failed to consider— none of the available alternatives have been tested or approved by a U.S. government agency. The CPSC will issue a final ruling on DINP upon completion of something known as a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) review on these phthalates and their alternatives. Ironically, a previous CHAP panel on DINP completed in 2001 found there was “
no demonstrated health risk” and led the CPSC to conclude that there was “
no justification for banning its use.”
So in an effort to create higher standards for our children’s products, Congress has actually lowered them.
Instead of promoting anxiety around products which have been tested and proven safe, child safety advocates should devote their concerns to more pressing child safety issues, including those products which remain untested.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
ADVICE: Cut Thru the Mis-Information; the Real ‘Top 10 Risks to Kids’
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Add one more to the list
Public schools
- zman
June 2, 2009 8:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
#12
Obama
- jaker277
June 3, 2009 3:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
#13
Relevance.
Thank your parents for teaching you to avoid it.
- quantummechanik
June 28, 2009 6:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I see
more commentary on the US from a canuck.
- jaker277
June 28, 2009 7:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's analyze that
First, I'm from Brick, New Jersey. Just as American as you.
Second, which part of my commentary was on something that specifically was national?
Children? Those are everywhere.
Dangers? Those are also everywhere.
Obama? Sure, he's a specifically American concept, but that wasn't what my comment was about. My comment was about the irrelevance of discussing politics --public schools, Obama (whatever that means) as a response to which chemicals are most dangerous for children .
So..irrelevance, I guess, was the subject. Your irrelevance. Which, sure, you could say is an American subject.
- quantummechanik
June 28, 2009 7:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ah
Such a proud American that you wave the Canadian flag.
Topic title reads ADVICE: Cut Thru the Mis-Information; the Real ‘Top 10 Risks to Kids’
Says nothing about chemicals in the title so my comment is perfectly relevant. I was talking about risks not politics .
Your from Jersey which explains a lot.
- jaker277
June 29, 2009 6:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And the actual topic
related to household dangers in the kitchen.
In what way is Obama risky to children that's not political? Could he perhaps fall on one of them, as he's somewhat tall?
- quantummechanik
June 29, 2009 10:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Tom
WHAT???? I can't believe it!!! You mean to tell me that "Death, mayhem, dismemberment, life long physical and emotional injury from a firearm without a trigger lock and ammo being in another location" was not the number one risk????
Surely Gun Banner activist, certain Politicians and the MSM have not been misleading me.....again????
- TOM IN TENNESSEE
June 3, 2009 11:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Comparing Apples to Oranges
This post is a best disingenuous.
Listing acute sources of deat and disability, as a presumed counter argument to issues of chronic exposure causing disease in later life (or congenital malformation from in utero exposure) is comparing apples to oranges.
For example, your list of top hazards does not include smoking , but people are right to worry about the long term effects of smoking on children , even if cars kill more children than smoking does.
There is significant and legitimate concern about chronic exposures to compounds like bisphenol-A and phtalates, where evidence of adverse health effects has been steadily building. Exposure to phtalates that can cause urogenital malformation of increase the risk of cancer in later life is a perfectly legitimate cause for concern, and removal of these compounds is warranted, even if they don't cause as many deaths as vehicle accidents.
(see for example Shanna H. Swan, Environmental phthalate exposure in relation to reproductive outcomes and other health endpoints in humans, Environmental Research, 108 (2008), pp. 177-184)
Ironically, the phtalate DINP is relatively safe compared to the others.
However, rather than focus on the evidence for its lack of harm, the author has produced an irrelevant argument and disinformation.
- Ian Musgrave
June 3, 2009 11:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good Catch
I agree. This seems like little more than a distraction tactic with the tagline "if you can't see it it must not be bad for your children ".
Immediate safety is important, but this is obvious, and, speaking from experience, far from the only consideration a parent has for his or her children's future.
Why are so many forces only concerned about getting kids to 18 with able bodies? Littler regard for able minds before that. After that, your on your own, kids...
What gives?
- Submariner June 10, 2009 7:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My top 2 risks for kids
1 - kids - every single human being in our current society - are born with genetic frailties and inherited flaws. This is not just some theoretical; society and people suffer immensely from inherited predispositions, even if we quietly wipe this accumulate tragedy under the rug. In a few years some country will allow massive, sweeping genetic selection therapies for the newborn, and will pay these treatments for all parents who want them. And you can bet these treatments, which would constitute little more than weeding out a list of genetic maladies from the newborn would be very very cost efficient.
Imagine if tomorrow children would be born with all bewildering variety available to the human species, but surgically winnowed away would be half the cancer case. ADHD. mental retardation. congenital heart defects. color blindness.
Sure, this is a new kind of eugenics. It is a taboo in western society. But if say, china were to implement it, and from that year onwards the average IQ there would increase by a full ten points, not just by selection, but care and proper monitoring of all pregnancies. Like I said, a monumental investment but it would markedly decrease spiraling medical costs for a newly emerging generation. Like I said, the idea is unelectable in the US or Europe. But can the western world afford a "mineshaft gap" ?
And what if we can (and yes, we can, very soon) half the number of criminal offenders by genetic testing of the unborn?
2 - poverty is unacceptable when it comes to breeding. A mother should not generate a new citizen into our societies. Poverty is not an acceptable environment for children, ever. It creates multigenerational problems in education , nourishment, development of the brain, crime .
So - either society cares for mothers who have children in abject poverty (and places all children in this state in a protective program that benefits the children, but not irresponsible octomoms)
OR
We disallow the extremely poor or unfit to have children until they changed their conditions . I am for looking at a licence to have children, with contextual disadvantages when breeding without one. The elephant in the room is that even though 90% of humans are well suitable parents, 10% of people are categorically not. The abuse of children, neglect, violence - it all contributes to a percentage of people who can't cope ever.
And before you accuse me - I would have been one of these children. I can't cope. I fall in both categories having experienced both extreme neglect and violence in my youth, as well as inherited pretty severe neurological issues. According to my standards my parents should have been found unfit parents, and my genes should have caused the zygote I once was to be preselected away.
These are real issues, and though both are impossible to sell to voters, some other country, soon, will be able to implement something like this, and it will reap significant benefits.
- Khannea Suntzu
June 4, 2009 4:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your solutions
We've got one Gattaca, and one Hominids.
This doesn't really bode well for anyone...
- quantummechanik
June 28, 2009 6:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
naive!
Gattaca is a movie. It is entertainment . It is an 80 minute highly constrained picture of reality. Whats worse, it is a very one-sided representation of an imaginary world. Let's assume I could charter ten directors, ranging from Cameron to Spielberg to Scorcese to Tarentino, to produce another statement about the same imaginary future, you think we might get another perspective of the day to day reality there?
Good grief - widespread genetic modification might even look glamorous - talk about a social taboo!
You say it doesn't bode well? Why? Uniformity? Repression? Lack of Freedoms? Yet as progress marches on, as economic growth marches on, as health care marches on, we see more freedom, more self-expression, more affluence, more intelligence, more democracy . This is universal, *anywhere, anywhen*.
I say the western world is sick - it is sick with fear. Fear of change. In the orient that isn't the case - there progress and technology is not regarded in a dualist light and the idea of genetic technologies do not evoke visions of 1984 and insect people - the same climate of fear simply isn't part of their cultural baggage.
THEY will implement it, you can bet they will.
What do you personally think will happen when parents have the right, resources and access to edit out unwanted genetic traits? I strikes me as remarkable that some people have the lack of imagination ro actually believe we would have a generation of uniformist (conformist) elf-like paris hiltonses. I say we would NOT - we would have a bewildering and deeply enriching increase of variety, as well a sudden and sharp decrease in suffering.
Because - people born with disability suffer. I do not propose (and this is an equally bewildering mental leap I come across) to exterminate the disabled. I am disabled myself. I am not for sterilizing or ostracizing existing disabled, I ain't even for disallowing invalids to reproduce - I am for using sensible health care treatments to put in place a minimum bar for what we as a society should be willing to accept in new citizens - what features in humans do we find universally "too bad to bear" or "an affront to human dignity" or "we wouldn't wish on anyone" - and hence we should have the respect and dignity to deselect?
And selection as well as deselection will, as it always has, increased pluriformity.
Finally - the world is not a happy place. I say, this is largely because of desperation and pain. What makes society sometimes so bad to live in? Because of ruthless competitiveness of some people? True, in part. But what much more makes the societies we are in is the pain people suffer and have suffered. The feeling on inadequacy. The fear. The alienation. The feeling of acute exclusion and ostracism so many people feel. Criminals often do not choose to be criminals - they choose to be because of genetic frailties and because they have very little dignified alternatives.
Unless you insist we have a population of genetic, fundamental human failures to clean your toilet. Imagine that age old maxim "but someone has to clean the toilets!"
We have such a long road to emerge from barbarity.
- Khannea Suntzu
June 29, 2009 3:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
internet dangers 4 kids ?
So where are their parents ? Why are the kid's cellphones allowed internet access or text messages from strangers ? All those things are easily regulated, so it is the bad parenting that is the NUMBER ONE reason for children 's deaths and things like playground deaths , etc., are considered accidents, accidents waiting to happen, no one's fault ! NO FAULT equals no lawsuits which is just fine and dandy with me...imagine being able to pay cash for our medical/physicians instead of today's outrageous insurance costs etc. !
- gotUbabe
June 6, 2009 2:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Add the US government
The US government #13
- countryboy
June 29, 2009 6:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I called 13
No fair, man.
- quantummechanik
June 29, 2009 7:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
sorry man #14
#14 The US government
- countryboy
June 29, 2009 8:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thank you
I appreciate that.
- quantummechanik
June 29, 2009 8:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'd give you #13
His wasn't actually a hazard.
- jaker277
June 30, 2009 10:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.