Safety Commission To Rule On Safety of Rulers In Science Kits 446
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has been trying decide for weeks if science kits designed to teach children are safe enough for children to use without vigorous testing. It's not just the chemicals or sharp items in the kits that they are troubled with however. They are also concerned about the dangers of paper clips, magnets, and rulers. From the article: "Science kit makers asked for a testing exemption for the paper clips and other materials. The commission declined to grant them a blanket waiver as part of the guidance the agency approved Wednesday on a 3-2 vote." To be fair, paper clips can cause a lot of damage — just look at what Clippy did to Microsoft Office.
Wont somebody please think of the children! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like we have better things to do than make sure every child receives a rounded ruler!
Why would anyone want a ruler that was only 10 inches long?
Re:Wont somebody please think of the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, I'm wandering way off-topic, but my karma can take it.....
I'm sick of the metric superiority thing. Yes, metric is more rational, and a nicer system. I'd love to see it become the standard everyday system of measurement in the U.S., but really the way some people go on about measurements you'd think that the metric system was TRUTH and everything else was the equivalent of Young Earth Creationism or Geocentrism.
Think about the following:
We use Euros, you use Dollars, you're backwards and we're not.
We use the Latin alphabet, you use Cyrillic, you're backwards and we're not.
We speak German, you speak Norwegian, you're backwards and we're not.
We pronounce the letter 'Z' as Zee, and you pronounce it as Zed, you're backwards, and we're not.
We use centimeters, you use inches, you're backwards and we're not.
Now, all of those are roughly on par, but aside from the last example, they're all pretty silly sounding. Yet the metric one is pretty commonly seen, which just strikes me as a little silly for something that technically has no "right" answer. Whatever you use is fine, be happy with it, who cares?
I know camperdave was probably just going for a quick throwaway joke, but the "Informative" mod got me thinking.....
So does anyone wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So does anyone wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. We have a nanny state that is hell bent on protecting the idiots and children from all the evils of the world,while neglecting to remember that the nanny state itself is evil.
When we realize that the nanny state is just as evil as everything it is trying to protect us from, then we'll truly be free ... again.
People in Ivory Towers always love to treat everyone else like idiots needing their superior guidance. Because we're too stupid to function in a society without their wisdom and knowledge.
Re:So does anyone wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
My brother relates a similar sentiment, but concerning the regulators themselves . . .
Suppose that somebody erected a control tower to oversee the car traffic in a busy Wal-Mart parking lot. The controllers in the tower work all day every day to direct the cars to and from their spaces. It is hectic work and they go home every day exhausted.
Now suppose we ask those controllers about the prospect of converting the parking lot back to uncontrolled. This question would immediately trigger their resistance to change and their desire to hang on to their jobs. But suppose they are honest enough to understand that this is happening to them, and so they ignore it and try to answer objectively.
The problem is that, in their objective experience, an uncontrolled parking lot is completely infeasible. Their jobs are hectic, even frantic, all day every day. If asked to imagine a parking lot without control, they would visualize a chaotic scene of collisions, arguments, and even gun battles. They HAVE to visualize that, in order to see themselves as useful and virtuous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Knowledge ruled dangerous (Score:2, Insightful)
It's only a matter of time before the commission realizes that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, bans science kits outright, and starts going after books.
And people wonder why the US is falling behind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And people wonder why the US is falling behind (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They isn't. The illiteracy level of our children are appalling
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well? Is they?
Re: (Score:2)
Quick and easy nitroglycerin production?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually stuff like that... Yes I made nitroglycerin in my dad's garage... is what drove my interest in chemistry and what made me get a degree in chemistry.
Problem is they dont tell you that a chemist's job is boring as hell. 90% of all chemistry degrees at the BS level = glorified gopher. I gave up and went for EE and CS after 5 years of wasting time in a lab.
Re:And people wonder why the US is falling behind (Score:4, Insightful)
Our product safety commission apparently can't understand the difference between learning tools for children and toys for physical play.
A toy for physical play is something designed for a young child to throw around or manipulate mechanically.
Tools for learning are things like books, pens, paper, pencils, paperclips, markers, scissors, knives, protracters, compasses, hole punches, staplers, paper cutters, syringes, beakers, test tubes, etc.
Tools for learning are not for physical play. Children need to learn and be able to use them, even though they would be dangerous if misused.
Three choices (Score:4, Informative)
I have a wonderful book from the 60s, "700 Science Experiments for Everyone", originally published as "UNESCO Source Book for Science Teaching." It was wonderful gems like "How to Make an Electric Toaster" ("Your problem is to find a convenient was to mount 5 metres (no less!) of nichrome wire in a space no larger than a slide of bread."), and cutting apart old torch batteries to get the carbon rods to make an arc light, connected directly to the mains via a rheostat made from wire-wound rocks immersed in salt water. Not to mention DIY test tubes, alcohol lamps, etc.
Or, you can grow up to be a lawyer, or someone who scrubs toilets for lawyers.
Thought experiment (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to play devil's advocate here: what amounts to reasonable precautions is a function of scale, because you can amortize the cost of each expected injury over a larger number of units shipped.
As a thought experiment, suppose Miss Jones the science teacher puts together a science experiment kit for each of her 30 students. A representative kit is then sent to a safety engineering firm, which charges $10K to conclude there is a 0.2% chance of injury from the ruler, and that this could be reduced to 0.1% by using a slightly different ruler.
Now it almost certain that nobody is gong to be hurt by the offending ruler, and the engineering investment of $10K prevents an expected 0.03 injuries. That's over $300,000 per injury averted. That makes no economic sense unless the injury is horrific (e.g. requires lifetime institutionalization).
Now suppose JonesCo puts together a similar kit, and expects to ship 30 thousand units. In that case, it is almost *certain* that somebody is going to get hurt, although any *individual's* chance is quite small. The expected number of injuries saved by the engineering study is now 30. Amortizing the $10K study costs over 30 injuries means that you've spent just over 300 per injury saved. This is not quite justifiable for things like paper cuts of course, but an emergency room visit probably costs more than that.
So: the costs involved with a safety review may or may not be justifiable depending on the number of units that will be shipped.
In either case, the safety of the pre-study and post-study kits are practically indistinguishable. As a parent, I wouldn't freak out if the Miss Jones kit was used in place of the JonesCo kit, because we are talking about very, very rare accidents. But those freak accidents *do* happen and are worth considering *collectively*. I say this as a parent who has taken a toddler to the emergency room for an injury at preschool who sent that child right back to the same school the next day with the heart shaped bead he'd shoved up into his sinuses in his pocket.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously, I know that lifetime institutionaliation costs more than $300,000. I've seen the calculations for vector borne encephalitis when $10M/case averted was considered reasonable in the 1990s.
I'm using institutionalization as an extreme case, the right end of the scale where "paper cut" is on the left end. For sake of argument, I'm assuming we're most concerned with injuries whose responses fall in the range between first aid and a trip to the emergency room. That seems a reasonable range of severity
Buy Now! (Score:2)
Now comes with Science Rock !
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Now comes with Science Rock !
* Warning - Science Rock is not for use with actual science.
Does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)
....that the "My First Meth Lab" is probably never going to reach store shelves?
Some rulers are dangerous (Score:5, Funny)
Sloppy (Score:4, Funny)
Kids today are coddled pussies. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason we have safe laboratories today is because in the 1970's, science kits killed the careless ones.
Hell, even our playgrounds weeded out the stupid. [reoiv.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason we have safe laboratories today is because in the 1970's, science kits killed the careless ones.
you sir are my hero.
I also am sick of the coddling of the population to eliminate natural selection.
Viva los trombones! (Score:2, Interesting)
The sources of real harm (Score:2)
Television, fast food, sugary drinks, drivers with cellphones, schools and parents.
Also, magnets are pretty safe as long as you don't eat more than one at a time. Although a science kit really needs at least two magnets to be interesting, so I guess it is impossible to make a safe science kit if your kid has pica.
If they want to be so f_cking safe... (Score:2)
I they want to be so f_cking safe, they should put their children in a straight jacket and toss them into padded cells.
The federal commission of me agrees (Score:5, Funny)
The federal commission of me agrees: science should be banned in the USA, so should be the last remnants of common sense; any display of individuality and unhealthy interest in any particular subject need to be investigated to establish the safety of such behavior as it relates to the society in total.
Everything must be made not just safe enough, but safe with a huge margin of error so that there is no chance of any accident happening ever at all. Of-course accidents are mostly responsible for a large number of scientific discoveries, so any evidence of scientific discovery must be investigated to isolate the main reason and find out where the safety procedures have failed to prevent such an occurrence to make sure it never happens again.
Have a safe day.
Re: (Score:2)
More insightful than funny, and unfortunately we are fast becoming exactly that parody of ourselves. :(
Magnets are not what they once were (Score:5, Insightful)
By all means balance risk against learning benefit, but let there be some balance, not just recklessness to save a penny by not removing the sharp edges on a ruler.
Re:Magnets are not what they once were (Score:4, Insightful)
If your kid is too stupid not to eat two magnets, they shouldn't be given a science kit. Heck, you should probably just lock them in a padded room so they can't hurt themselves. Science kits aren't given to two year olds, if your kid who is 7 or 8 swallows magnets, either you've failed as a parent or your kid is pretty damn stupid.
If you don't like what is in science kits, don't buy them for your kid, and your kid will end up in a low paying job eating away at society's wealth by using welfare and the like.
But let us who can actually raise kids and don't want our kids to end up with dreams and aspirations beyond the local Burger King buy the kits for our kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a thought: teach your kids not to swallow magnets.
Exactly! It's like all these packages with "choking hazard" warnings or, like, "danger, this is poison" warnings. Just teach your kids not to swallow these things, and they'll just totally not do it, 'cuz kids are like that! Right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If your kid won't listen to you about eating random crap and is about 4 or older, you've screwed up as a parent or there is something wrong with your kid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. We never had a problem with our daughter and household chemicals. She figured out how to open childproof kitchen cabinet locks when she was ~14 months old. Took her 20 minutes, apparently. We have been repeatedly instructing her as to why it's a bad idea to play with those things you find there, and what happens when you swallow some -- including showing pictures of perforated stomachs. Then I managed to get some pig stomachs to see what HCl-containing toilet cleaner did to them. She doesn't do a l
Re:Magnets are not what they once were (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't figure out at age 7+ that a magnet isn't food and that chemicals aren't treats, either you have a mental handicap or your parents have utterly failed.
I'll repeat to you what I said to the other guy: you *clearly* underestimate how stupid kids can be. Good judgment and common sense are something most people learn the hard way through trial and error. Spend a little time in a trauma ward and just see how intelligent your average fucking adult is, let alone a 7-year-old...
But knives still are. (Score:3, Insightful)
An anecdote my father tells...
Where he worked, there was a safety awareness/training program. As an award, for finishing the program, or for having a good safety record, was a pocket knife. Nearly every person who got one of these knives cut himself with it soon afterward. ...Except my father, who had been shown how (and why) to handle knives safely when he was very young.
One of my lasting memories is of my father showing me why "sticking your fingers in a fan is a bad idea" by using a small metal fan to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
recommendations? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can anyone recommend a good science kit with all kinds of things about to be banned? I have a 5 1/2 year old who and we could have a good time with a decent kit. Preferably one with plenty of toxic and/or explosive chemicals and of course some sharp objects, etc.
Re:recommendations? (Score:5, Informative)
If you can find a copy, most likely digital and illegal as the physical version is rather rare bordering on non-existent, The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments has a lot of experiments that can be done with household items or other relatively common components.
"Many of the experiments contained in the book are now considered highly dangerous for unsupervised children, and would not appear in a modern children's chemistry book." from Wikipedia.
Re:recommendations? (Score:5, Informative)
Another link (Score:3, Informative)
Let darwinism take its course (Score:2)
damn I despise the CPSC (Score:2)
The CPSC could stick to something useful, like banning products with hidden and unexpected dangers, but no. As a government agency they must expand to get more power. They are self-interested. They attract power-hungry people who desire to control what we can buy. They attract people who like to show off a list of accomplishments that allegedly protect the children.
I still miss the lawn darts. (jarts) Lawn darts could kill you, but they were fun (unlike anything that meets approval) and they helped to remov
This is why US science education is screwed... (Score:5, Informative)
You know all of those guys who worked for NASA in the 60s, designing and building the rockets that took us to the moon? Well, they had radioactive sources and Geiger counters in their science kits.
And kids today are going to have to fight to get paper clips and magnets. Sigh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Headed by a guy whose primary purpose in the years prior was designing delivery systems for explosives to hit London.
Wernher von Braun headed the Marshall Space Flight Center from 1960-1970. He never was head of NASA.
I think this illustrates the progression nicely. If you can't play with paperclips, then you're going to be a fast food worker (or maybe some safer job like anonymous paper shuffler). If you get to play with radioactive sources, you get to be a rocket engineer. And if your parents let you bomb London, you get to head a major rocketry program.
Anything can be used as a weapon! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh for crying out loud! (Score:2)
Rulers?! Unless they are being used by a nun they are not lethal. Paper clips? Heaven forbid we give these kids staplers. Rubber bands? Tie enough around the neck and you can strangle someone. Erasers? Stuff a hundred or so in your nose and mouth and you could suffocate. Paper? What better to write bomb threats on? Shoes? We could kill someone with those, eventually. Magnifying glass? EVIL EVIL. A pencil? The horrors of millions of children going around without eyes. A desk? Well you could push one
"Hours of fun and safety!" (Score:2)
Weird thing is I've just come back from the supermarket and I noticed on the side of some kids party novelties that the box advertising had the slogan "Hours of fun and safety!". How depressing. The last thing I wanted as a kid was *safety*. Whatever happened to "Hours of fun and excitement"?
UK just as bad as the USA sometimes....
Bad summary (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't about banning. This is about testing.
When I was a kid, someone had a cheap plastic ruler. He slapped it on my desk to wake me up one day and the damn thing shattered.
What the hell are paper clips doing in a science kit anyway? Is it part of the module on the boring bureaucracy of science?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Feet and thumbs (Score:2)
I hear those rulers are graded using "feet" and "inches", that's pretty dangerous.
TO BE FAIR... (Score:3, Insightful)
For example...
A cheaply made wooden ruler that, after a small amount of bending, starts splintering in a way that will cause it to easily give people splinters may not be good for children under 12.
Or a plastic ruler that is made out of a material that, instead of simply breaking when bent, shatters and causes sharp shards to fly in all directions (think of bending a CD until it breaks) may not be good for children under 12.
Or even a paperclip that breaks easily leaving sharp edges or contains unsafe amounts of toxic metals may not be good for children under 12.
My guess is that reasons like these are why they don't relax the guidelines.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dunno about the rulers and paperclips, but I think some standards are clearly required for magnets. You can now cheaply (i.e. for much less money than the average kid gets given in a week) acquire magnets that are strong enough to do serious damage if handled incorrectly. Crush injuries, or splinters of magnetic material if you let one slam into a solid metal surface, or (far worse) another, aren't exactly fun. You don't want a magnet that's too strong in a kids science kit; nor do you want one that does
Comparison... (Score:4, Interesting)
They didn't treat us with kid gloves, we were supposed to be midget scientists, not young hooligans. They kept us in order by making anyone who screwed up too much sit out the year (no more practicals, they could just observe). We took liberties, but not *too* many[*].
:). Eventually it dries, falls off the table, goes 'BANG!' and throws fragments of itself all over the place. Of course, those bits dried faster, and they were all over the floor. Pretty soon, walking anywhere in the pavilion would set off more bangs as the stuff exploded underfoot. Then the headmaster walked in. We made ourselves scarce just in time. He wasn't amused :)
Of course, this was in the UK, not the USA. I can't vouch for how they treated kids over here - there's probably a whole bunch of stuff we did that's more dangerous than *rulers* too, but that was just off-the-top-of-my-head...
[*] Gun-cotton (basically cotton soaked in Nitric acid to form nitrocellulose) is pretty stable when it's wet, but when it dries out, small amounts of friction can set it off. We took a whole load of it to the pavilion on the yearly school sports-day, and forgot about it (we were playing Runequest in-between competing, I had shot-putt that day
Simon
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I visited a school last week as part of their open day. There was a bowl of soapy water that the kids were bubbling methane through. They let me grab a handful and set fire to it. Big fun.
Pigs hearts, lungs, eyes, parabolic mirrors heating water,... Best days of your lives kids.
Symbolic of a broken mechanism (Score:3, Insightful)
We are over-regulated on the wrong things and under-regulated on the vital things. The nanny state fosters dependency on others to make critical judgments for us so that all th consumer need worry about is buying, buying, buying instead of thinking for themselves about a product. Meanwhile, banks destroy the economy and BP destroys the Gulf region because of lack of preventive oversight.
I say we're so out of balance we're headed to be a footnote in the history books. "The US, an experiment in democracy that failed due to growing beyond the scale where it could be managed properly."
It's like magic... (Score:3, Funny)
F*cking Rulers, How Do They Work?
Misplaced priorities. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Safety Commission should be more concerned about what the junk on Disney Channel, MTV and others is teaching out kids than whether or not a freaking ruler might be dangerous.
The testing law is a total cluster-fsck (Score:3, Insightful)
The law about testing everything for sale to a children under 13 is totally inflexible. Much of the testing is pointless. It is horrendously expensive, and the testing labs are hugely backed up. I've seen this from the viewpoint of an embedded developer -- one of the products I worked on never made it to market because the client had to divert the tooling budget to pay for lab testing of old products. Then they chopped bunches of sku's out of their product line because the cost of testing didn't pencil out. Later, they had to sell the company.
Look, 10 year old kids don't eat the motors from their slot cars. 4 year old kids don't gnaw on their night lights. Does it matter if the streamers on a kids bicycle contain phthalates? This madness has to stop. The law is inflexible and idiotic and is doing many millions of dollars of economic harm, killing excellent products like the science kits mentioned in the article, and has very little benefit.
There need to be safety standards, sure. But the law as currently formulated is the most insane piece of work to come from our government bureaucracy in decades.
What is going on here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Eventually... (Score:3, Interesting)
If one wants to learn, what is needed is proper instruction and access to materials, not new legislation.
I grew up outside the US. When I was little it was not uncommon to hear people making fun of safety label of products coming from the US. I used to wonder what kind of people need a warning saying 'do not chew the electric cord' on an electric heater, or a label saying 'do not place your hand inside while operating' on a food processor. By limiting access to learning kits and putting more responsibility on the government than on the parents and teachers, we are shooting ourselves in the foot, and the upcoming generations in the head. You cannot educate using fear. Let the little kids alone. Chances are they will not kill themselves using a ruler.
Improvised/Kitchen chemistry for the win (Score:3, Informative)
When I was a kid, I made gunpowder by:
- grinding up sulfur candles purchased from the local store
- making charcoal by charring wood on a small fire outside
- making saltpeter from cow manure from local fields
So get your kid a book like:
http://www.amazon.com/Do---Yourself-Gunpowder-Cookbook/dp/0873646754/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285872731&sr=1-1 [amazon.com]
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone with a lot of knowledge about regulatory requirements and conformity testing, I can say without a doubt the CPSC is on the right track here.
The industry's response is all posturing. Testing the metal edges in a ruler for harmful chemicals such as lead is very easy to do, and really not very expensive. Traceability of the raw materials to a source heat lot is essentially free. A single heat lot could produce tens of thousands of rulers, so a single metallurgical test may add a penny or two for a whole lot. There exist many standards for the plastic itself with regards to flame resistance and plastics testing but there is no national standard that I'm aware of regarding plastics toxicity and what is an acceptable level of lead and mercury.
If indeed the companies discontinue the kits because of the safety testing requirements, then that is basically an admission that they were never doing the safety testing of their own volition to begin with. I'm not even going to make up some bullshit "it's for the kids" argument. Fact is, citizens expect that the products companies sell are safe, whether they be for kids, adults or even pets. Kids may be the first to draw attention where a lack of safety testing exists, but we should all be demanding safer products for ourselves.
Instead of resisting this, they should be taking the opportunity to give themselves market differentiation by voluntarily starting safety testing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm afraid that the contradiction between your stated position and your sig just made my head esplode.
If these companies stop manufacturing the kits, it doesn't mean that they're the evil suxors, it means that they don't think that they can do the testing and make a profit. The first rule of understanding capitalism is: Don't ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by economic motives.
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh good fucking grief.
The CPSC are a bunch of idiots. And you are right with them, that's for sure.
It used to be that our kids could get actually USEFUL science kits. Ones that would let them build things, try out different experiments, and yes, occasionally make something that smelled bad, or smoked, made a small bang. And we used to say one simple thing about them: parents, don't let your kid play with the kit unsupervised.
Now, of course, thanks to a generation of deadbeat fucking morons who think that kids raise themselves, we are instead stuck in a world where anything that could possibly be dangerous for kids is off-limits. Small wonder most American kids grow up today with their faces in front of the TV, either watching brain-rotting crap or playing repetitive, non-inspiring video games that should come with a warning "imagination not required" on the side, and getting fatter every day from it.
Instead of having the kids run around the world, try things, learn, and get the occasional scraped knee or other injury, now it's nothing but "OMG don't let the kids outside it might be DANGEROUS out there!"
While we're busy "thinking of the children", their brains are rotting away. Way to go, parents.
I don't know why... (Score:3, Interesting)
When I was a kid - fifty years ago - I ran around with a lead bar in my pocket. I used to hold it in my fist (no, not violent) and squeeze it, because... well, because I could. That bar eventually changed shape until it fit my hand. I held that thing in my hot, sweaty palms for must have been hundreds of hours. I also held pools of mercury, double handfuls, we used to play with it; I had a huge jar that I got from an old furnace warehouse. I never
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That made my day. I work in a highly regulated industry, and buying anything with the right standards conformance paperwork costs many times the standard cost, even when we get exactly the same item that is sold to ordinary consumers for the fraction of the price. You want a small batch with special paperwork from a large supplier? Be prepared to pay a ridiculous amount of money. A normal certificate of conformity usually lists only the absolutely minimal amount of safety claims, both to reduce liability an
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:5, Insightful)
The Consumer Product Safety commission should only be concerned about things that are really hazards when used correctly or things that are easily used incorrectly, for example, lead based paint on children's toys, yeah thats a real concern. The fact that some children -might- -possibly- use some materials in a science kit and get hurt is nearly non-existent.
The more we regulate science kits and lose children's natural curiosity in the world around us by essentially telling them that anyplace other than indoors watching TV and doing a bit of exercise on the treadmill is going to kill them, the more we can watch the US slip further and further into the dark ages...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Important degrees are for the rich. The kids that go to private schools that are not restricted to fischer-price education.
Public school is for the factory workers, trained to say "yes" and do whatever they are told.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Having taught English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) to American exchange students - yes, their standard of reading and writing was low enough to put them into a class aimed at people who understand no English at all - I can safely say that the privately educated ones have the lowest standard of education. People who have been privately educated in the US seem to be good at sports and have bits and pieces of "rote" learning, but cannot effectively use language because they simply haven't been taugh
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:4, Insightful)
You are exactly right. We moved a couple of years ago and the quality of the local school was the biggest single factor in deciding where we would live. We bought a low end home in a high end neighborhood and the public school is absolutely fantastic. New building, all new equipment, an abundance of parent volunteers, and fund raisers that raise crazy amounts of money for the schools. The maximum class size is 21 kids. The school has fully funded art, theater arts and music programs.
The downside is high property taxes. More than $600 / month on a $250k house. I think it's worth it though. I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I've found I really enjoy living in the suburbs.
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:5, Insightful)
The Consumer Product Safety commission should only be concerned about things that are really hazards when used correctly or things that are easily used incorrectly, for example, lead based paint on children's toys, yeah thats a real concern. The fact that some children -might- -possibly- use some materials in a science kit and get hurt is nearly non-existent.
Surprise! That is exactly what this is about, but the commission is being stupid. The makers of the science kits are bundling ordinary objects like rulers, paper clips, etc in their kits, and the commission is saying that they have to have a testing regime in place that tests everything that goes into the kits for lead and other toxic chemicals because it is arguably marketed to kids. The solution will be that the kit makers will stop making science kits, even something completely innocuous like "how magnetism works kit", because the burden of testing everything that goes into the kits outweighs the potential profit.
There was a very similar story a while back about low-powered motorcycles marketed to kids that had lead in the ENGINE. The end result looked like it was going to just destroy the market for the product simply on the basis that there was lead in it, regardless of the fact that even if a child disassembled the engine and ate the part in question, it was present in an alloy that would not release the lead into the child's system.
What the story is really about is the committee trying to make their mandate apply to absolutely everything, regardless of whether it had any real chance of causing damage to children.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:5, Informative)
Sad, but true. This is the same agency that nearly killed the sub-250cc motorcycle market because most of bikes (and ATVs as well) with engines that small are meant for kids to learn on. Yes, adults do occasionally ride 150-cc dirtbikes, but kids are the target user.
Why was this market nearly killed? The CPSC was afraid of kids licking the battery terminals and sucking on lead wheel-balancing weights. Never mind that kids can't really swallow these things, or that these parts won't poison you even if swallowed. They have lead, and lead is bad. The CPSC doesn't care to look any further than that.
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:4, Insightful)
The more we regulate science kits and lose children's natural curiosity in the world around us by essentially telling them that anyplace other than indoors watching TV and doing a bit of exercise on the treadmill is going to kill them, the more we can watch the US slip further and further into the dark ages...
That's what the powers that be want. You think they want us to explore things for ourselves? To LEARN on our own without relying on the government to tell us what is fact and what is fiction? No, they want us to punch in, punch out, then go home and watch TV and be told what's going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. The only problem is you don't get a feeling for it actually happening in front of your eyes when you start playing. I kinda remember my first kit, about half of it was full of highly dangerous and toxic chemicals that would have been banned today. But I learned a lot.
Maybe it was because I understood that if I ate the copper sulfate it would have been a moderately bad idea. Well that and my parents taught me to be responsible, and you know...read the instruction booklet.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah, copper sulfate isn't *that* dangerous. At least not when we're talking 60g in 3.78L of water, using an additional 20mL of 70% sulfuric acid to help it dissolve. At that point you're really almost to "just don't drink it or use it as eyewash, and wash your hands after use" -- it's also nifty for detecting unalloyed iron contamination, dunno what else it reacts with offhand though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:5, Insightful)
Science used to be cool because it was exciting. Small explosions, corrosive chemicals, and chemical reactions are cool, clicking some buttons on a computer program to simulate this is lame. If you want kids to like science, it needs to be (somewhat) dangerous. Schools should be encouraging thinking (ie. fire is hot so don't burn yourself, don't drink/touch hydrochloric acid, etc). If a few kids get hurt, well, hopefully they at least learned something, even if that something is that science can be dangerous.
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:5, Interesting)
And rulers? Rulers? Are you fucking kidding me?
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who has played with software based labs, it doesn't compare to the real thing. It's one thing to click on two test tubes and have a thrid change color, but it entirely different to see the color change in real life as you add the reagents.
Bingo. The same thing happens in astronomy, too. This summer I saw Saturn and its rings for the first time with my own eyes (well, through a telescope). It was a small white ball with thin bulges on the side, and yet that filled me with far more profound awe than all the high-res, full-colour pictures from the Voyager probes I've seen before.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer hands on science class...
Lesson one electricity... Kids on your desk is a fork, grab the fork and go find the nearest electrical outlet. Tell me what you discover...
"teacher! Johnny stuck the fork in the outlet 6 times now... he giggles when he get's shocked!"
Thank you sally.... Johnny, you are being sent to the special class...
your homework children is to learn about hot.. find something hot and tell me what you learn about it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Just wait 'til you get to the chapter on Darwin and Natural Selection?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that the issue of kid safety actually is something that stops kids from learning because they are in an environment so pampered that they get completely lost whenever they have to leave home.
Of course kids hurt themselves now and then. It's part of the process, but as long as the injuries aren't permanent then it's experience gained.
But from a tin foil hat perspective it may be that all these "kid safety" issues are put in place just so that they can learn how to be a good consumer and not try to understand how things works.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
for suitable values of woo woo... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tobacco is for adults. These 'science' kits are for kids.
Anything is possible if you do it for the children.
Re:50's chemistry kit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With many people, that's not a conclusion, its a fundamental, axiomatic assumption. Or, put another way, an article of faith.