You do your best to make your castle a safe place for the children to play. You get safety latches for the cupboards and plugs to cover the outlets and safety gates on the stairs. You be sure to set all knives, medicine, poisons, matches and lighters, etc., safely out of reach. You childproof your living spaces in every way you can, so that prying little fingers won't be able to get their hands on anything that could hurt them.
Yet one of the most prominent dangers is often something most parents completely overlook: the purse. It's dangerous for several reasons: First, as any parent knows, young kids love to get into it. It sits there like a kiddy magnet, sending out mischievous vibes and calling out to any child with a curiosity that happens to be in the vicinity, beckoning them to inquire as to what's inside. Second, what's inside can often be dangerous to kids. People commonly carry medicine or lighters or pepper spray or stun guns or other little things that can pose a big hazard. Finally, this bag of potential death and danger easily breaches the security of your fortress. It's carried right through the front door and often set on the counter, a bar stool, or even right on the floor within easy reach of little fingers.
A significant number of accidental poisonings occur when children get into grandmas purse during a visit, which is often filled with medication, as elderly people in general are much more likely to be on some kind of medical regimen. Since they don't have small hands prying in their purse themselves, they may not think twice about what's inside. Furthermore, medications kept in a purse are often removed from their childproof containers. Adults often make a "traveling pack" of medication, keeping pills in a pouch or another container that a child can easily get into. A young child who discovers their stash pops a few pills, and the next thing you know you're rushing little Suzie to the hospital.
Children who die in house fires they started while playing with fire often retrieved their fire making tools from an ill-placed purse or handbag. A number of choking deaths can be linked to children swallowing trinkets found inside a purse. There's also the occasional accident with handguns, self-defense weapons, or the other potentially dangerous items people carry around with them. With so many dangers lurking inside such a small bag, there are several things parents can do to avert a potential disaster:
1. When you have guests, be sure to ask them if they have anything dangerous in their purse that the kids might get a hold of. Or just keep all purses and handbags in a clearly visible area where both they and the kids can be monitored.
2. Consider setting aside a high cupboard in which to keep your own purse or those of guests, so that children aren't able to get into them.
3. Another idea is to install a high shelf directly above the entryway for which to keep purses, car keys, or other materials. It also makes a convenient spot for hanging notes.
These precautions aside, simply be aware and vigilant. Extra awareness that purses pose a danger is the first step in proactively ensuring they don't. Always be aware of what's in your own purse or handbag and where these purses are in relation to any prying little fingers that may be around.
For more child safety information visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org
Friday, August 27, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Does Too Much Sugar Turn Children Into Violent Criminals?
Parents: A strict warning--you'd better withhold that bowl of fruity pebbles from your child, because if you don't, they might grow up to be a violent criminal. Or at least, that's the nonsense that some out there would have you believe.
A recent (2009) study from Cardiff University in the U.K. found that children who ate more sugary foods were more likely to commit violent crimes as adults. Sixty-nine percent of violent offenders were daily sugar eaters, they say, compared with 42% of non-violent people. Therefore, sugar must be turning our kids into future delinquents.
But before you rush to rid your home of the devilish powder, we thought we'd shed a little light on the subject, because it annoys us when people misuse science to create fantastic headlines in order to gain media attention that will mislead the public while scaring them about a whole lot of nonsense. Phew...that was a long sentence.
We start with the first rule of research: correlation does not equal causation. Just because two things can be linked together does not mean one causes the other. This is all the more true when something has no established mechanism for the outcome. That is to say, there is no credible evidence indicating how slightly elevated levels of sucrose in a child's body would alter brainwaves in order to change their behavior and lead to violence.
Claiming sugar causes violent crime is a bold statement. So does sugar really have such powerful effects? Unlikely. Let's talk about the more rational causes for such a correlation:
A) Those with higher daily sugar habits are also those who are likely to exhibit less self-control. Less self-control is an established link to violent crime and delinquency, and it is the lower inhibitions that lead both to increases in crime and increases in sugar intake.
For example, the famous marshmallow experiment at Stanford University provides the perfect analogy. Researchers put children into a room with nothing but their own devices to entertain them. A marshmallow was placed on the table in front of them, and the preschoolers were told that if they waited until the researcher .came back into the room to eat it, they would be given a second marshmallow. About a third of the kids managed to hold out the full 15 minutes, a third ate the marshmallow right away, and around a third broke down somewhere in-between.
Years later, a follow up study was done when the kids were young adults. (2) It found that those in the most impulsive group scored significantly higher on delinquency rates and significantly lower on general life measures. Those kids who as preschoolers had waited the 15 minutes to earn a second marshmallow had significantly higher marks in education and everyday life skills. So does this mean eating marshmallows causes future delinquency? No. It means that a lack of self-control in childhood, as evidenced by the marshmallow test (or impulsive sugar intake) is a predictor of future delinquency.
B) Those parents who largely fail to monitor a child's diet when young are likely to also be parents who are less-competent and caring in general. Less competent parenting is a proven link to crime, and low parental caring is a proven link to antisocial behavior. So those who were able to eat candy for breakfast would tend to be those with more irresponsible and less involved parents.
C) Low socioeconomic status (SES) is a proven link to crime; and there is also an established link between low SES and poor, higher-fat, higher sugar diets; simply because junk food tends to be cheaper and more readily available than healthy food.
The idea that sugar alters behavior in kids is a widely held myth. At least a dozen large-scale trials analyzing what children eat have been unable to detect any differences in behavior between the children who ate sugary foods and those who hadn't. Even studies that singled out children who were labeled as having "sensitivity" towards sugar found no behavioral differences between a high-sugar and sugar-free diet. If a child was an obnoxious twerp before downing a bag of skittles, they'll be one afterward too. And if they were calm and in-control before ice cream, they won't suddenly grow devil-horns afterward.
No doubt there are parents out there convinced that sugar makes their kids hyper, and they are no doubt gritting their teeth reading this.
Such parents have been the subject of study too. In one example, researchers divided children and their parents into two groups. In one group, parents were told their children were being given a drink that was full of sugar. The other was told their children's drinks were sugar free. In truth, both groups received sugar-free drinks. The parents were then asked to grade their children's behavior. Naturally, parents who thought their children had received a sugar-boost graded them as more hyperactive than the other. (6) Our beliefs shape our perspectives, and create an altered version of reality. We find evidence for what we expect to find, while ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Of course, too much sugar does do many unhealthy things: it rots your child's teeth, leads to obesity, and is generally the sign of a poor diet, because too much of sugary foods generally means not enough of the other, healthier variety. But turn children into budding psychopaths it does not. Moderation and self-control are the keys. In fact, I'd wager that the kid whose overprotective parent never allows them any sugary treats is more likely to go insane and become an ax-murderer than those reasonable parents who allow sugary treats in healthy moderation.
References:
1. Discover Magazine, 'The Bad News,' December 2009, p. 16
2. Y. Shoda, W. Mischel & P.K. Peake, "Predicting adolescent cognitive and social competence from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions." Developmental Psychology, 26, pp. 978-986, 1990
3. M. Kinsbourne, "Sugar and the hyperactive child," New England Journal of Medicine, 330(5): 355-56, 1994
4. D.A. Krummel, F.H. Seligson"& H.~. Guthrie, "Hyperactivity: is candy causal?" Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 36, (1-2): 31-47, 1996
5. M.L. Woolraich et al., "Effects of diets high in sucrose or aspartame on the behavior and cognitive performance of children." New England Journal of Medicine, 330(5): 301-07
6. D.W. Hoover & R. Milich, "Effects of sugar ingestion expectancies on mother-child interactions." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22(4): 501-15, 1994
For more information on child safety issues visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org
A recent (2009) study from Cardiff University in the U.K. found that children who ate more sugary foods were more likely to commit violent crimes as adults. Sixty-nine percent of violent offenders were daily sugar eaters, they say, compared with 42% of non-violent people. Therefore, sugar must be turning our kids into future delinquents.
But before you rush to rid your home of the devilish powder, we thought we'd shed a little light on the subject, because it annoys us when people misuse science to create fantastic headlines in order to gain media attention that will mislead the public while scaring them about a whole lot of nonsense. Phew...that was a long sentence.
We start with the first rule of research: correlation does not equal causation. Just because two things can be linked together does not mean one causes the other. This is all the more true when something has no established mechanism for the outcome. That is to say, there is no credible evidence indicating how slightly elevated levels of sucrose in a child's body would alter brainwaves in order to change their behavior and lead to violence.
Claiming sugar causes violent crime is a bold statement. So does sugar really have such powerful effects? Unlikely. Let's talk about the more rational causes for such a correlation:
A) Those with higher daily sugar habits are also those who are likely to exhibit less self-control. Less self-control is an established link to violent crime and delinquency, and it is the lower inhibitions that lead both to increases in crime and increases in sugar intake.
For example, the famous marshmallow experiment at Stanford University provides the perfect analogy. Researchers put children into a room with nothing but their own devices to entertain them. A marshmallow was placed on the table in front of them, and the preschoolers were told that if they waited until the researcher .came back into the room to eat it, they would be given a second marshmallow. About a third of the kids managed to hold out the full 15 minutes, a third ate the marshmallow right away, and around a third broke down somewhere in-between.
Years later, a follow up study was done when the kids were young adults. (2) It found that those in the most impulsive group scored significantly higher on delinquency rates and significantly lower on general life measures. Those kids who as preschoolers had waited the 15 minutes to earn a second marshmallow had significantly higher marks in education and everyday life skills. So does this mean eating marshmallows causes future delinquency? No. It means that a lack of self-control in childhood, as evidenced by the marshmallow test (or impulsive sugar intake) is a predictor of future delinquency.
B) Those parents who largely fail to monitor a child's diet when young are likely to also be parents who are less-competent and caring in general. Less competent parenting is a proven link to crime, and low parental caring is a proven link to antisocial behavior. So those who were able to eat candy for breakfast would tend to be those with more irresponsible and less involved parents.
C) Low socioeconomic status (SES) is a proven link to crime; and there is also an established link between low SES and poor, higher-fat, higher sugar diets; simply because junk food tends to be cheaper and more readily available than healthy food.
The idea that sugar alters behavior in kids is a widely held myth. At least a dozen large-scale trials analyzing what children eat have been unable to detect any differences in behavior between the children who ate sugary foods and those who hadn't. Even studies that singled out children who were labeled as having "sensitivity" towards sugar found no behavioral differences between a high-sugar and sugar-free diet. If a child was an obnoxious twerp before downing a bag of skittles, they'll be one afterward too. And if they were calm and in-control before ice cream, they won't suddenly grow devil-horns afterward.
No doubt there are parents out there convinced that sugar makes their kids hyper, and they are no doubt gritting their teeth reading this.
Such parents have been the subject of study too. In one example, researchers divided children and their parents into two groups. In one group, parents were told their children were being given a drink that was full of sugar. The other was told their children's drinks were sugar free. In truth, both groups received sugar-free drinks. The parents were then asked to grade their children's behavior. Naturally, parents who thought their children had received a sugar-boost graded them as more hyperactive than the other. (6) Our beliefs shape our perspectives, and create an altered version of reality. We find evidence for what we expect to find, while ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Of course, too much sugar does do many unhealthy things: it rots your child's teeth, leads to obesity, and is generally the sign of a poor diet, because too much of sugary foods generally means not enough of the other, healthier variety. But turn children into budding psychopaths it does not. Moderation and self-control are the keys. In fact, I'd wager that the kid whose overprotective parent never allows them any sugary treats is more likely to go insane and become an ax-murderer than those reasonable parents who allow sugary treats in healthy moderation.
References:
1. Discover Magazine, 'The Bad News,' December 2009, p. 16
2. Y. Shoda, W. Mischel & P.K. Peake, "Predicting adolescent cognitive and social competence from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions." Developmental Psychology, 26, pp. 978-986, 1990
3. M. Kinsbourne, "Sugar and the hyperactive child," New England Journal of Medicine, 330(5): 355-56, 1994
4. D.A. Krummel, F.H. Seligson"& H.~. Guthrie, "Hyperactivity: is candy causal?" Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 36, (1-2): 31-47, 1996
5. M.L. Woolraich et al., "Effects of diets high in sucrose or aspartame on the behavior and cognitive performance of children." New England Journal of Medicine, 330(5): 301-07
6. D.W. Hoover & R. Milich, "Effects of sugar ingestion expectancies on mother-child interactions." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22(4): 501-15, 1994
For more information on child safety issues visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org
Monday, July 19, 2010
The Cell-Phone Stalkers
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, the only thing that telephones did was allow people to speak to one another. Those times are far past. Nowadays, cell-phones take pictures, read email, surf the web, play songs, offer games, GPS, a calculator...about the only thing it can't do is cook your dinner-yet. But all that technology requires computing power, and with computing power comes the ability for people to do not so nice things with it.
One of those sinister things is to use stalking software to track your every move. A teenage girl and her family were surprised when they started to receive threats and intimidating phone calls by an unknown person. "I know what you're doing," he said. "I know where you are." And somehow, he always did. It turns out this girls' stalker knew about all the conversations she was having, and all the places she had been.
So the family went to the police with their complaint. The police told them it was impossible for anyone to do what they were describing. Unfortunately, the police were wrong. Not only is it possible, but it's surprisingly easy. Anyone with $400 to burn and moderate IT skills can download software that will allow them to tap into any modern cell-phone, effectively hijacking your phone-and everything you do with it. They can read your email, listen in on your conversations, and track your web surfing. If your phone has GPS, they can even use it to know exactly where you are at any given time. A bit of information no professional hit man or neighborhood stalker should go without.
It's therefore our recommendation that you stop using your cell phone immediately. Yeah right. We thought you'd get a good chuckle out of that one. To be honest, there's not a whole lot you can do about it right now, nor are we an organization that goes around trying to scare people about the thousand different things that could go wrong. We just wanted to make sure parents are aware of the danger. Anyone can tap into your phone and track everything you do with it. So it's best to keep those deep-dark intimate secrets (which you happen to be sharing among friends) to land lines. That way, the only person listening in will be some bored technician from the National Security Administration.
Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for more safety information.
One of those sinister things is to use stalking software to track your every move. A teenage girl and her family were surprised when they started to receive threats and intimidating phone calls by an unknown person. "I know what you're doing," he said. "I know where you are." And somehow, he always did. It turns out this girls' stalker knew about all the conversations she was having, and all the places she had been.
So the family went to the police with their complaint. The police told them it was impossible for anyone to do what they were describing. Unfortunately, the police were wrong. Not only is it possible, but it's surprisingly easy. Anyone with $400 to burn and moderate IT skills can download software that will allow them to tap into any modern cell-phone, effectively hijacking your phone-and everything you do with it. They can read your email, listen in on your conversations, and track your web surfing. If your phone has GPS, they can even use it to know exactly where you are at any given time. A bit of information no professional hit man or neighborhood stalker should go without.
It's therefore our recommendation that you stop using your cell phone immediately. Yeah right. We thought you'd get a good chuckle out of that one. To be honest, there's not a whole lot you can do about it right now, nor are we an organization that goes around trying to scare people about the thousand different things that could go wrong. We just wanted to make sure parents are aware of the danger. Anyone can tap into your phone and track everything you do with it. So it's best to keep those deep-dark intimate secrets (which you happen to be sharing among friends) to land lines. That way, the only person listening in will be some bored technician from the National Security Administration.
Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for more safety information.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Why do children need a booster seat?
Children do not have the same pelvic anatomy as adults, so regular seatbelts tend to ride up into their stomach area. Their hips are more rounded and less boxy. They also have a tendency to scoot forward in the seat so that their legs hang comfortably over the edge, which further causes the seatbe1t to ride up into their stomach area. This puts all their vital organs in that area at risk.
Children ages 4 to 8 who no longer ride in a booster seat are 25 times more likely than younger children to sustain serious abdominal injuries. Such injuries have become one of the most common injuries, and serious injuries can occur even in slow crashes. Internal bleeding can occur and vital organs can rupture. Booster seats prevent this by sitting a child higher up in the car and guiding the seatbe1t so that it rests near the child's hip area where it should be, and not on their stomach.
Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for more safety tips.
Children ages 4 to 8 who no longer ride in a booster seat are 25 times more likely than younger children to sustain serious abdominal injuries. Such injuries have become one of the most common injuries, and serious injuries can occur even in slow crashes. Internal bleeding can occur and vital organs can rupture. Booster seats prevent this by sitting a child higher up in the car and guiding the seatbe1t so that it rests near the child's hip area where it should be, and not on their stomach.
Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for more safety tips.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Is It Safe to Show Family Pride?
There has been a heated debate over the use of personalized family bumper stickers, window decals, and other personalized merchandise. In many areas, it's become all the rage to get a personalized window sticker for the car that lists all the members of ones family alongside little stick figures, including the names of the kids. Some even list the children's ages. Other parents use personalized return address labels that list the members of the family. Such displays are done as a way to show family pride. But wait...many safety advocates have come out against such things, saying that advertising your family or your children's names in such a manner is like putting a target on their backs. You might as well advertise them to kidnappers and molesters with a sign that says "come get me," or so they say. Are they right?
We hate to go against our brethren in arms and contradict the advocacy trends, but we must cry foul on this one. It's one of those areas where an overactive imagination and hyper inflated fears lead to bogus conclusions. The reason for advocating against personalization on things such as a child's backpack or clothing or lunchbox is because some abductions are crimes of opportunity. A potential abductor targets a lone child walking home from school, and in such cases, knowing their name can be an advantage. The chances of this ever mattering are remote, but why take the risk if it isn't necessary, right?
Here's an area where a different situation renders this common advice completely irrelevant. Unless you're going to be leaving your child alone in the car while you shop, (in which case they have much bigger safety issues to worry about) the crime of opportunity setting doesn't apply. Unlike a backpack, a car is something that the family drives around in together, and something that would be tethered to the child's parents or other caretakers. The lone-child element and crime of opportunity is removed. As far as the likelihood of someone stalking your family or targeting your children because of names on a bumper sticker or address label, this is an imaginary fear. It's not at all hard to get a child's name in about a thousand other methods. I could walk around the grocery store and get you the names of just about every child in there. Just wait for the first "Jessie, put that back" or listen for siblings talking amongst one another. Or heck, just smile big and ask the child's name in front of their parents while in line at the checkout counter. The bottom line: it's not as though your child's name or identity is some guarded secret that nobody can find out unless you advertise it. The only time it will ever play a role in abduction is if a stranger happens upon your child alone in the right place and time, and can befriend them easier because of the big name tag. This is why it's not a good idea for your child's name to be engraved across the back of their backpack or on the front of their shirt. In all other situations, it matters not in the least, and a bumper sticker depicting your family doesn't make it any easier to snatch a child.
So go ahead, show your family pride. It doesn't jeopardize your children's safety in the least.
Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for more safety information.
We hate to go against our brethren in arms and contradict the advocacy trends, but we must cry foul on this one. It's one of those areas where an overactive imagination and hyper inflated fears lead to bogus conclusions. The reason for advocating against personalization on things such as a child's backpack or clothing or lunchbox is because some abductions are crimes of opportunity. A potential abductor targets a lone child walking home from school, and in such cases, knowing their name can be an advantage. The chances of this ever mattering are remote, but why take the risk if it isn't necessary, right?
Here's an area where a different situation renders this common advice completely irrelevant. Unless you're going to be leaving your child alone in the car while you shop, (in which case they have much bigger safety issues to worry about) the crime of opportunity setting doesn't apply. Unlike a backpack, a car is something that the family drives around in together, and something that would be tethered to the child's parents or other caretakers. The lone-child element and crime of opportunity is removed. As far as the likelihood of someone stalking your family or targeting your children because of names on a bumper sticker or address label, this is an imaginary fear. It's not at all hard to get a child's name in about a thousand other methods. I could walk around the grocery store and get you the names of just about every child in there. Just wait for the first "Jessie, put that back" or listen for siblings talking amongst one another. Or heck, just smile big and ask the child's name in front of their parents while in line at the checkout counter. The bottom line: it's not as though your child's name or identity is some guarded secret that nobody can find out unless you advertise it. The only time it will ever play a role in abduction is if a stranger happens upon your child alone in the right place and time, and can befriend them easier because of the big name tag. This is why it's not a good idea for your child's name to be engraved across the back of their backpack or on the front of their shirt. In all other situations, it matters not in the least, and a bumper sticker depicting your family doesn't make it any easier to snatch a child.
So go ahead, show your family pride. It doesn't jeopardize your children's safety in the least.
Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for more safety information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)