Home Not the Safest Place for Kids, (and guns are not mentioned)

[Desertdog]

Apparently they are giving true statistics since guns is not mentioned as a prime cause of injury or death.

Home Not the Safest Place for Kids, Studies Say
Mon May 5, 2:54 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...8&e=9&u=/nm/20030505/ts_nm/health_injuries_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Home is not the safest place for a child to be, according to two U.S. studies published on Monday.

The studies by researchers at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center found that home injuries, though continuing to fall, remain a leading cause of death in children and teens, especially blacks.


And it was not always simply because children spend most of their time at home; the deaths came from fires and other preventable causes, the researchers told a meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies in Seattle.


The good news was that the annual rate of accidental deaths in the home fell by 25 percent between 1985 and 1997. But the researchers who used government statistics found that dangers still abounded.


"A national strategy to make housing safer for children is needed to reduce deaths from household injuries and the associated racial health disparities," Dr. Kieran Phelan, who led one of the studies, said in a statement.


"Children's health is inextricably linked with housing," added Dr. Bruce Lanphear, who headed the other study.


"Unfortunately, despite evidence that residential exposures have a dramatic impact on children's health, housing is largely ignored as a public health problem. Our research is aimed at making housing and the environment safe for children."


The two teams found that 2,800 children die each year from unintentional injuries in the home. Between 1985 and 1997, 69 percent of deaths in children and adolescents under the age of 20 were the result of such injuries.


Twice as many black children as white children died accidentally in the home -- 7 per 100,000 for blacks as compared to 3.3 per 100,000 for whites.


Children younger than 5 and boys were the most likely to be injured, the studies found. The most common causes of injuries and deaths were fires or burns, drowning or suffocation, poisoning and falls.


Falls were the leading cause of injury, accounting for 1.5 million visits to emergency rooms.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Falls were the leading cause of injury, accounting for 1.5 million visits to emergency rooms.

Obviously, we need more laws to regulate stairs and keep them out of the hands of...

Aw, never mind.

 

[matis]

We need more regulation of housing....

...because children die in accidents occuring at home.

Let's ignore the fact that children of the poor (as do their parents) suffer higher rates of accident, sickness, failed education, mental illness and every other kind of social pathology -- than do middle class and affluent families. And for the same reasons that leave them poor and the others better off.

"Black children die from accidents in the home at the rate of 7 per 100.000 but whites at only 3.3 per 100,000." Obviously this can only be due to racism and/or insufficiently regulated housing -- probably both.

Let's ignore the irresponsibility of so many parents at that socio-economic level. It's because they're being "oppressed".

So we need more regulation of residential housing.

Right?

Was it Reverend Ike that I saw quoted as saying: "The best way to help the poor is to not become one of them."



Matis

 

[H Romberg]

I suspect the socio-economic correlation is mostly due to the fact that the richer you are, the more time and resources you can direct towards your kids' wellfare. If you're working 3 jobs trying to pay the bills, you're not going to have the best day-care, or the most time to watch junior. If OTOH, you can afford to support a stay-home parent or a nanny, your kids will probably be safer. I'd look here before assuming irresponsibility as a linked trait to poverty, even though the former can lead to the latter.

 

[Atticus]

I listened to a radio discussion the other night about insurance. It was assumed by some that Insurance companies in general have racists policies. The racism charge was denied, and an explanion was offered by insurance experts as to why insurance rates are typically higher for people with lower incomes. The logic was that people who engage in risky activity (which could be anything - from smarting off to the boss and getting fired - to being a drug addict - or running red lights) is a strong indication of how people will behave in most circumstances throughout their lives. This article supports that same conclusion.

Catch 22 (or chicken and the egg) - The risky behavior was also the main reason for reduced income in the first place.

 

[matis]

H Romberg

Is not your reasoning possibly a bit circular?

Why is it that they have to work 3 jobs to pay the bills. And why does the other of your examples earn enough for a nanny.

Is it "oppression" and "exploitatin" of the poor?

Or is it that some families value education and hard work and inculcate these values in their children.

And the poor don't, for the most part. You can tell who does and who doesn't value the virtues that advance one in life: the better off do; the poor don't.

I realize that this is not PC in these days when the poor and various other officially designated victim groups are glorified and the achievers are vilified. But that is, nevertheless the way things work, anyway, isn't it?

Why do we today make heroes of the losers and promote hatred of those who work, invest and provide us with absolutely EVERYTHING we need to live.

Why should hard work combined with intelligent planning be denigrated while sloth and stupidity are excused?

Who has provided us with every single advance and invention to create our civilization and prolong our lives and allow us the leisure to ponder life's verities: the hard-working intelligent? Or the slow, the dim-witted and the lazy?

I've heard it said that if all the money in the world were equally divided and disbursed -- in five years time the same people as before would be rich again and same people as before poor, again.

I've also heard it said that if you're not a socialist when you're twenty, you have no heart; if you're still a socialist when you're forty, you have no brains.

Aren't we sick of the compassion and enlightenment of the socialists, yet?


What if the country suffered an attack of candor and we began calling 'em as we sees 'em, again?



Just musing.




Matis