19 ms·

It’s a really tricky balance. On the one hand we should have rules that don’t allow building unnecessarily dangerous stuff (eg covering toys with lead coating

It’s a really tricky balance. On the one hand we should have rules that don’t allow building unnecessarily dangerous stuff (eg covering toys with lead coating) but on the other hand we shouldn’t expect 100% safety because the only really safe thing is something that doesn’t exist. It’s really difficult.

ken 7y ago
I would say there's a significant difference between the chemical/biological danger from touching a material which appears basically identical to other safe materials and causes toxic exposure over time, and the physical danger from falling or being cut. I want kids to learn that concrete is hard, and the harder you hit it, the more it will hurt. It's an easy lesson to learn, by trial-and-error, and transferable to many other situations. I don't want to make kids try to learn about lead poisoning by trial-and-error. They're not going to succeed at that. Even adults took 50 years of research to stop putting it in gasoline.
- fjsolwmv 7y ago
  I don't want my daughter to learn about diving into the concrete floor of a pool, or smashing her head into a concrete play structure, by trial and error.
HankB99 7y ago
Delicate balance is the word I would have used. As a scoutmaster (BSA in the US) It seemed to me that many of our youth have no comprehension of their own mortality. I used to try to impress upon them the necessity to stay more than one mistake away from disaster. I recall two incidents that demonstrated this. At a winter camp out the scouts were explicitly warned not to sled on the side of the hill that had trees. One scout didn't heed and hit a tree. He left the campout in an ambulance. Another scout - luckily at the bottom of sandstone bluffs - decided to see how close he could get to the pot formed by a waterfall. He lost his footing and went into the pot which still held water. He was not injured but had to walk the rest of the hike in wet clothes. It was about 45°F so he was pretty uncomfortable. (At this park several people die each year because they make the same mistake at the top of the bluffs.) These are just the actions that resulted in a problem or serious injury. There were many times when the youth got too close to the edge - often literally - and were lucky enough to escape unscathed. On a visceral level I agree with not being overprotective, but being underprotective may not always have the desired effect of instilling a desire to be aware of hazards. Moreover, are we willing to accept the occasional death or maiming of a young person so their cohorts can learn about danger?

ken 7y ago

I would say there's a significant difference between the chemical/biological danger from touching a material which appears basically identical to other safe materials and causes toxic exposure over time, and the physical danger from falling or being cut. I want kids to learn that concrete is hard, and the harder you hit it, the more it will hurt. It's an easy lesson to learn, by trial-and-error, and transferable to many other situations. I don't want to make kids try to learn about lead poisoning by trial-and-error. They're not going to succeed at that. Even adults took 50 years of research to stop putting it in gasoline.

fjsolwmv 7y ago
I don't want my daughter to learn about diving into the concrete floor of a pool, or smashing her head into a concrete play structure, by trial and error.

HankB99 7y ago

Delicate balance is the word I would have used. As a scoutmaster (BSA in the US) It seemed to me that many of our youth have no comprehension of their own mortality. I used to try to impress upon them the necessity to stay more than one mistake away from disaster. I recall two incidents that demonstrated this. At a winter camp out the scouts were explicitly warned not to sled on the side of the hill that had trees. One scout didn't heed and hit a tree. He left the campout in an ambulance. Another scout - luckily at the bottom of sandstone bluffs - decided to see how close he could get to the pot formed by a waterfall. He lost his footing and went into the pot which still held water. He was not injured but had to walk the rest of the hike in wet clothes. It was about 45°F so he was pretty uncomfortable. (At this park several people die each year because they make the same mistake at the top of the bluffs.) These are just the actions that resulted in a problem or serious injury. There were many times when the youth got too close to the edge - often literally - and were lucky enough to escape unscathed. On a visceral level I agree with not being overprotective, but being underprotective may not always have the desired effect of instilling a desire to be aware of hazards. Moreover, are we willing to accept the occasional death or maiming of a young person so their cohorts can learn about danger?