More teenagers these days will do just about anything for a thrill. The latest trend for parents to watch for is something known as "dusting." It involves sucking in compressed air to get high, usually from a can of compressed air used to blow dust from electronics. (Hence the term dusting)
Breathing in the compressed air can produce a euphoria that is similar to what a teen might feel from playing the chocking game. In addition to unknown health risks, it can also lead to impairment. Police in Wichita Kansas have reported seeing crashed caused by teens dusting. They know of at least four crashes in which a driver caused an injury after taking a hit from a can of air.
So if you have a teenager or even a child in older elementary school, be on the lookout for signs of this latest fad.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The Trayvon Martin Circus
My how this case has taken on a life of it's own. In the two weeks since we originally posted on this case, it's gone from a backwoods story to a nationwide media circus. Unfortunately, lost amongst the accusations of racism and heated emotion is the core of what this case is about.
I very much doubt Mr. Zimmerman intended to become a child killer. Unfortunately, that is exactly what he has become. Not because he is a heartless monster, or even a racist, but for a much simpler reason: when you carry around a loaded gun, life altering tragedies are as easy to come by as a simple misunderstanding. Trayvon wasn't killed because he was profiled, but because one person had a gun when the situation escalated, allowing a mistake and misunderstanding to turn deadly. Like a drunk driver who plows into another car, it was Zimmermans stupidity, not his evil character, that left a child dead.
It was a mistake for Zimmerman to assume Martin was up to something. It was a mistake to follow and confront the teen. And regardless of how things unfolded next, it was a mistake for Zimmerman to assume he needed to use deadly force against a 140 pound unarmed teenager. This is not a racial tragedy. It is a gun tragedy. Even if you believe Zimmermans rather dubious story that Trayvon reached for his gun, this would be a non issue, and a non life threatening situation, had Zimmerman not had a gun. This case comes back to one thing, and one thing only: Mr Zimmerman, this otherwise "law abiding" citizen, was packing, turning a series of mistakes into a deadly encounter.
Unfortunately, this is rather typical of the mistakes that are common to "law abiding gun owners" when more people carry loaded weapons. In fact, "law abiding gun owners" are several hundred times more likely to make a mistake or commit a crime with their weapon that they are to use it legitimately for self defense. That means that every person carrying a gun makes you and your children monumentally less safe and more likely to die from a crime despite what the gun lobbyists might have you believe. Having a gun can make you feel powerful, but it doesn't offer safety, for one simple reason: legitimate chances to be the hero are extremely rare. You have a better chance of winning the 'big ' lottery. The chances to make mistakes happen every day.
The real monsters of this story are people like representative Dennis K. Baxley, who sponsored the gun lobbies stand your ground law, openly encouraging people to shoot first and ask questions later. Or any of the other ill informed gun advocates who promote the fairy tale that guns offer self protection. This myth directly causes hundreds of child deaths each and every year. It was killing children long before Treyvon Martin, and it will be killing kids long after. Let us not forget that as we speak the gun lobby is pushing further and further to try and revive the Wild West days where every idiot carries a gun on his belt. If this campaign continues unchecked, we can be assured of thousands of more stories like this to come.
I very much doubt Mr. Zimmerman intended to become a child killer. Unfortunately, that is exactly what he has become. Not because he is a heartless monster, or even a racist, but for a much simpler reason: when you carry around a loaded gun, life altering tragedies are as easy to come by as a simple misunderstanding. Trayvon wasn't killed because he was profiled, but because one person had a gun when the situation escalated, allowing a mistake and misunderstanding to turn deadly. Like a drunk driver who plows into another car, it was Zimmermans stupidity, not his evil character, that left a child dead.
It was a mistake for Zimmerman to assume Martin was up to something. It was a mistake to follow and confront the teen. And regardless of how things unfolded next, it was a mistake for Zimmerman to assume he needed to use deadly force against a 140 pound unarmed teenager. This is not a racial tragedy. It is a gun tragedy. Even if you believe Zimmermans rather dubious story that Trayvon reached for his gun, this would be a non issue, and a non life threatening situation, had Zimmerman not had a gun. This case comes back to one thing, and one thing only: Mr Zimmerman, this otherwise "law abiding" citizen, was packing, turning a series of mistakes into a deadly encounter.
Unfortunately, this is rather typical of the mistakes that are common to "law abiding gun owners" when more people carry loaded weapons. In fact, "law abiding gun owners" are several hundred times more likely to make a mistake or commit a crime with their weapon that they are to use it legitimately for self defense. That means that every person carrying a gun makes you and your children monumentally less safe and more likely to die from a crime despite what the gun lobbyists might have you believe. Having a gun can make you feel powerful, but it doesn't offer safety, for one simple reason: legitimate chances to be the hero are extremely rare. You have a better chance of winning the 'big ' lottery. The chances to make mistakes happen every day.
The real monsters of this story are people like representative Dennis K. Baxley, who sponsored the gun lobbies stand your ground law, openly encouraging people to shoot first and ask questions later. Or any of the other ill informed gun advocates who promote the fairy tale that guns offer self protection. This myth directly causes hundreds of child deaths each and every year. It was killing children long before Treyvon Martin, and it will be killing kids long after. Let us not forget that as we speak the gun lobby is pushing further and further to try and revive the Wild West days where every idiot carries a gun on his belt. If this campaign continues unchecked, we can be assured of thousands of more stories like this to come.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
When More Citizens Have Guns
Seventeen year old Trayvon Martin was an ordinary teenage boy living in Florida. His life tragically ended one night in late February when he left his home to walk to a local convince store to buy some snacks for the NBA all-star game. No, he wasn't snatched up by a sexual predator. Rather, he met his end at the hands of a "law abiding" gun owner who could be the poster child for the NRA.
He was shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman inside this gated community, who admitted to killing the child. Zimmerman had seen the black teen walking down the road, and thought he appeared "suspicious." So he called 911. Had he listened to the 911 operator, who repeatedly told him to stay inside his vehicle and not confront the teen because police were on the way, this story would have ended there. But instead, Zimmerman, who is described by a Martin family lawyer as a "homeowners association loss cannon," ignored this advice and went out to confront the teen.
Although it is unclear precisely what happened next, it is believed that Zimmerman stalked the teen, following him down the road and initiating an argument. During this confrontation, Zimmerman got out his 9mm gun, and shot the unarmed teen dead in the street, just 70 feet from his stepmothers home. Zimmerman would tell police that he acted in self defense, a puzzling claim, considering the teen was doing nothing wrong and Zimmerman was the one who confronted him. It's sort of like me walking up to you at Wallmart, trying to harass you or detain you, and then shooting you dead when you resist this action and calling it self defense.
As of this posting, Zimmerman had not yet been arrested, though the case was being reviewed by the district attorney. Hopefully justice will be done, and this child killer will get the same treatment as any other child killer receives. But there is a broader issue at play here.
Gun advocated love to make the claim that lives are saved when everyday citizens tote their guns around. This is a factual lie, refuted by research. (See our publication Guns For Protection) Safety advocates know better: most gun crimes aren't committed by career criminals, but by pissed off gun owners. So the more people you have carrying around loaded weapons, the more of these "loose cannon" situations you have ready to go off. The more people carrying guns, the more chances for misunderstanding, mistaken assessments, poor decisions, and unnecessary killings.
As more states continue to encourage every yahoo who owns a gun to be their own vigilante do-gooder, even passing laws allowing someone to shoot a fleeing person in the back so long as they "feel" threatened, we'll encounter many more tragedies like this. Tragedies where gun vigilantes such as this turn an otherwise innocent situation into a deadly encounter, slaughtering a child who is merely walking back to his house after buying candy. The most sickening part of it all is that this type of 'make my day' shoot first and ask questions later mentality is exactly what gun advocates want to see more of.
He was shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman inside this gated community, who admitted to killing the child. Zimmerman had seen the black teen walking down the road, and thought he appeared "suspicious." So he called 911. Had he listened to the 911 operator, who repeatedly told him to stay inside his vehicle and not confront the teen because police were on the way, this story would have ended there. But instead, Zimmerman, who is described by a Martin family lawyer as a "homeowners association loss cannon," ignored this advice and went out to confront the teen.
Although it is unclear precisely what happened next, it is believed that Zimmerman stalked the teen, following him down the road and initiating an argument. During this confrontation, Zimmerman got out his 9mm gun, and shot the unarmed teen dead in the street, just 70 feet from his stepmothers home. Zimmerman would tell police that he acted in self defense, a puzzling claim, considering the teen was doing nothing wrong and Zimmerman was the one who confronted him. It's sort of like me walking up to you at Wallmart, trying to harass you or detain you, and then shooting you dead when you resist this action and calling it self defense.
As of this posting, Zimmerman had not yet been arrested, though the case was being reviewed by the district attorney. Hopefully justice will be done, and this child killer will get the same treatment as any other child killer receives. But there is a broader issue at play here.
Gun advocated love to make the claim that lives are saved when everyday citizens tote their guns around. This is a factual lie, refuted by research. (See our publication Guns For Protection) Safety advocates know better: most gun crimes aren't committed by career criminals, but by pissed off gun owners. So the more people you have carrying around loaded weapons, the more of these "loose cannon" situations you have ready to go off. The more people carrying guns, the more chances for misunderstanding, mistaken assessments, poor decisions, and unnecessary killings.
As more states continue to encourage every yahoo who owns a gun to be their own vigilante do-gooder, even passing laws allowing someone to shoot a fleeing person in the back so long as they "feel" threatened, we'll encounter many more tragedies like this. Tragedies where gun vigilantes such as this turn an otherwise innocent situation into a deadly encounter, slaughtering a child who is merely walking back to his house after buying candy. The most sickening part of it all is that this type of 'make my day' shoot first and ask questions later mentality is exactly what gun advocates want to see more of.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Finally, An Air-Bag You Want Near Your Children
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, it1s 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. This 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.
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.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Cell Phone Use by Passengers Can Also be a Distraction for Drivers
Unless you've been hanging out in Osama bin Laden's cave for the past few years, by now you're well aware of the potential dangers of cell phone use while driving. News reports abound of studies which outline what a distraction it can be, and you have probably encountered a few personal experiences yourself on the road in dealing with other drivers that attest to their truthfulness. I know I've navigated around several near-collisions to avoid a clueless driver distracted by a cell phone, and I doubt I'm alone.
But it turns out cell-phones in the car may be problematic even when it isn't the driver who is using them. Using a clever way to test drivers, a recent study in the September 3rd Psychological Science proves that cell-phone use by a passenger can also be deadly distracting. And it all involves the way our brain's process communication in our surroundings.
When someone around us is talking on a cell phone, we can't help but listen. It's wired into our brains. It's like putting a toddler in an empty room with a big red button on the wall--you know that button will call to them, begging to be pushed. Cell phone conversations are unique from ordinary chatter around us, in that we only hear half of the conversation. This creates a riddle that instantly draws our brains attention, even without our conscious awareness. We embark on the task of trying to fill in the blanks, to make whole this incomplete dialogue that hijacks our attention. When we're driving, this decrease in attention can result in a drop in safety.
To test this effect, Cornell University psychologist Lauren Emberson had participants complete a series of tasks while listening to several different types of conversational recordings: a woman recapping a cell phone conversation in a monologue, two women talking to each other on a cell phone in which both parties could be heard, and a woman talking to an unheard person in the “halfalogue” that we encounter when someone around us is talking on a cell phone.
They then tested participants on a couple of driving-related and concentration skill tasks. When trying to keep a cursor as close as possible to a moving dot on a computer screen, the performance among subjects dipped significantly while listening to the halfalogue, but not while listening to the other two conversation types. In a second task, participants were asked to remember four letters, and hit a computer key as quickly as possible whenever one of those letters appeared on a screen, all while ignoring any other letters-a task designed to test response times and general awareness. Once again, performance declined while listening to halfalogues compared to full conversations. Though the effect was not as noticeable on this test, it was still statistically significant.
So all in all, when someone is listening to halfalogue because a person around them is talking on a cell phone, driving performance dips. Brain-to-motor-skills plummet, they lose concentration, and their response time dips...all crucial detriments to motorists navigating traffic signals or potential hazards on the road. “Drivers should be aware that one's attention is drawn away from current tasks by overhearing someone on a cell phone, at least in our attention-demanding lab tasks, and that this effect is beyond conscious control,” says Emberson.
It's still uncertain precisely how much of a detriment passenger cell-phone use is in the real world as compared to other hazards such as regular cell phone use, drowsy driving, texting, or impaired driving. But it is clear that having a passenger use a cell phone in the car is a measurable distraction for the driver--and this would be especially true for teen drivers, who are still honing their driving skills, and thus need all the attention and coordination they can muster. This is why the “no cell phone use in the car” rule should apply to passengers as well as drivers.
You might also share this article with them. Knowing why these rules are created, and that they're created for a reason and not just dreamed up out of nowhere to provide unnecessary or arbitrary regulation by which to torment them, often goes a long way towards getting your teen to adhere to such restrictions.
But it turns out cell-phones in the car may be problematic even when it isn't the driver who is using them. Using a clever way to test drivers, a recent study in the September 3rd Psychological Science proves that cell-phone use by a passenger can also be deadly distracting. And it all involves the way our brain's process communication in our surroundings.
When someone around us is talking on a cell phone, we can't help but listen. It's wired into our brains. It's like putting a toddler in an empty room with a big red button on the wall--you know that button will call to them, begging to be pushed. Cell phone conversations are unique from ordinary chatter around us, in that we only hear half of the conversation. This creates a riddle that instantly draws our brains attention, even without our conscious awareness. We embark on the task of trying to fill in the blanks, to make whole this incomplete dialogue that hijacks our attention. When we're driving, this decrease in attention can result in a drop in safety.
To test this effect, Cornell University psychologist Lauren Emberson had participants complete a series of tasks while listening to several different types of conversational recordings: a woman recapping a cell phone conversation in a monologue, two women talking to each other on a cell phone in which both parties could be heard, and a woman talking to an unheard person in the “halfalogue” that we encounter when someone around us is talking on a cell phone.
They then tested participants on a couple of driving-related and concentration skill tasks. When trying to keep a cursor as close as possible to a moving dot on a computer screen, the performance among subjects dipped significantly while listening to the halfalogue, but not while listening to the other two conversation types. In a second task, participants were asked to remember four letters, and hit a computer key as quickly as possible whenever one of those letters appeared on a screen, all while ignoring any other letters-a task designed to test response times and general awareness. Once again, performance declined while listening to halfalogues compared to full conversations. Though the effect was not as noticeable on this test, it was still statistically significant.
So all in all, when someone is listening to halfalogue because a person around them is talking on a cell phone, driving performance dips. Brain-to-motor-skills plummet, they lose concentration, and their response time dips...all crucial detriments to motorists navigating traffic signals or potential hazards on the road. “Drivers should be aware that one's attention is drawn away from current tasks by overhearing someone on a cell phone, at least in our attention-demanding lab tasks, and that this effect is beyond conscious control,” says Emberson.
It's still uncertain precisely how much of a detriment passenger cell-phone use is in the real world as compared to other hazards such as regular cell phone use, drowsy driving, texting, or impaired driving. But it is clear that having a passenger use a cell phone in the car is a measurable distraction for the driver--and this would be especially true for teen drivers, who are still honing their driving skills, and thus need all the attention and coordination they can muster. This is why the “no cell phone use in the car” rule should apply to passengers as well as drivers.
You might also share this article with them. Knowing why these rules are created, and that they're created for a reason and not just dreamed up out of nowhere to provide unnecessary or arbitrary regulation by which to torment them, often goes a long way towards getting your teen to adhere to such restrictions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)