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
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Traumatizing Tadpoles
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
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
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Bouncy Houses Full of Lead
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.
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.
Friday, October 15, 2010
How long do germs stay active on money?
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
To learn more about family safety go to www.keepyourchildsafe.org and explore
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Where Abductors Lurk, 7 in 10 Kids Unprepared
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)