So....economies of several nations in the EU are going down the tank, and they come up with this? Only a unanimous vote on the passing of the bill can redeem this law---but that will be sad in its own right.
EU says it's illegal for children to blow up balloons
- Thread starter Dutch 924
- Start date
Comedy like this one makes my heart ache from wanting to become British, or a Londoner, at the very least. The weather, however, does not.SenseOfTumour said:
This really isn't that stupid of a law. Balloons can pose a serious risk, especially to small children. One, if a child does decide to put a balloon or a piece of a popped balloon in their mouth, it can result in them choking on it. Also, when blowing up a balloon, if the balloon happens to pop, a fragment can go down one's throat and you can die from choking on it. This happens to adults sometimes, let alone children. That and it is very difficult to help someone who is choking on a balloon because of the nature of the material.
Furthermore, the EU is not the first to look at this. Back in 1990, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission "voted unanimously to begin a rulemaking proceeding and issue an ANPR to address the choking hazard presented by balloons. This proceeding could result in mandatory warning labeling on balloons." (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml90/90055.html) Now, they talk about the hazard of balloons on their "Kid Source" website as a warning to parents (http://www.kidsource.com/cpsc2/balloons.html) While no law mandating a warning label was instituted in the US until 1994 under the Child Protection Act, balloon companies within the US have mandated that they must print a warning label on their products since at least 1992. According to the Balloon Council website (http://www.balloonhq.com/BalloonCouncil/facts.html), here is the label that is currently used for all balloon prodcuts in the US.
Really, the EU is way behind the times on this. Do some research before you go spouting off that something is stupid.
Furthermore, the EU is not the first to look at this. Back in 1990, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission "voted unanimously to begin a rulemaking proceeding and issue an ANPR to address the choking hazard presented by balloons. This proceeding could result in mandatory warning labeling on balloons." (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml90/90055.html) Now, they talk about the hazard of balloons on their "Kid Source" website as a warning to parents (http://www.kidsource.com/cpsc2/balloons.html) While no law mandating a warning label was instituted in the US until 1994 under the Child Protection Act, balloon companies within the US have mandated that they must print a warning label on their products since at least 1992. According to the Balloon Council website (http://www.balloonhq.com/BalloonCouncil/facts.html), here is the label that is currently used for all balloon prodcuts in the US.
Really, the EU is way behind the times on this. Do some research before you go spouting off that something is stupid.
Source?Sizzle Montyjing said:
Or i dare i say thats a story floated by the Mail or Telegraph?
The British press and it's misinformation about the EU is a thorn in the Unions side, and partially responsible for the high levels of euro-scepticism we have in this country. This damages Britain's reputation in Europe, and therefore is also damaging to our own national interest.
The European Commission blog for the UK is dedicated to answering euro-myths created by the British media, and you can see all the complaint letters they have written here: http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/blog/index_en.htm
For instance:
A letter sent by the European Parliament office to the Daily Express in answer to their article about ?Brussels? ?forcing? national teams to wear the EU symbol. It is worth pointing out that the report being discussed today is looking at ways to respond to pan-European challenges such as in the fight against violence and racism in sport, doping, encouraging good governance in sport, and helping associations establish mechanisms for the collective selling of media rights to ensure adequate redistribution of revenues.
Sir,
Your front page story today contains a number of very misleading statements and basic inaccuracies.
As we have already made clear to the Daily Telegraph newspaper, when it first published this story several days ago, ?Brussels? is not forcing British teams to wear the EU flag now, nor is it remotely likely to do so ever.
A single Spanish MEP has at this stage floated a suggestion.
The report referred to by both the Daily Telegraph and your publication will not be voted on by the committee today, this week or next ? this is scheduled for October ? and it is unlikely to be voted on by the European Parliament as a whole till November at least.
It can be amended at every stage of the process, making it possible for MEPs to oppose the suggestion that players should wear the EU flag on their shirts.
Even if the whole Parliament ended up endorsing the report in its entirety this would simply constitute the basis for a request to the European Commission to come up with a legislative proposal which would then have to be agreed by EU ministers as well as MEPs.
Best regards,
Paola Buonadonna
Press Attachée
European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom
Sir,
Your front page story today contains a number of very misleading statements and basic inaccuracies.
As we have already made clear to the Daily Telegraph newspaper, when it first published this story several days ago, ?Brussels? is not forcing British teams to wear the EU flag now, nor is it remotely likely to do so ever.
A single Spanish MEP has at this stage floated a suggestion.
The report referred to by both the Daily Telegraph and your publication will not be voted on by the committee today, this week or next ? this is scheduled for October ? and it is unlikely to be voted on by the European Parliament as a whole till November at least.
It can be amended at every stage of the process, making it possible for MEPs to oppose the suggestion that players should wear the EU flag on their shirts.
Even if the whole Parliament ended up endorsing the report in its entirety this would simply constitute the basis for a request to the European Commission to come up with a legislative proposal which would then have to be agreed by EU ministers as well as MEPs.
Best regards,
Paola Buonadonna
Press Attachée
European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom
Or:
Sir,
Your article ?Our men in Fiji on 3 million a year? is misleading and simplistic.
The European Union does have a delegation in Fiji, but this covers the entire south pacific region.
It carries out countless development projects on behalf of the EU as well as foreign relations and political work.
Comparing the number of staff with our office in London is completely ridiculous as that has a completely different purpose and works with just one country.
The idea that our people there are living the life of Riley is frankly insulting. They work hard in a region which has more than its fair share of problems.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Mann,
Spokesman for Catherine Ashton, High Representative for Foreign Affairs,
Brussels,
Belgium.
Your article ?Our men in Fiji on 3 million a year? is misleading and simplistic.
The European Union does have a delegation in Fiji, but this covers the entire south pacific region.
It carries out countless development projects on behalf of the EU as well as foreign relations and political work.
Comparing the number of staff with our office in London is completely ridiculous as that has a completely different purpose and works with just one country.
The idea that our people there are living the life of Riley is frankly insulting. They work hard in a region which has more than its fair share of problems.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Mann,
Spokesman for Catherine Ashton, High Representative for Foreign Affairs,
Brussels,
Belgium.
A lot of the stuff you read about in right-wing papers is just silly sensationalism, it's actually quite shocking what supposed "reputable" newspapers can get away with.
Also, just as an aside, should all police stop dealing with any shoplifting, vandalism and littering while there's a single murderer still on the loose?
Should all scientists drop all research until we get a cure for cancer?
If not, then maybe it's ok to let a couple of guys have a look at smaller things, it doesn't mean that no-one's looking into the wars and the financial crisis. (Of course, that's if this even happened, and if it did, as someone said, it'll like be having a small 'don't let babies chew burst balloons' warning on the packet, which is sensible, and not a case of OMG BRUSELZ IZ IN MAH BASE MAKING MAH RULEZ!
Most of the time, for instance, when someone comes up with a formula for the perfect cup of tea, and it's a whole page of equations, it's some student trying to make their homework more interesting at uni, and not in fact a highly paid government think tank wasting your tax money.
As above, when it turned out 'Brussels is forcing EU logo onto all OUR sporting heros!', it was actually a single suggestion (that is, not demand or order) by a single representative of one country.
'Hey how about maybe we try this', is not the same as a new law.
I wonder if I'll be killed in the future, because of the UK tabloids, as when we're invaded by aliens, I'll just see the headlines 'Aliens destroy UK', assume it's another overblown immigrant tale and get lasered the moment I step outside.
Should all scientists drop all research until we get a cure for cancer?
If not, then maybe it's ok to let a couple of guys have a look at smaller things, it doesn't mean that no-one's looking into the wars and the financial crisis. (Of course, that's if this even happened, and if it did, as someone said, it'll like be having a small 'don't let babies chew burst balloons' warning on the packet, which is sensible, and not a case of OMG BRUSELZ IZ IN MAH BASE MAKING MAH RULEZ!
Most of the time, for instance, when someone comes up with a formula for the perfect cup of tea, and it's a whole page of equations, it's some student trying to make their homework more interesting at uni, and not in fact a highly paid government think tank wasting your tax money.
As above, when it turned out 'Brussels is forcing EU logo onto all OUR sporting heros!', it was actually a single suggestion (that is, not demand or order) by a single representative of one country.
'Hey how about maybe we try this', is not the same as a new law.
I wonder if I'll be killed in the future, because of the UK tabloids, as when we're invaded by aliens, I'll just see the headlines 'Aliens destroy UK', assume it's another overblown immigrant tale and get lasered the moment I step outside.
I worked a brief stint as a student in a radiography ward, particularly in the CT department that specialised in severe head trauma. They had a LOT of bike accidents. They all wore helmets but they all had the same injury: dislocated neck = severed spine. The type of injuries that bike riders get with cars the most likely severe injury is precisely that, a snapped spine or back as their whole body is hit by the car and then flung off slamming into the tarmac.SidingWithTheEnemy said:
I find it CRAZY any bike rider can wear a helmet and have ANY sense of greater safety, they are protecting themselves from a VERY particular type of injury and the lightweight bike helmet will offer very minimal protection in that certain circumstance.
Frankly, I'd rather measures where put in place so that both bike riders AND car drivers had the impression of VULNERABILITY! You know the old saying:
"the best safety feature you can put in a car is a 1-foot spike straight out of the steering column!"
Because it forces the drivers to think about driving safety, to counter the "volvo effect" of "i'm in a safe car, I can be an idiot".
Really, bike helmets give an illusion of safety in what is an very dangerous activity. If drivers NOTICE them and give them a WIDE BERTH that is the way to reduce fatalities, not try to solve things in event of an impact. Same with bicyclists, they need to realise how vulnerable they are and not impede their spatial awareness in any way, far better would be to mandate that every bicycle has a rear-view mirror (particularly on the side that cars pass).
I mean just stop and think, has there ever been a case of:
"Well I was riding my bike and a car hit me full on at 30 miles per hour, but don't worry, I had a perforated Styrofoam dome over the top of my head... so I walked away with just a few scratches"
It's as dumb as a soldier putting a bible in his front pocket sure that that will stop the one bullet that is aimed at him.
I don't know, I can understand babies and maybe toddlers, but if you are still worrying about your 7 year old INHALING SOLID OBJECTS then you have a rather "special" child. I mean really, it's a pretty pivotal skill, learning to put things in your mouth without choking to death on them. If babies didn't learn that pretty much right away then they would starve or choke to death as they need to be fed on milk and then mushed baby food. Little kids may put some dumb things in their mouth but they DO eat them, don't inhale them.Loner Jo Jo said:This really isn't that stupid of a law. Balloons can pose a serious risk, especially to small children. One, if a child does decide to put a balloon or a piece of a popped balloon in their mouth, it can result in them choking on it. Also, when blowing up a balloon, if the balloon happens to pop, a fragment can go down one's throat and you can die from choking on it. This happens to adults sometimes, let alone children. That and it is very difficult to help someone who is choking on a balloon because of the nature of the material.
Furthermore, the EU is not the first to look at this. Back in 1990, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission "voted unanimously to begin a rulemaking proceeding and issue an ANPR to address the choking hazard presented by balloons. This proceeding could result in mandatory warning labeling on balloons." (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml90/90055.html) Now, they talk about the hazard of balloons on their "Kid Source" website as a warning to parents (http://www.kidsource.com/cpsc2/balloons.html) While no law mandating a warning label was instituted in the US until 1994 under the Child Protection Act, balloon companies within the US have mandated that they must print a warning label on their products since at least 1992. According to the Balloon Council website (http://www.balloonhq.com/BalloonCouncil/facts.html), here is the label that is currently used for all balloon prodcuts in the US.
Really, the EU is way behind the times on this. Do some research before you go spouting off that something is stupid.
Parents just need a bit of perspective, the chances we are talking of here are if the baloon burst and THE ENTIRE baloon mass goes int the kids mouth, at the moment they are inhaling deeply with their mouth open, on the precise angle where it goes right down their throat and into their trachea. And then none of the parents teachers or guardians do anything to pull the balloon out of their throat that in all likelihood would be partially visible.
This is truly a freak accident. This is not a common tragedy like tiny kids in car seats + seatbelts that are too small to properly restrain them in a crash (very good case for booster seats right up to age 10 years old).
I think parents and the EU need to put this risk into perspective compared to say, letting kids play in the garden. What if they eat a poisonous plant? Or some kid on the swings, what if he or she falls off at the worst moment and suffers a major brain injury? Should every house mandate child-safe gates at top and bottom of every flight of stairs.
Or maybe parents need to take a bit of responsibility and put risk into proportion.
You can discipline even the youngest of children not to go near the stairs without mummy or pappy. You can teach them to take care of themselves in a play park, how to use a swing without killing themselves. Why don't all parents, all child-carers know how to save their child when they are choking? Why does everyone know the Heimlich Manoeuvre for adults but not for children. Where is the EU on this?
This is what I am going back to again (with bike helmets) on personal agency, and how the EU seems to consider it a non-factor.
These "regulations" can force you to wear a bike helmet, but the most important thing you can do to prevent yourself being killed while cycling is HOW you cycle. How you present yourself on the road and how the drivers interact with you.
These regulations on choking hazards are a futile way of preventing children from choking to death considering the average parent still has NO FUCKING CLUE what to do if their child starts choking on something. Why is the EU not running a European wide INFORMATION CAMPAIGN on how to SAVE CHILDREN'S LIVES!!
See, this is where the EU is it's own worst enemy, all I EVER HEAR from the EU is "can't do this", "Don't Do that", "Do this for us" and if it isn't in an authoritarian way it is in the most sycophantic passive-aggressive kind of way of: "we're not forcing you to - but you better".
It's nothing but TAKE TAKE TAKE.
The EU doesn't give the impression that it gives us anything, when was the last time someone (other than a banker) said "thank god for the EU, I love those guys". Like the choking hazard, it is supposed to be a helpful advice, but it just comes across as a diktat.
The EU is squandering it's most powerful ability to INFORM us, to EMPOWER us! What practices does it REINFORCE? But the thing is, the way the EU is structured as a hodge-podge of European Countries united by nothing but money, it's easier to say what they are against than what they are for. EU stands for nothing. It's just an overgrown steel commission. It doesn't mean anything. The closest thing it means is a common currency which was great when it meant to share the strength, not when it meant to share the debt.
Ok, there was a lot of information and points in that post, so I'm going to try to break it down a bit and summarize.Treblaine said:
One, balloon deaths are not "freak accidents." The Balloon Council website, which I linked out in my original post, stated that 111 children died from 1980 to 1989 choking on balloons (11 deaths per year on average) and that 42 children died of the same cause from 1990-1999 (6 per year on average). Just to put those numbers in perspective, less people die from shark attacks every year and we dedicated an entire week to shark awareness on TV. Even now, balloons are still regarded as highly dangerous for children to play with. Over a two decade study, 450 children died from choking, and of that, 29% choked on a balloon making it the most deadly choking hazard of any object. (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=113518) The next biggest culprit was hot dogs. If balloons are not the biggest cause of choking overall, then they are most certainly the deadliest toy when it comes to these sorts of accidents. (http://www.drgreene.com/blog/2001/05/10/balloons-cause-more-childhood-deaths-any-other-toy) Also, these are just deaths; for every choking death, 100 ER visits are made for choking incidents. (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=113518) I do not know is the same percentages can be applied to visits as it is with deaths, but as you can see, that is quiet a fair number of children. To add to this, choking is currently the leading cause of brain damage among children, even more so than car accidents, which you cited as being a bigger risk to children at least without proper use of seat belts and car seats. (Keep in mind, people, at least in the US, are just as ignorant about the proper way to fasten a child into a car seat as they are about how to perform the Heimlich maneuver on a child.)
The problem with balloons, as I stated briefly in my original post, is that they are difficult to Heimlich out and also difficult to extract because they conform to the air passages. Even parents who are educated and properly trained may not be able to save their child from choking on a balloon. In short, it is something that needs to be looked at, not some freak accident of one child that became sensationalized.
Also, I never claimed an entire balloon had to enter a child's throat in order for them to choke. Don't forget, children have smaller air passages, especially ones who are young enough to try to eat a balloon out of curiosity. It wouldn't take a very big piece of balloon to go down a child's throat in order for them to choke. Furthermore, I don't think you realize how easy it is to choke on something. I can assure you, it is quite easy for an accident to happen and a choking death to result.
When it comes to the EU, I have no opinion. Obviously, I am an American and because the EU does not directly impact me, I do not have enough information about it to form an opinion. I think this balloon warning label is becoming a scape goat for peoples' dissatisfaction with the EU as a whole, and being more neutral than Europeans, I thought I'd point this out. If you take a step back and just look at the warning label that is being instituted, I think most people would agree it's a good idea. What better way to inform people -- all people, not just parents -- of the dangers of balloons than by slapping a message on the side of it saying so? Really, if you want to criticize the EU, do it directly or at least pick a law that is more controversial/unnecessary than this one which is meant to help save children's lives.
Some newspapers reported on this:Nickolai77 said:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1346090/EU-bans-sale-of-kiwi-fruits-for-being-just-1mm-too-small.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/06/27/eu-chiefs-ban-trader-s-5-000-kiwis-for-being-1mm-to-small-115875-20622520/
There is also quite a lot of posts around the internet...
PLUS!
It came up in my citizenship exam.
So i'm pretty sure at least some parts of it are true, are tabloids are bad but not to the extent in which they juts make shit up.
Well mostly...
uuh, you mean Nat Geo's "Shark Week"?Loner Jo Jo said:
That's not government level "shark attack prevention advice" that's a week of nature documentaries ogling at every aspect of their life cycle.
The point is that is still a very low considering how massive the United States population is (or does that include the entire world). In the same time period that 42 children had choking related deaths there were 147 deaths of children on Playground equipment in the same time in the same country.
http://www.cpsc.gov/
Should children under 8 be banned from playgrounds? They are clearly far more deadly
I think this puts things into better perspective.
Hot Dogs
Imagine you are a parent and your kid wants a hot-dog, but it says has the generic "Choking hazard" sign do you really think that will change much? Is a parent going to have to mush their children's food to a paste until they are in their teens? Seriously?
Considering how a child could choke on ANY food, why aren't these bodies EMPOWERING parents with something they know could save lives rather than vague and unclear regulations that they mustn't let their children near certain X thing.
That just limit their options "don't" do this" "why?" "just don't"
Again: EDUCATION NOT REGULATION!
The article says it mainly affect under 3 year olds. Yet the regulation forbids any child 8 years old and under. What the hell? I get it that a toddler should go without balloons at their birthday party, for Timmy's 8th birthday "sorry, Timmy, no balloons, you might pop one and try to suck it into your lungs..."
Yes, Balloons are harder to unstick than others, but this warning label treats hotdogs and balloons with the same label. Again, put yourself in the position of the parents, this will not inform them, only confuse them.
And still, when is difficulty an excuse for these all powerful regulatory bodies to be niggardly on education programs. Why haven't they invested in a technique specific for balloon choking?
But it has to be a big piece, a tiny fragment will not block the whole trachea if the rolled up size is smaller than the diameter. It won't stretch across like a diaphragm.
The same thing could happen with fishskin, or potato skin, or almost any food that children eat. I know how easy it is to choke on things, I saw my Grandma choke on a piece of food I really thought she was going to die but my mum saved her life with the Heimlich Manover. She knew that only because she was a nurse. Would a "Choking Hazard" on her food have helped my Grandma? No.
These are utterly useless "Warnings" that do NOTHING but protect the liability of the suppliers. They do not inform the parents in has FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest they are by exaggerating the ages it is likely to threaten. The very source you provide shows 75% of deaths from choking are from 2 year olds.
Yet this regulation forbids FOURTEEN YEAR OLDS from using a party whistle! A 14 year old can fire a rifle under supervision yet can't blow a whistle without supervision?!? Have the people who came up with these regulations ever raised a child?
And how about THIS for an idea:
Mandate that balloons be coated in an extremely bitter tasting compound. Children naturally hate bitter things as a defence mechanism from eating poisonous plants that would stop them putting it in their mouths far more than some vague threat to parents.
But will the EU do that? Put a burden on industry to come up with a dynamic solution? No, they type a warning label and dump the problem on the moms who have to make the decision if they are going to be the shitty mum who doesn't even have balloons for their kids birthday.
EU warning labels are not scapegoats (that's a straw man argument) but rather are typical examples how out of touch the EU is as it tries to be a positive force, yet is dragged down with bullshit and seems to give no consideration to how it would actually be interpreted. These "warnings" are written more like legal disclaimers. Parents don't like to read overly broad disclaimers on the health and safety of their children, what the hell can they make of them?
These fail in the fundamental aspect of being HELPFUL!
In principal the labels are a a good idea. But in practice it comes across as an alarmist and over-zealous regulation. It doesn't inform people, it has everyone racking their brains how an 8 year old could possibly choke to death on a balloon. We are bombarded with "warnings" and "regulations" that we can't make sense of. Instead they are overzealous and say:
"fuck it, round it up to 8 years old, just to annoy every parent trying to plan a party"
What the warning should say is "Keep away from Toddlers (0-3 years): Choking Hazard to all children"
THAT is an informative warning label.
So, are you saying it is ok for about 150 children to die from 1980-1999 over something that was probably preventable in most cases? Sure, more children may die on playgrounds every year, and I would say that this is just a big a concern as balloons/choking hazards. (And if you looked at my statistics, yes more children die on playgrounds than choking on balloons, but more children die from choking period than accidents on playgrounds.)Treblaine said:
I understand your point that it is better to educate than to restrict, however, a democratic society cannot force every parent to take a class on First Aid. They can strongly recommend it through PSAs and the like, but they cannot force someone to do so. Why? Because that starts dipping too far into authoritarianism for most peoples liking. (Mind you, I'm basing this off the American mind set. I do not know if Europeans would be accepting of this sort of standard because I am not European.)
If you can't force parents to take a class, then what is the next best way to educate people? Warning labels. PSAs and advertisements would not hit a wide enough market to cover everyone, but if someone picks up a package of balloons, they will see the warning label and realize that, "Hey, I should be careful. Kids could get hurt by this stuff."
Parents are not as stupid as you make them out to be. If they read the warning label on balloons, they will probably think, "Ok, Timmy can have balloon's at his 8th birthday party, but he probably shouldn't help blow up the balloons because it could be dangerous." Same with hot dogs. "I should cut the hot dog up into smaller pieces when they are young and instruct my child to take smaller bites and to chew slowly and thoroughly before swallowing so they will be less likely to choke when they get older." Parents won't be confused by these warning labels. When has a "choking hazard" warning label ever confused you?
Also, 8 is not just some arbitrary age set by some Ivory Tower know-it-alls. Yes, most children who died from balloon related incidents were under the age of 3, but balloons still present a danger to children under the age of 8. It's better to be safe than sorry and go ahead and put under 8 on the package than under 3.
Furthermore, you can't base your opinion on one source. Several users have pointed out that the article cited in the original post was biased as it came from a conservative newspaper. The actual regulation does not ban children under 8 from having balloons; it cautions that parents should be mindful of the risk and make their own choices from there. Also, I'm not talking about ALL EU warning labels; I am merely addressing this one.
Also, you cannot claim that the two sentence warning label you gave is more informative than the one provided by the Balloon Council in my original post. The one I put in my post gave specific instructions to increase safe use of balloons; yours only says "Choking Hazard" which you said earlier in your post would not affect parents' behavior in the slightest.
Honestly, it is my opinion that because of your disdain for the EU, I cannot possibly sway you to at least see the validity of a warning label on balloons. Really, I do not think this is all that drastic of a law for the EU to make; to me, it is very sensible. So what if it is written mainly to take liability off of companies? Everyone has to cover their ass now-a-days anyway, so why not inform parents of the risk while also saving the companies some legal heartache at the same time?
strange because I saw Kinder Eggs in a store the other day (I,m from Holland for the record)Private Custard said:
yeah the EU has some strange laws and some inconsistent laws:
it,s legal to purchase/own small amounts of soft drugs (stuff like weed) in Holland yet COMPLETELY forbidden in other EU countries.
it,s legal to own certain types of firearms in Germany and Belgium yet completely forbidden in Holland
Children need a certain amount of perceived risk to overcome in their pay for good mental development. Without getting an opportunity to push the limits of risk they don't develop a proper way of dealing with risk, they either become agrophobic or lose all sense of proportion with risk.Loner Jo Jo said:
That's a complete straw man argument. I never suggested Stalinist "Re-education programs" just things like 60 second TV slots, paying for and making workshops available.
There is a point - a very effective point - in between those hazard labels and some extreme like forced indoctrination. PSAs would make a HUGE difference. Something on the same scale as the Heimlich manoeuvres for adults, the equivalent technique for children, encourage popular TV shows to include an even of a child choking, the parent using the right technique to help their child and the authorities coming in and saying they did the right thing.
You have to realise that Warning labels are almost USELESS, the only significant difference they make is to reduce liabilities of the manufacturers.
No. Have you ever spoken to a mother over worries with advice like that. The problem is they ARE smart, but no amount of thought can solve this riddle without delving into the literature.
It is never so clear cut, Warning Labels like those sew so much doubt and uncertainty. They say explicitly "Keep away from under 8 year olds" not "Don't let under 8 year old inflate them"
What you are endorsing is raising children is a bubble isolated from so many experiences simply because there is the TINIEST POSSIBILITY that they might be at risk? If you apply this same logic to all risk then no fair children should ever be allowed outside in direct sunlight.
What reason would anyone have to assume the cpsc is an unreliable source? That's the source I've used for my point.
It's a de-facto ban considering the grounds that child services will use to confiscate children, they can be quite legally accurate that having balloons for a child's 7th birthday party is "child endangerment".
urrg, don't be so simplistic and reductionist, the difference is the HAZARD is there for all ages, but the specific advice is to keep away from very small children. The "under 8" warning treated a homogeneous risk from 0 to 8 years old when really beyond 3 years old the risk was much lower. Far lower risk than 1 in a million.
To the parents it seems like follow the rules or don't
"I cannot possibly sway you to at least see the validity of a warning label on balloons."
Logical fallacy HOOO! Yeah, just call me delusional, don't for a second actually consider I may have a point and that you may be wrong.
"So what if it is written mainly to take liability off of companies?"
Because that isn't going to save any children's lives. Balloon companies getting sued may force them to get pro active, like as I suggested making balloons far too bitter/foul tasting for kids to ever put in their mouths or chew on.
Most of the news that comes up about Europe is just a load of bull that has cleared the think tank stage (which the toy directive is) but has not then been passed along and voted on...
It will not become law in the same fashion that the bendy banana thing turned out to be a load of bull that got through the think tank stage but no further.
If anything happens then it will be a scaled down version where warning exist but no legally enforceable limits as thats just derogatory and impractical.
It will not become law in the same fashion that the bendy banana thing turned out to be a load of bull that got through the think tank stage but no further.
If anything happens then it will be a scaled down version where warning exist but no legally enforceable limits as thats just derogatory and impractical.