Schoolchildren in danger from... sunscreen?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I'm not suggesting that we "regulate" everything the kids might be allergic to, after all, how the heck do you regulate dirt!!
but there are many chemicals that are common in our everyday products that are kind of accumulative, in that the more you are in contact with them, the more likely you are to have negative reactions to them...

thus, the more soy that people are consuming, either knowingly or unknowingly, the more peanut allergies we will see.
the more we come in contact with those pretty smelling air fresheners, perfumes, ect, the more asthma we will be seeing...
ect.

and, the more we see those with these sensitivities, the greater the need will be for our public places to be more controlled as far as what we can do within them!

a reply to: dawnstar

You make a convincing argument in many ways, but I am convinced it is not a complete argument. Why?

Babies are born with almost no immunity. That immunity develops during the first few months of life based on what the body has to fight against. As a child ages, the response slows. Allergic reactions are an auto-immune response; the immunity system over-reacts, causing more bad than good in the process.

The more we try to sterilize our children, the more allergic they become. We are denying the body the chance for immunity to develop properly, leading to these over-reactions.

I, myself, believe it or not, was born sickly. At two days old, I was having such severe convulsions the hospital sent me home to die. Once home, I never had another convulsion (leading to a running joke that I am allergic to hospitals, lol). I grew up playing in the dirt, surrounded by all manner of plant allergens, bugs, etc. Today I am allergic to nothing. I can eat anything. I almost never get sick. I heal faster thsn anyone I know. I can roll in poison ivy and never have an issue. That wasn't the case when I was young; I just couldn't seem to avoid the stuff. The allergy finally went away. Wasp stings are just painful enough to irritate me. I was once bitten twice by a brown recluse spider; I ran a low fever for a few hours and was fine. I've had food poisoning more than once; I might throw up, but that's it, while everyone around me thinks they're going to die.

All because I was forced to develop immunity.

Now, I know a lot of people have genetic allergies... I'm not denying that nor disparaging them. They have a hard row to hoe. But the rest of us need that exposure while still young, and to deny it is nothing short of manufacturing the problems you speak of.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

actually, a baby gets quite a bit of immunity passed on to them from their mother and as long as she breastfeeds, he receives added protection from mom..
as for the rest, sorry, ain't gonna track down the links, I am just gonna tell ya that I did a lot of research into the chemicals I was coming in contact with at work (some of which are also in those nice smelly things people enjoy so much)
it's the EPA that is saying the there is an accumlative effect leading to allergic reactions.

a reply to: dawnstar

Most of that immunity comes directly from the milk, especially in the first few days. During that time, mothers milk is more like medicine than nutrition.

Unfortunately, not nearly enough mothers breastfeed today.

I'm afraid I simply don't have a lot of confidence in the EPA, or in the medical profession for that matter. The EPA has shown time and time again a propensity to follow politics over science, and the medical profession has shown the same with placing finances above science. I read the reports, but I then analyze the resulting conclusions myself... and often find myself disagreeing with both.

Look up early childhood immunity development studies yourself when you get time.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: intrptr

Very possible, but then I ask:

Why are insurance executives making medical decisions for our kids?

TheRedneck

To get out of paying out? They don't really care about the kids per se, they care about paying for medical costs submitted by the school. So they limit liability on any potentially harmful thing, the school then bans the item and enforces that, because they don't want to pay for it either.

Remember OSHA? Way back machine: there was this comic about 'safety':

Cowboy after OSHA

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: intrptr

Interesting ... then how did the preschool/daycare our son went to get away with it?

And if you read, you'll note I was talking about special circumstances, not everyday occurrence.

Is your school in that district? I don't know how widespread it is either. They never tell the truth about these things. If its deemed a danger its probably for 'insurance reasons', most likely. Like they aren't turning schools into prisons to protect the children for every conceivable possible threat.

Mine isn't, but I'd like to know what they do when a kid comes home blistered raw after a day long field trip to the zoo and they get sued over that one.

"Blistered raw" ? Obviously this is a worrisome problem, they could get in a wreck too. Or get eaten by lions. You let your kids go hang where dangerous animals are? How about pedophile teachers? Gangs , drugs, bullies, etc...

Lions, tigers and bears, Oh my!

a reply to: intrptr

I had that hanging above my desk for 10 years.

I know why the insurers want to pull dumb over-regulation like this... but why do we allow their profit to override child safety?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: intrptr

I had that hanging above my desk for 10 years.

I know why the insurers want to pull dumb over-regulation like this... but why do we allow their profit to override child safety?

TheRedneck

We don't. Well I don't anyway (depends on whether one lives by faith or Mammon). But try to see it from their perspective, they are so inclined to put a dollar sign on everything.

Insurance as they call it now used to be called protection (really extortion). Run by the mob it was illegal, called the "protection racket".

a reply to: dawnstar

That's a case for better regulations on harmful substances. For sunscreen, though, I have seen complete illogic. We used to be able to buy PAPA, whch is a great natural sunscreen, but you can't get it anymore.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

We didn't demand the school replace all the chairs; we simply sent a towel for him to sit on, which resolved the problem.

*gasp* Common sense? How dare you!

Maybe I'm just not 'hip' (or whatever it's called now), but in my day we didn't worry about stuff like this. Heck, I remember when one particularly attractive girl was diagnosed with mononucleosis... the 'kissing disease' as it was called. Quite a few of us boys volunteered to contract it in support of her.

Today, there would be CDC guys in hazmat suits scouring the halls while everyone else huddled in terror, it seems.

TheRedneck

I know, right? One teacher actually did act weird about the towel. Go figure!! He carried it to class, and brought it home, and always had a clean one, but she still seemed weird about it.

Funny on the mono, lol! And, yeah, no one freaked out like they do these days over such things!!