9 ms·

People love to say that they shouldn't be prevented from owning these toys just because some other person's child might get injured, and I sympathise with that

People love to say that they shouldn't be prevented from owning these toys just because some other person's child might get injured, and I sympathise with that point of view. But at their peak, three thousand children a year were visiting emergency departments for suspected magnet ingestion (a number which declined after the CPSC ban).[1] Lawn darts were banned on a mere 750 ED visits annually.[2] The fact is, we live in a society and (as with fireworks and other dangerous toys that could be labelled 'adults only') the cost of being able to have these magnets on your desk is probably dozens or hundreds of kids getting very sick. [1]https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/29135818 https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/29135818 [2]http://mentalfloss.com/article/31176/how-one-dad-got-lawn-darts-banned http://mentalfloss.com/article/31176/how-one-dad-got-lawn-da...

abstrakraft 8y ago
One has to wonder why only numbers for suspected, rather than confirmed, magnet ingestion are reported.
- romwell 8y ago
  The other comment betrays the reason: because the numbers are bogus and are artificially inflated to be high by making a query too broad (it includes marbles, BB balls, batteries, etc). Just another example of the FUD spread by CPSC which people ended up eating wholesale.
  - thomasfedb 8y ago
    Which query are you referring to? It's important to understand that the first step in a systematic review is to identify all the potentially relevant literature (the "search"), only after which are the studies found screened for inclusion. We're conservative in the direction of over-inclusion during the "search", but in the opposite direction during the "screen".
    - romwell 8y ago
      We - are you one of the authors? Perhaps you can clarify the following paragraph from [1], page 8: >Inclusion Criteria and Variable Classification: >Subjects from 0-17 years old were included using a primary search term for diagnosis of “ingested object” from the time period of 2002-2015. Cases of ingested objects were classified as “suspected magnet ingestion” (SMI) if the term “magnet” appeared anywhere in the narrative section of the database. Where's the screening part you mention? I didn't find anywhere that the inclusion criteria implied that magnets have actually been ingested - or that the results were filtered in any way other than a keyword search. E.g.: "Child ingested a marble, parent worries that it could have been a magnet" would pass this inclusion criterion. [1]http://sci-hub.nu/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001830 http://sci-hub.nu/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001830
      - rrobukef 8y ago
        "Child ingested...We took a magnetic resonance image." But i should hope that medical specialists use the abbreviated mri.
        JackCh 8y ago
        >MRI Well that's one way to get the magnet out...
  - natch 8y ago
    That’s not the reason. That’s your theory about the reason. I have a better theory, posted as an answer to your parent post.
- natch 8y ago
  It’s not that hard to figure out the simple, non-tinfoil hat answer: the items are hidden deep inside the recesses and folds of soft tissue organs inside the body. It’s not that easy to find them or even verify 100% that they are magnetic, without very specialized equipment. An x-ray machine only gets you part of the way there. Then you have to go by what you hear from the patient, who might be three years old.
iliketosleep 8y ago
Proper warnings or even age restrictions on sales are the correct solution, not a total ban. The knee-jerk reaction of "children can hurt themselves with it, let's ban it" is completely wrong. There are countless items in any household that could potentially be lethal to a child.
- slg 8y ago
  The problem is that almost no one reads those warnings. Most packages for kids toys will have a warning somewhere on them about how they are a swallow or suffocation hazard. People get desensitized to that constant bombardment of warnings. Unless you spend some time really thinking about it, it might not be clear why swallowing a magnet like this might be so much more dangerous than swallowing a something of this size made of different material. That also factors into your point about other household items. Most of the household items that are dangerous to children are very clearly dangerous. It is much easier for a parent to overlook the danger of these magnets compared with stuff like potentially poisonous household cleaners.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    You say "almost no one" heeds the warnings, but it's certainly not true that almost everyone gives tiny magnets to toddlers.
    - slg 8y ago
      I am confused, I didn't say anything close to "almost everyone gives tiny magnets to toddlers" and that wouldn't even be a relevant factor in this discussion. My point was that most people don't understand how dangerous tiny magnets might be for toddlers.
      - JackCh 8y ago
        The inverse of "almost no one" is "almost everyone". When you say that "almost no one" reads warnings, you imply the set "almost everyone" is going to encounter problems. > " My point was that most people don't understand how dangerous tiny magnets might be for toddlers." And yet, far from "most people" giving magnets to toddlers, very few people seem to.
opencl 8y ago
'Subjects from 0-17 years old were included using a primary search term for diagnosis of “ingested object” from the time period of 2002-2015. Cases of ingested objects were classified as “suspected magnet ingestion” (SMI) if the term “magnet” appeared anywhere in the narrative section of the database. Researchers then identified specific characteristics of ingested magnets for descriptions related to rare-earth metals or small size. Specific inclusionary terms for small, round size/shape included: small, tiny, ≤1cm, battery-like, marble, bead, BB, ball, sphere, round, and circular. Inclusion terms for multiple were: multiple, > 1, or the plural “magnets.” ' This has got to have an obscenely high false positive rate. When the ban was being proposed the CPSC's claim was "at least a dozen" from 2009-2012. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/07/feds-sue-to-take-zen-magnet-toys-off-market.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/07/feds-sue-to-take-zen-ma...
- JackCh 8y ago
  ~100,000 narratives to classify and they couldn't even be bothered to have a couple interns spend a few weeks reviewing suspected narratives? All it would take is to present the suspected narrative to a human with the instances of "magnet" highlighted so the human could quickly determine if the sentence mentioning "magnet" was actually talking about one being eaten. Since when does a dumb database query with next to no diligence even qualify as science? If this is truly a matter of saving the lives of children, then surely the expense could be spared. This whole thing is insulting.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
pixelbash 8y ago
I suppose the question is what sort of world do you want to live in? I had a great time with fireworks growing up in a less regulated country (Fiji), most of the time we don't even bother with Guy Fawkes here (NZ) now. Having also spent time in a few other more & less nanny state-ish countries growing up I don't think bubble wrapping children does them many favours in the long run.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  My parents thought nothing of my using power equipment growing up, string trimmers, lawnmowers, chainsaws. I was told "read the manual" and assumed to be responsible. But not guns or explosives. Is that "bubble wrapping"? Some people draw the line at things that are too prone to instant death or maiming when you screw up. Ever Google "pierre paul finger"?
  - pixelbash 8y ago
    Well I have now, and at school in Fiji there were stories of other kids blowing themselves up with homemade kerosene & bamboo fireworks. My personal opinion is that responsibility and risk are related, and if you don't have a gradual increase of both in a relatively safe environment while growing up you are more likely to wrap your sports car around a traffic light (for example) once you finally experience 100% of both at once. Of course everyone has different opinions of what an acceptable level of risk is.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    Did you ever actually "read the manual"?
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      Yes, it was before the internet was popular; reading books was basically all there was. My favorite manuals of all time were the original printed Inside Macintosh volumes. They were amazing compared to, say, the documentation for the Amiga OS.
faitswulff 8y ago
I don't know, I'm pretty sure this leads to putting kids in bubbles - and for full disclosure, I'm a proponent of right to roam laws. How do you balance letting kids learn to manage risk in unstructured environments with banning objects and activities that might be dangerous?
- rhizome 8y ago
  How do you balance letting kids learn to manage risk in unstructured environments with banning objects and activities that might be dangerous? People have been doing it for generations, so consider it something you'll want to think about for yourself before having children.
  - faitswulff 8y ago
    I think you misread my intent in asking that question.
    - rhizome 8y ago
      I read your intent and I don't agree with a libertarian implication that ignores how things have worked more or less fine, and which is certainly not banning everything.
      - dhruv_bansal 8y ago
        yeah right
- thomasfedb 8y ago
  This is a really different issue from right to roam. Magnet ingestion is something that will happen when curious little hands get hold of these magnets, and is also not something you can obviously know has happened. That's scary given the great potential for severe adverse health consequences.
  - faitswulff 8y ago
AndrewDavis 8y ago
>Lawn darts were banned on a mere 750 ED visits annually Lawn darts are a toy, a toy for children an adults to play alike. Ball magnets aren't sold as a toy. We don't restrict the sale of sharp knives because children might injure themselves, no we rely on parents to not let their children play with them.
- justin66 8y ago
  > Ball magnets aren't sold as a toy. They were when this controversy began.
  - romwell 8y ago
    But not anymore, and not for a while. And from CPSC's perspective, it doesn't matter, because they were sticking to the point that no amount of warnings and restrictions can make magnets safe enough to be sold. (Unlike, say, an M-16 rifle).
    - foobarian 8y ago
      If they ever need plan B they can start manufacturing guns out of these ball magnets, and then CPSC won't be able to touch them.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      What CPSC document are you relying on for that assertion? I just read the 2017 Zen Magnet ALJ decision, and it revolves around the marketed intended use for the products: The intended use and operation of the Subject Products require the magnets to be separated and reattached to create and reshape the magnets into a variety of figures, sculptures, structures, jewelry, and art. See, e.g., Exs. R-55 (product guide with examples of structures that can be created with the Subject Products); R-139 (“Never Let Go of Childhood Wonder” demonstration video Two obvious observations: - "Childlike wonder"? Really? - If there's any use for these things that is more dangerous than desk toys, it's jewelry.
- herpes 8y ago
  >We don't restrict the sale of sharp knives because children might injure themselves Some places do, actually. https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives
hnaccy 8y ago
> the cost of being able to have these magnets on your desk is probably dozens or hundreds of kids getting very sick. I'd like to live in a society willing to pay that price.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Respectfully: wouldn't really believing that make you kind of an asshole? The number of children I would need to see hospitalized to give up a desk toy is pretty low. I could be misreading you, but it sounds like you're stipulating that kids are getting hurt, and saying you'd be happier if we could hurt some reasonable amount of kids to get new desk toys. That is a different and more disturbing argument from the one that says that we should be able to have the desk toys and avoid the harm, too.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    > "Respectfully: wouldn't really believing that make you kind of an asshole?" Don't you think asking such a question is not a terribly subtle way of calling somebody an asshole?
    - andybak 8y ago
      The emphasis to my eye was on the word "really". tptacek is suggesting that author of the previous post should consider whether they really mean that or if he they have merely taken a stance without thinking it through clearly. Very different both in tone and implication from "You're an asshole for saying that".
      - JackCh 8y ago
        Saying "If you honestly mean that then you're an asshole" is just a round-about way of calling somebody an asshole while providing them with an out; it's a method of insulting people to get them to change their stance. Where I come from, it's considered rude.
      - tptacek 8y ago
skwirl 8y ago
I feel like these are frivolous toys that are a net negative to society, but the product has legitimate uses (however silly) and does not cause injury when used appropriately. There are many products in our everyday lives with legitimate uses that can and do regularly injure children but are not banned because we have (at least implicitly) decided that the benefits outweigh the costs. Ultimately this kind of ban is based off a value judgment and it doesn't feel like it is something appropriate for an un-elected regulatory body to decide. The ban should come from Congress. If a product causes injuries when used as intended then CPSC action seems warranted to me. This is not such a case. I also suspect the lawn dart ban might not have held up in court had manufacturers then pressed as hard as Qu has been pressing today, so I don't think that ban does anything to legitimize CPSC action now. Fireworks bans in the United States have (to my knowledge) originated from legislative bodies. By the way, the way CPSC reached their conclusion that these magnetic balls were a net negative was based off their own calculation that injuries to children cost more to treat than profits made by the magnetic ball companies. This seems like an absurd way to calculate whether or not something is a net negative to society.
- pcvarmint 8y ago
  > I feel like these are frivolous toys They are not toys.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    As I understand it, the CPSC restriction is on the packaging and marketing of the magnets as toys and entertainment devices. You weren't prohibited from owning small magnets. Am I misunderstanding? It's been awhile since I read any of the primary source documentation on this stuff.
  - jonathankoren 8y ago
    What are they then? Seriously. What is it, if it is not a toy? Sure it’s has this patina of being for adults, but that doesn’t make it a toy. In fact, aren’t these and other little magnetic sculptures marketed as “desk toys”?
  - 8y ago
defertoreptar 8y ago
Falling out of bed kills 600 Americans a year.[1] Should we regulate beds so that the distance between the mattress and the floor not exceed a few inches? [1]http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562978,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562978...
- perl4ever 8y ago
  For some years as a fairly young kid, in between a crib and a real bed, I had a mattress on the floor. When I was in college my freshman year, the dorms had bunk beds, and I worried about falling from the top, but never did. My parents were not especially concerned about the dangers of beds, bicycles, cars, drugs, alcohol, chainsaws, or lawnmowers when I was growing up. On the other hand they drew the line at motorcycles and guns. The only time I was seriously injured (concussion), it was bicycle related, FWIW. I don't know how you do a cost-benefit analysis for society when nobody particularly agrees on the benefits of something.
  - sand500 8y ago
    Just because you didn't fall out of bed doesn't mean it doesn't happen https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-tech-student-suffers-severe-brain-injury-fall-from-bed/JZW1HxRDyOaICSVy5d9FEO/ https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-tech-student-suffers-severe...
romwell 8y ago
>But at their peak, three thousand children a year were visiting emergency departments for suspected magnet ingestion (a number which declined after the CPSC ban).[1] Several points: 1. Suspected magnet ingestion =/= magnet ingestion. I believe we should stop here, however: 2. Of course a total ban on sales (which was in effect for some time) would decrease this number, but 3. So would improved packaging and public education campaigns on the potential dangers of the product, which were happening at the same time, and 4. If you actually read the paper, they observe that the reduction in the suspected ingestion cases was not that large: from 8,326 to 6,260. Perhaps you should include that in your cost function. 5. Also from the paper: 86% of the kids were "treated and released from the ED or examined and released without treatment" To put the nail in the suspected coffin, one should go and read the article you referenced: [SciHub link][1]: >Subjects from 0-17 years old were included using a primary search term for diagnosis of “ingested object” from the time period of 2002-2015. Cases of ingested objects were classified as “suspected magnet ingestion” (SMI) if the term “magnet” appeared anywhere in the narrative section of the database. Meanwhile, a million kids ended up in emergency rooms from trampoline-related injuries over a decade[2], and no one bats an eye. [1]http://sci-hub.nu/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001830 http://sci-hub.nu/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001830 [2]https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-terrifying-statistics-trampoline-safety-everett-sanderson/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-terrifying-statistics-tramp...
- morogop 8y ago
  Insurance companies bat their eyes. Owning a trampoline dramatically increases your insurance costs.
- monochromatic 8y ago
  > the cost of being able to have these magnets on your desk is probably dozens or hundreds of kids getting very sick No, that's the cost of everyone being able to have these magnets on their desk. The pro rata cost of me being able to have them is quite small.
  - toss1 8y ago
    I'm all for the magnets, and Zen's solution of education (vs the CSPC's banhammer solution). However, this argument is exactly wrong -- it would create another commons problem, where your individual interest is against the interest of the group, and so everyone acting in their individual interest creates a big problem. (fortunately, with education and careful use, we can avoid the common problem)
Chris_Chambers 8y ago
Feelings aside, it’s a good thing when unintelligent children remove themselves from the gene pool. It’s also a good thing when the children of stupid parents who fail to take basic precautions to protect their offspring remove themselves from the gene pool, because there is likely a genetic component to the parents’ incompetence which the child inherited and risks spreading later in life. The world could use more lethal pitfalls that only affect less valuable people, because it will help to ensure the survivors of a given generation are more valuable and will strengthen the species overall.
hedora 8y ago
I heard the vast majority of those cases were from other products with poorly secured magnets in them. The article says zen magnets was the first company whose sales were blocked after zero confirmed incidents, so it sounds like all those incidents were from other products.
- ScottBurson 8y ago
  Yes. ZenMagnets has always put warnings on their products, and there are no confirmed incidents of ingestion involving their magnets. To me, this constitutes empirical evidence that warning labels can work. ZenMagnets also petitioned the CPSC to establish labeling requirements that all small magnet vendors would have to comply with. Instead of going along with this eminently reasonable suggestion, they continued to try to get the product off the market. Full disclosure: happy ZenMagnets customer.
  - justin66 8y ago
    > ZenMagnets has always put warnings on their products I'll have to dig up my old set of magnets but I don't believe their early warnings would clue you in to exactly how dangerous the magnets are when ingested. The newer warnings are considerably more effective, I suspect, if what is on the website ("MAY CAUSE FATAL INTESTINAL PINCHING") is representative of what's on the package. edit: I hope this stupid warning is not a real thing today: https://images1.westword.com/imager/one-of-the-warning-labels-that-comes-with/u/original/6527906/feature_warning.jpg https://images1.westword.com/imager/one-of-the-warning-label...
ggg9990 8y ago
But there are things like dirt bikes and swimming pools which are much more dangerous to kids. So why not start there?
kriro 8y ago
Well if you want to make these sorts of comparisons why not ban cars (cause lots of death, including children) and firearms (accidental shootings alone probably make magnets look like...well toys). If you ban stuff at some point someone has to at least implicitly weight utility against risk. That's ultimately going to be fairly subjective. I'd say cars are overall still a good thing, guns I'm not sure about (but in the U.S. the constitution trumps the death statistics), magnets...I have a hard time quantifying the utility but there's probably a decent economic argument for them overall. It's obviously easy to say "protection of innocent children" but that doesn't mean it's all there is to it.
ezoe 8y ago
By your logic, we should ban vehicle for it cause traffic incidents.
peterwwillis 8y ago
2,400 children go to the emergency room every year from sticking things in electrical sockets. Nobody cares to stop the sale and installation of standard electrical outlets, though, because that would be an inconvenience to too many people. Another example is alcohol. Annually it kills 88,000 in the US and 2.4 Million world wide. Yet weed, a drug that kills 0 people, and is an effective tool for managing pain and misc. disorders, has been illegal for a century or more. The banning of the magnets is a convenience for people who don't want to be required to behave responsibly. If enough people wanted the magnets, they would never have been banned.

abstrakraft 8y ago

One has to wonder why only numbers for suspected, rather than confirmed, magnet ingestion are reported.

romwell 8y ago
The other comment betrays the reason: because the numbers are bogus and are artificially inflated to be high by making a query too broad (it includes marbles, BB balls, batteries, etc). Just another example of the FUD spread by CPSC which people ended up eating wholesale.
- thomasfedb 8y ago
  Which query are you referring to? It's important to understand that the first step in a systematic review is to identify all the potentially relevant literature (the "search"), only after which are the studies found screened for inclusion. We're conservative in the direction of over-inclusion during the "search", but in the opposite direction during the "screen".
  - romwell 8y ago
    We - are you one of the authors? Perhaps you can clarify the following paragraph from [1], page 8: >Inclusion Criteria and Variable Classification: >Subjects from 0-17 years old were included using a primary search term for diagnosis of “ingested object” from the time period of 2002-2015. Cases of ingested objects were classified as “suspected magnet ingestion” (SMI) if the term “magnet” appeared anywhere in the narrative section of the database. Where's the screening part you mention? I didn't find anywhere that the inclusion criteria implied that magnets have actually been ingested - or that the results were filtered in any way other than a keyword search. E.g.: "Child ingested a marble, parent worries that it could have been a magnet" would pass this inclusion criterion. [1]http://sci-hub.nu/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001830 http://sci-hub.nu/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001830
    - rrobukef 8y ago
      "Child ingested...We took a magnetic resonance image." But i should hope that medical specialists use the abbreviated mri.
      - JackCh 8y ago
        >MRI Well that's one way to get the magnet out...
- natch 8y ago
  That’s not the reason. That’s your theory about the reason. I have a better theory, posted as an answer to your parent post.
natch 8y ago
It’s not that hard to figure out the simple, non-tinfoil hat answer: the items are hidden deep inside the recesses and folds of soft tissue organs inside the body. It’s not that easy to find them or even verify 100% that they are magnetic, without very specialized equipment. An x-ray machine only gets you part of the way there. Then you have to go by what you hear from the patient, who might be three years old.

iliketosleep 8y ago

Proper warnings or even age restrictions on sales are the correct solution, not a total ban. The knee-jerk reaction of "children can hurt themselves with it, let's ban it" is completely wrong. There are countless items in any household that could potentially be lethal to a child.

slg 8y ago
The problem is that almost no one reads those warnings. Most packages for kids toys will have a warning somewhere on them about how they are a swallow or suffocation hazard. People get desensitized to that constant bombardment of warnings. Unless you spend some time really thinking about it, it might not be clear why swallowing a magnet like this might be so much more dangerous than swallowing a something of this size made of different material. That also factors into your point about other household items. Most of the household items that are dangerous to children are very clearly dangerous. It is much easier for a parent to overlook the danger of these magnets compared with stuff like potentially poisonous household cleaners.
- JackCh 8y ago
  You say "almost no one" heeds the warnings, but it's certainly not true that almost everyone gives tiny magnets to toddlers.
  - slg 8y ago
    I am confused, I didn't say anything close to "almost everyone gives tiny magnets to toddlers" and that wouldn't even be a relevant factor in this discussion. My point was that most people don't understand how dangerous tiny magnets might be for toddlers.
    - JackCh 8y ago
      The inverse of "almost no one" is "almost everyone". When you say that "almost no one" reads warnings, you imply the set "almost everyone" is going to encounter problems. > " My point was that most people don't understand how dangerous tiny magnets might be for toddlers." And yet, far from "most people" giving magnets to toddlers, very few people seem to.

opencl 8y ago

'Subjects from 0-17 years old were included using a primary search term for diagnosis of “ingested object” from the time period of 2002-2015. Cases of ingested objects were classified as “suspected magnet ingestion” (SMI) if the term “magnet” appeared anywhere in the narrative section of the database. Researchers then identified specific characteristics of ingested magnets for descriptions related to rare-earth metals or small size. Specific inclusionary terms for small, round size/shape included: small, tiny, ≤1cm, battery-like, marble, bead, BB, ball, sphere, round, and circular. Inclusion terms for multiple were: multiple, > 1, or the plural “magnets.” ' This has got to have an obscenely high false positive rate. When the ban was being proposed the CPSC's claim was "at least a dozen" from 2009-2012. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/07/feds-sue-to-take-zen-magnet-toys-off-market.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/07/feds-sue-to-take-zen-ma...

JackCh 8y ago
~100,000 narratives to classify and they couldn't even be bothered to have a couple interns spend a few weeks reviewing suspected narratives? All it would take is to present the suspected narrative to a human with the instances of "magnet" highlighted so the human could quickly determine if the sentence mentioning "magnet" was actually talking about one being eaten. Since when does a dumb database query with next to no diligence even qualify as science? If this is truly a matter of saving the lives of children, then surely the expense could be spared. This whole thing is insulting.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

pixelbash 8y ago

I suppose the question is what sort of world do you want to live in? I had a great time with fireworks growing up in a less regulated country (Fiji), most of the time we don't even bother with Guy Fawkes here (NZ) now. Having also spent time in a few other more & less nanny state-ish countries growing up I don't think bubble wrapping children does them many favours in the long run.

perl4ever 8y ago
My parents thought nothing of my using power equipment growing up, string trimmers, lawnmowers, chainsaws. I was told "read the manual" and assumed to be responsible. But not guns or explosives. Is that "bubble wrapping"? Some people draw the line at things that are too prone to instant death or maiming when you screw up. Ever Google "pierre paul finger"?
- pixelbash 8y ago
  Well I have now, and at school in Fiji there were stories of other kids blowing themselves up with homemade kerosene & bamboo fireworks. My personal opinion is that responsibility and risk are related, and if you don't have a gradual increase of both in a relatively safe environment while growing up you are more likely to wrap your sports car around a traffic light (for example) once you finally experience 100% of both at once. Of course everyone has different opinions of what an acceptable level of risk is.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  Did you ever actually "read the manual"?
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    Yes, it was before the internet was popular; reading books was basically all there was. My favorite manuals of all time were the original printed Inside Macintosh volumes. They were amazing compared to, say, the documentation for the Amiga OS.

faitswulff 8y ago

I don't know, I'm pretty sure this leads to putting kids in bubbles - and for full disclosure, I'm a proponent of right to roam laws. How do you balance letting kids learn to manage risk in unstructured environments with banning objects and activities that might be dangerous?

rhizome 8y ago
How do you balance letting kids learn to manage risk in unstructured environments with banning objects and activities that might be dangerous? People have been doing it for generations, so consider it something you'll want to think about for yourself before having children.
- faitswulff 8y ago
  I think you misread my intent in asking that question.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    I read your intent and I don't agree with a libertarian implication that ignores how things have worked more or less fine, and which is certainly not banning everything.
    - dhruv_bansal 8y ago
      yeah right
thomasfedb 8y ago
This is a really different issue from right to roam. Magnet ingestion is something that will happen when curious little hands get hold of these magnets, and is also not something you can obviously know has happened. That's scary given the great potential for severe adverse health consequences.
- faitswulff 8y ago

AndrewDavis 8y ago

>Lawn darts were banned on a mere 750 ED visits annually Lawn darts are a toy, a toy for children an adults to play alike. Ball magnets aren't sold as a toy. We don't restrict the sale of sharp knives because children might injure themselves, no we rely on parents to not let their children play with them.

justin66 8y ago
> Ball magnets aren't sold as a toy. They were when this controversy began.
- romwell 8y ago
  But not anymore, and not for a while. And from CPSC's perspective, it doesn't matter, because they were sticking to the point that no amount of warnings and restrictions can make magnets safe enough to be sold. (Unlike, say, an M-16 rifle).
  - foobarian 8y ago
    If they ever need plan B they can start manufacturing guns out of these ball magnets, and then CPSC won't be able to touch them.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    What CPSC document are you relying on for that assertion? I just read the 2017 Zen Magnet ALJ decision, and it revolves around the marketed intended use for the products: The intended use and operation of the Subject Products require the magnets to be separated and reattached to create and reshape the magnets into a variety of figures, sculptures, structures, jewelry, and art. See, e.g., Exs. R-55 (product guide with examples of structures that can be created with the Subject Products); R-139 (“Never Let Go of Childhood Wonder” demonstration video Two obvious observations: - "Childlike wonder"? Really? - If there's any use for these things that is more dangerous than desk toys, it's jewelry.
herpes 8y ago
>We don't restrict the sale of sharp knives because children might injure themselves Some places do, actually. https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

hnaccy 8y ago

> the cost of being able to have these magnets on your desk is probably dozens or hundreds of kids getting very sick. I'd like to live in a society willing to pay that price.

tptacek 8y ago
Respectfully: wouldn't really believing that make you kind of an asshole? The number of children I would need to see hospitalized to give up a desk toy is pretty low. I could be misreading you, but it sounds like you're stipulating that kids are getting hurt, and saying you'd be happier if we could hurt some reasonable amount of kids to get new desk toys. That is a different and more disturbing argument from the one that says that we should be able to have the desk toys and avoid the harm, too.
- JackCh 8y ago
  > "Respectfully: wouldn't really believing that make you kind of an asshole?" Don't you think asking such a question is not a terribly subtle way of calling somebody an asshole?
  - andybak 8y ago
    The emphasis to my eye was on the word "really". tptacek is suggesting that author of the previous post should consider whether they really mean that or if he they have merely taken a stance without thinking it through clearly. Very different both in tone and implication from "You're an asshole for saying that".
    - JackCh 8y ago
      Saying "If you honestly mean that then you're an asshole" is just a round-about way of calling somebody an asshole while providing them with an out; it's a method of insulting people to get them to change their stance. Where I come from, it's considered rude.
    - tptacek 8y ago

skwirl 8y ago

I feel like these are frivolous toys that are a net negative to society, but the product has legitimate uses (however silly) and does not cause injury when used appropriately. There are many products in our everyday lives with legitimate uses that can and do regularly injure children but are not banned because we have (at least implicitly) decided that the benefits outweigh the costs. Ultimately this kind of ban is based off a value judgment and it doesn't feel like it is something appropriate for an un-elected regulatory body to decide. The ban should come from Congress. If a product causes injuries when used as intended then CPSC action seems warranted to me. This is not such a case. I also suspect the lawn dart ban might not have held up in court had manufacturers then pressed as hard as Qu has been pressing today, so I don't think that ban does anything to legitimize CPSC action now. Fireworks bans in the United States have (to my knowledge) originated from legislative bodies. By the way, the way CPSC reached their conclusion that these magnetic balls were a net negative was based off their own calculation that injuries to children cost more to treat than profits made by the magnetic ball companies. This seems like an absurd way to calculate whether or not something is a net negative to society.

pcvarmint 8y ago
> I feel like these are frivolous toys They are not toys.
- tptacek 8y ago
  As I understand it, the CPSC restriction is on the packaging and marketing of the magnets as toys and entertainment devices. You weren't prohibited from owning small magnets. Am I misunderstanding? It's been awhile since I read any of the primary source documentation on this stuff.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  What are they then? Seriously. What is it, if it is not a toy? Sure it’s has this patina of being for adults, but that doesn’t make it a toy. In fact, aren’t these and other little magnetic sculptures marketed as “desk toys”?
- 8y ago

defertoreptar 8y ago

Falling out of bed kills 600 Americans a year.[1] Should we regulate beds so that the distance between the mattress and the floor not exceed a few inches? [1]http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562978,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562978...

perl4ever 8y ago
For some years as a fairly young kid, in between a crib and a real bed, I had a mattress on the floor. When I was in college my freshman year, the dorms had bunk beds, and I worried about falling from the top, but never did. My parents were not especially concerned about the dangers of beds, bicycles, cars, drugs, alcohol, chainsaws, or lawnmowers when I was growing up. On the other hand they drew the line at motorcycles and guns. The only time I was seriously injured (concussion), it was bicycle related, FWIW. I don't know how you do a cost-benefit analysis for society when nobody particularly agrees on the benefits of something.
- sand500 8y ago
  Just because you didn't fall out of bed doesn't mean it doesn't happen https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-tech-student-suffers-severe-brain-injury-fall-from-bed/JZW1HxRDyOaICSVy5d9FEO/ https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-tech-student-suffers-severe...

romwell 8y ago

>But at their peak, three thousand children a year were visiting emergency departments for suspected magnet ingestion (a number which declined after the CPSC ban).[1] Several points: 1. Suspected magnet ingestion =/= magnet ingestion. I believe we should stop here, however: 2. Of course a total ban on sales (which was in effect for some time) would decrease this number, but 3. So would improved packaging and public education campaigns on the potential dangers of the product, which were happening at the same time, and 4. If you actually read the paper, they observe that the reduction in the suspected ingestion cases was not that large: from 8,326 to 6,260. Perhaps you should include that in your cost function. 5. Also from the paper: 86% of the kids were "treated and released from the ED or examined and released without treatment" To put the nail in the suspected coffin, one should go and read the article you referenced: [SciHub link][1]: >Subjects from 0-17 years old were included using a primary search term for diagnosis of “ingested object” from the time period of 2002-2015. Cases of ingested objects were classified as “suspected magnet ingestion” (SMI) if the term “magnet” appeared anywhere in the narrative section of the database. Meanwhile, a million kids ended up in emergency rooms from trampoline-related injuries over a decade[2], and no one bats an eye. [1]http://sci-hub.nu/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001830 http://sci-hub.nu/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001830 [2]https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-terrifying-statistics-trampoline-safety-everett-sanderson/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-terrifying-statistics-tramp...

morogop 8y ago
Insurance companies bat their eyes. Owning a trampoline dramatically increases your insurance costs.
monochromatic 8y ago
> the cost of being able to have these magnets on your desk is probably dozens or hundreds of kids getting very sick No, that's the cost of everyone being able to have these magnets on their desk. The pro rata cost of me being able to have them is quite small.
- toss1 8y ago
  I'm all for the magnets, and Zen's solution of education (vs the CSPC's banhammer solution). However, this argument is exactly wrong -- it would create another commons problem, where your individual interest is against the interest of the group, and so everyone acting in their individual interest creates a big problem. (fortunately, with education and careful use, we can avoid the common problem)

Chris_Chambers 8y ago

Feelings aside, it’s a good thing when unintelligent children remove themselves from the gene pool. It’s also a good thing when the children of stupid parents who fail to take basic precautions to protect their offspring remove themselves from the gene pool, because there is likely a genetic component to the parents’ incompetence which the child inherited and risks spreading later in life. The world could use more lethal pitfalls that only affect less valuable people, because it will help to ensure the survivors of a given generation are more valuable and will strengthen the species overall.

hedora 8y ago

I heard the vast majority of those cases were from other products with poorly secured magnets in them. The article says zen magnets was the first company whose sales were blocked after zero confirmed incidents, so it sounds like all those incidents were from other products.

ScottBurson 8y ago
Yes. ZenMagnets has always put warnings on their products, and there are no confirmed incidents of ingestion involving their magnets. To me, this constitutes empirical evidence that warning labels can work. ZenMagnets also petitioned the CPSC to establish labeling requirements that all small magnet vendors would have to comply with. Instead of going along with this eminently reasonable suggestion, they continued to try to get the product off the market. Full disclosure: happy ZenMagnets customer.
- justin66 8y ago
  > ZenMagnets has always put warnings on their products I'll have to dig up my old set of magnets but I don't believe their early warnings would clue you in to exactly how dangerous the magnets are when ingested. The newer warnings are considerably more effective, I suspect, if what is on the website ("MAY CAUSE FATAL INTESTINAL PINCHING") is representative of what's on the package. edit: I hope this stupid warning is not a real thing today: https://images1.westword.com/imager/one-of-the-warning-labels-that-comes-with/u/original/6527906/feature_warning.jpg https://images1.westword.com/imager/one-of-the-warning-label...

ggg9990 8y ago

But there are things like dirt bikes and swimming pools which are much more dangerous to kids. So why not start there?

kriro 8y ago

Well if you want to make these sorts of comparisons why not ban cars (cause lots of death, including children) and firearms (accidental shootings alone probably make magnets look like...well toys). If you ban stuff at some point someone has to at least implicitly weight utility against risk. That's ultimately going to be fairly subjective. I'd say cars are overall still a good thing, guns I'm not sure about (but in the U.S. the constitution trumps the death statistics), magnets...I have a hard time quantifying the utility but there's probably a decent economic argument for them overall. It's obviously easy to say "protection of innocent children" but that doesn't mean it's all there is to it.

ezoe 8y ago

By your logic, we should ban vehicle for it cause traffic incidents.

peterwwillis 8y ago

2,400 children go to the emergency room every year from sticking things in electrical sockets. Nobody cares to stop the sale and installation of standard electrical outlets, though, because that would be an inconvenience to too many people. Another example is alcohol. Annually it kills 88,000 in the US and 2.4 Million world wide. Yet weed, a drug that kills 0 people, and is an effective tool for managing pain and misc. disorders, has been illegal for a century or more. The banning of the magnets is a convenience for people who don't want to be required to behave responsibly. If enough people wanted the magnets, they would never have been banned.