Ostrich contraband between Canada and the US
And for once I don’t mean strollers!
Even though we regularly mock Canadians for their anti-stroller laws, this time it is the US of A who is getting tarred and ostrich-feathered for an incredibly overblown kerfuffle over a piece of deadly candy:
A Kinder Surprise.
Read what happened to a poor woman who was caught with a lethal chocolate egg in her car on the USA border.
And then leave a comment.
Especially if you’re Canadian!
Many thanks to the looooovely Melanie at 1 in 36 million for the tip!
Read MorePoisonous Diapers
Those of you who thought disposable diapers are the best thing since sliced bread, think twice: disposable diapers are evil! Poisonous! Deadly!
I usually attack news articles, but today’s ostrich bash comes courtesy of a comment left about one of my blog posts. I am not a vindictive person, I swear. It just was too ridiculous to let be.
The headline: “Chemicals in Disposable Diapers.”
The premise: Disposable diapers are full of poisonous chemicals that could kill and maim your child.
The bottom line: “It’s is harmful for a baby to have a wet diaper on the skin for long periods of time.”
Best Ostrich quotes:
Have you’ve ever heard of Dioxins!!?? There are a lot of harmful chemicals in diapers that if left on long enough can lead to health problems. So the baby isn’t just safely sleeping soaking wet, the baby is also absorbing harsh chemicals.
A study published in the “Archives of Environmental Health” in 1999 states that disposable diapers should be considered to be a factor that may cause or worsen childhood asthma and respiratory problems.
According to the World Health Organization, exposure to dioxins may cause skin reactions and altered liver function, as well as impairments to the immune system, nervous system, endocrine system and reproductive functions.
Let’s bash!
I am not even going to bring out the Ostrich Scale for this. Let’s just say a child is more likely to die from a grand piano falling on his/her pram after being pushed by a coyote from the heights of a Grand Canyon cliff than from exposure to dioxins. Seriously. Read on.
Are Dioxins bad? Hell to the yes, they are. A reputable source (the World Health Organization, no less) describes their effects like this:
Dioxins are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also cause cancer.
Wait! Don’t run and throw all your disposable diapers away just yet! Let’s read a little more about what the WHO says:
More than 90% of human exposure is through food, mainly meat and dairy products, fish and shellfish.
Oh, not diapers? Are you sure diapers are not murderously high in dioxins?
Due to the omnipresence of dioxins, all people have background exposure, which is not expected to affect human health.
Sorry, did the WHO just say “omnipresence”? I could be wrong, but doesn’t that mean they are EVERYWHERE besides disposable diapers?
Prevention or reduction of human exposure is best done via source-directed measures, i.e. strict control of industrial processes to reduce formation of dioxins as much as possible.
I still don’t see a single word about diapers here. A proper Ctrl-F search confirmed that the word “diaper” does not appear ONCE in this WHO document. But the WHO might be wrong! What if they simply have not taken diapers into account? What if they are not thinking of our most vulnerable populations??
Cue Environmental Health Perspectives and their study “Exposure assessment to dioxins from the use of tampons and diapers.” (Oh yes, ostriches, I’m citing research. Published scientific research carried out in the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. Take your sob-story elsewhere: This. Is. Science.)
And what did the National Health and Environmental Effects Research experts Michael J DeVito and Arnold Schecter have to say?
This is the “long” version (and by “long” I mean the abstract of the 6-page article.) I highlighted the important bits:
We estimated exposures to dioxins on the basis of a screening level analysis that assumed all dioxins present were completely absorbed. We also estimated exposures by using a more refined analysis that incorporates partition coefficients to estimate bioavailability. None of the products contained 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, the most potent dioxin, although other dioxins were present at detectable concentrations in all samples. We observed minimal differences in the concentrations of dioxins between 100% cotton and cotton/pulp products. The refined exposure analysis indicates that exposures to dioxins from tampons are approximately 13,000-240,000 times less than dietary exposures. The refined exposure analysis showed that exposure to dioxins from the diet is more than 30,000-2,200,000 times the exposure through diapers in nursing infants. Although dioxins are found in trace amounts in both cotton and pulp sanitary products, exposure to dioxins through tampons and diapers does not significantly contribute to dioxin exposures in the United States.
This is my translated summary:
Even if all the dioxins in a diaper were absorbed by a diaper-wearing baby, the amount absorbed would still be 30,000-2,200,000 times less than what a nursing baby gets from food.
Wanna reduce your kid’s exposure to dioxins? Leave my kid’s wet diapers alone. These are the recommendations from the World effing Health Organization:
Trimming fat from meat and consuming low fat dairy products may decrease the exposure to dioxin compounds. Also, a balanced diet (including adequate amounts of fruits, vegetables and cereals) will help to avoid excessive exposure from a single source. This is a long-term strategy to reduce body burdens and is probably most relevant for girls and young women to reduce exposure of the developing fetus and when breastfeeding infants later on in life. However, the possibility for consumers to reduce their own exposure is somewhat limited. (my emphasis)
If you must campaign against something, focus your energies on fighting for “strict control of industrial processes to reduce formation of dioxins as much as possible.”
I rest my case.
And now, if you excuse me, I have a very disposable diaper to change.
PS: All you cloth-diapering readers have my undying respect and admiration. I could never do it, but well done you! …as long as you’re not doing it out of fear of dioxins, because if so you must be feeling mighty silly right now.
—
Sources: LiveStrong.com, World Health Organization (www.who.int), National Center of Biotechnology Information (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). If you want the list of the actual URLs, just ask!
Note: if you want to argue with statistics in hand, you are welcome. If you wanna wield your little cousin’s sob story, prepare to not be taken seriously. You’ve been warned.
—
Have you answered our poll yet? There’s a giveaway involved and it will only take 5 seconds!
Read MoreDeadly Toys of Doom
Parents around the world – are you aware of the grave dangers lurking in your kids’ toy crates and baskets? According to our ostrich sources, these dangers include phtalates, choking hazards, and toxic levels of lead and antimony.
The headline: “Report: Toys getting safer, but dangers still lurk.”
The premise: Even though children’s toys nowadays are carefully screened by organizations such as the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, there are still dangerous or toxic toys being sold.
The bottom line: “In 2009, toy-related injuries caused the deaths of 12 U.S. children and sent more than 250,000 children (90,000 under age 5) to emergency departments, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
Best Ostrich quotes:
We’ve made a lot of progress, but dangerous toys can still be found among our children’s playthings.
Buyer beware. The toys identified in the Public Interest Research Group’s report as potential dangers (include) a stuffed monkey made by Play Pets that contained lead just slightly above the limit.
Lead can cause irreversible brain damage, and antimony has been linked to fertility problems in animals.
Although none of the products tested violated federal limits for small parts, the group said several toys were still hazardous for children younger than 3 because the size was not that much bigger than allowed by law.
Let’s bash!
12 deaths a year out of 74.5 million children in the USA means a rate of 1 in 6,200,000; meaning this fear-mongering article falls on the BEYOND OSTRICH category of the Ostrich scale, and it is half as likely as the least likely cause of death on the scale. Off. The. Charts. (Also, what kind of statistic is “emergency department visit”? You can take a kid to E/R five times a day if you like, and that doesn’t mean there is anything really wrong with them.)
Before you throw away all of your poor kids’ toys and replace them with twigs, rocks and rag balls, take this into consideration:
Phtalates: there is a ban on children’s products with more than 0.1% of phtalates. These chemicals are used by the plastic industry to increase the flexibility, transparency, and durability of plastic products. Not only Fisher Price and Little Tykes, mind you, but also on vinyl anything, glue, packaging, medical devices, paints and even sex toys (yes, even your toys are lurking dangers!) And car parts. Shower curtains. Beauty products. So you see, getting rid of little Annie’s Cabbage Patch dolls is not really going to make your house safer. You would have to really go Flintstones on your entire lifestyle to significantly lower the risk of phtalates absorption.
Choking hazards: this one deserves a bash of its own. Stay tuned.
Antimony: OK, we agree that this substance is very poisonous. VERY. But let’s keep in mind two facts: antimony is often used as a fire retardant, which leads to a Catch-22 in the toy industry – do we meet fire retardant standards or do we meet antimony level standards? Will the world end in fire or flood? And also, if you are going to spend nights awake worrying about antimony poisoning, you will be better off reducing and/or eliminating water and juices that come in PET containers, since those are the most notorious antimony leaches. Let Junior play with his ZhuZhu pet – he will get bored of it in a week anyway.
Lead: I’ve got nothing today, but I will bash it soon.
So what do you think? Shall we throw all toys away and let our children play with twigs?
No, wait, they might poke an eye out…
–
Sources: Wikipedia, ChildStats.gov, OurStolenFuture.org, Gomestic.com, Suite101.com, BabyCenter.com and KansasCity.com. If you want the list of the actual URLs, just ask!
Note: if you want to argue with statistics in hand, you are welcome. If you wanna wield your little cousin’s sob story, prepare to not be taken seriously. You’ve been warned.
Read MoreOstrich hunters of the world, unite!
A quick Google search for “child danger” just threw these results:
“Toys that pose a noise danger include cap guns, talking dolls, vehicles with…”
“We always warn against exposing our children to such dangers. At the same time, we repeat the danger of sleeping at the time of fulfilling our duties…”
“Kids in danger? Popular glassware may be laced with lead, cadmium”
It’s time to take out our capes, pull on our knee-high boots, get our masks on and start fighting ostrich crime, i.e. the deluge of overblown news designed to make parents worry themselves sick over their children’s survival.
So this is what we’re going to do:
Read MoreDonate and support the cause!
I love:
Feeling guilty?
Grab a button! It’s free!
The fine print
I'm happy for you to use my writing within reason. When in doubt, just ask!
However, PHOTOGRAPHS OF C ARE COMPLETELY OFF LIMITS: NO USE OR REPRODUCTION OF ANY KIND IS ALLOWED WITHOUT MY EXPRESS CONSENT.
(Why? Because he's my son, that's why.)
What you've been saying: