An estimated 267 269 children ≤5 years of age were treated in US emergency departments for household cleaning product-related injuries. The number of injuries attributable to household cleaning product exposure decreased 46.0% from 22 141 in 1990 to 11 964 in 2006. The product most-commonly associated with injury was bleach (37.1%). Children 1 to 3 years of age accounted for 72.0% of cases. The primary mechanism of injury was ingestion (62.7%). The most common source or container was spray-bottles (40.1%). Although rates of household cleaner-related injuries from regular bottles or original containers and kitchenware decreased during the study period, spray-bottle injury rates showed no decrease.
We need to licence Bleach users . . . make 'em take a course. Then, random inspections of their homes to make sure they keep their bleach in properly labelled containers. Also, we need a registry, so we know just how MUCH bleach these people have in their homes.
It's clear you don't understand the difference. Stop the senseless injury of children. Ban bleach. There are many alternatives to bleach to clean counters, toilets, and bathtubs that won't hurt our precious children. Vinegar for instance. Do some research. Get behind the bleach ban. You CAN make a difference.
Hey, you brainiacs hear about the guy who drove around Kalamazoo MI last night bleaching people?
Yeah, volume of and access to bleach isn't the issue, it's that pesky improper storage we need to fix.
Hey . . . maybe he got the idea from the psychos who have gone about tossing acids at people. Good thing that stuff does not get hyped as much as guns.
All the "ban the gun" types seem to forget one thing . . .
how poorly it worked for booze, and how badly it works for drugs. But it will be different if we ban guns, right?
Face it, this country has pretty sensible firearms legislation. I think we can agree that "some" increased regulation in the US would improve their situation, but that is about as far as it goes.
I see no difference in the prohibition proposal for all three, which is kind of the point.
Booze was banned as a societal ill
Drugas were banned as a societal ill
Guns are considered a societal ill, and thus people seem to think banning them will help. It won't.
Guns are merely the mechanism . . . not the cause.
Comp, you're good at the computerz, could you please track down the message board Fed is at now and offer them a trade of Milo for Fed?
I'm at the point where the idea of common sense gun regulation I would settle for, would be a legal declaration by gun owners to only use their weapon on fellow gun owners and internet trolls.
The problem isn't guns.... You could eliminate all the guns and people would still go on killing sprees. I would love to see the face of Obama or Bloomberg, the month after a successful round up of all the guns in America... when some deranged individual jumps in his 4x4 and smashes through a school yard fence and runs over 14 kids in the yard... or he rips down a bunch of crowded sidewalks at 60 mph. Oops... guess that wasn't the problem!
This is not an endorsement for being able to buy any type of gun you want or purchasing the same without background checks... Just a funny thought experiment showing the problem isn't black and white!
I'm at the point where the idea of common sense gun regulation I would settle for, would be a legal declaration by gun owners to only use their weapon on fellow gun owners and internet trolls.
I know you are only joking... but the idea of telling people who they are allowed to shoot is almost as laughable as telling people what kind of weapon they are allowed to do it with.
...for more than two decades, the CDC has been restricted from performing research on firearm-related deaths and injuries. This restriction is a result of the gun lobby’s profound influence on Congress.
wow, i did not know this. i knew the gun lobby was powerful in america, but this is just crazy.
Before calling it crazy, did you happen to check what CDC stands for?
from the article:
The CDC performs its own research and funds much research at many academic institutions on many diseases and injuries of public health importance – from HIV/AIDS to Ebola, from influenza to hospital-acquired infections, from motor-vehicle injuries to tobacco-related diseases.
i guess you consider motor-vehicle injuries as a disease as well?
EDIT: just looking at the main page of the cdc.gov website and you can see that they don't just focus on diseases. they have an entire section devoted to healthy living (ex. body mass index, calcium and bone health, disabilities, environmental health, healthy weight, injury violence and safety, nutrition, physical activity and exercise, pregnancy, reproductive health, sleep and sleep disorders, etc.) and emergency preparedness (natural disasters and severe weather, bioterrorism, mass casualties, unaccompanied children at the border, etc.) for example.
if they were allowed to conduct research, my guess is that gun violence would fall under the violence prevention section which covers child abuse and neglect, elder abuse, global violence, intimate partner violence, sexual violence, suicide prevention, and youth violence. all of which are not diseases fyi.
before questioning my surprise reaction, did you happen to read the article or look up what the cdc does?
that whole article is mostly a bunch of whining, but I'll extend an olive branch: I'm all for that research taking place if it makes people feel better, and it does seem a bit odd to have a law specifically outlawing it.
Maybe they wanted a limit on how far they were willing to stretch the idea of "disease control" and its associated budget? Or maybe they identified it as too hot of an issue and something people will never agree on, deciding to stay out of it? Or maybe its just crazy US politics. Still odd, I agree, but there has to be more to it.
Anyway, I see all kinds of existing research on the CDC web site, and even this article seems to already know the answers (quote below)... so why does it have to be the CDC? In Canada we have the CFP which is run by the RCMP and the system is effective. It isn't run by Health Canada, that would be dumb.
"There are many common-sense measures that could be implemented to reduce gun-related deaths and nonfatal injuries. These measures include preventing people with mental illness from acquiring guns, banning civilian access to military ordnance, and mandating trigger locks and other forms of gun safety."
I agree the article is a bunch of whining and I agree that CDC doesn't have to be the organization to conduct the research. All I said was that it is crazy that the gun lobby had specifically made it impossible for CDC to do research.
Comments
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/
Mark
because guns are fun?
It allows Mark and the rest of the "ban guns" crowd feel superior for a while.
Household Cleaning Product-Related Injuries Treated in US Emergency Departments in 1990?2006 | Articles | Pediatrics
Personally, I keep my bleach like I keep my guns: out of the reach of children.
It's for the CHILDREN !!!
Because I often clean bathtubs / toilets / counters with fucking bullets...
If you don't understand the difference.. well...
(you're Milo - Andrew, you're not all that whack)
Mark
Yeah, volume of and access to bleach isn't the issue, it's that pesky improper storage we need to fix.
Did their hair turn blonde? Or was it more serious as with the children?
Hey . . . maybe he got the idea from the psychos who have gone about tossing acids at people. Good thing that stuff does not get hyped as much as guns.
how poorly it worked for booze, and how badly it works for drugs. But it will be different if we ban guns, right?
Face it, this country has pretty sensible firearms legislation. I think we can agree that "some" increased regulation in the US would improve their situation, but that is about as far as it goes.
I mean, at this point, I kinda expect stubborn willful ignorance, but het....
Mark
Booze was banned as a societal ill
Drugas were banned as a societal ill
Guns are considered a societal ill, and thus people seem to think banning them will help. It won't.
Guns are merely the mechanism . . . not the cause.
we get it, you still don't like guns and have made reference to various reasons that you don't like them. Nice work.
fmp
Also, re: Kalamazoo. BAN Uber
Comp, you're good at the computerz, could you please track down the message board Fed is at now and offer them a trade of Milo for Fed?
I'm at the point where the idea of common sense gun regulation I would settle for, would be a legal declaration by gun owners to only use their weapon on fellow gun owners and internet trolls.
This is not an endorsement for being able to buy any type of gun you want or purchasing the same without background checks... Just a funny thought experiment showing the problem isn't black and white!
I know you are only joking... but the idea of telling people who they are allowed to shoot is almost as laughable as telling people what kind of weapon they are allowed to do it with.
wow, i did not know this. i knew the gun lobby was powerful in america, but this is just crazy.
from the article:
i guess you consider motor-vehicle injuries as a disease as well?
EDIT: just looking at the main page of the cdc.gov website and you can see that they don't just focus on diseases. they have an entire section devoted to healthy living (ex. body mass index, calcium and bone health, disabilities, environmental health, healthy weight, injury violence and safety, nutrition, physical activity and exercise, pregnancy, reproductive health, sleep and sleep disorders, etc.) and emergency preparedness (natural disasters and severe weather, bioterrorism, mass casualties, unaccompanied children at the border, etc.) for example.
if they were allowed to conduct research, my guess is that gun violence would fall under the violence prevention section which covers child abuse and neglect, elder abuse, global violence, intimate partner violence, sexual violence, suicide prevention, and youth violence. all of which are not diseases fyi.
before questioning my surprise reaction, did you happen to read the article or look up what the cdc does?
Maybe they wanted a limit on how far they were willing to stretch the idea of "disease control" and its associated budget? Or maybe they identified it as too hot of an issue and something people will never agree on, deciding to stay out of it? Or maybe its just crazy US politics. Still odd, I agree, but there has to be more to it.
Anyway, I see all kinds of existing research on the CDC web site, and even this article seems to already know the answers (quote below)... so why does it have to be the CDC? In Canada we have the CFP which is run by the RCMP and the system is effective. It isn't run by Health Canada, that would be dumb.