The "actual proof" that the warning labels are insufficient is because that after the new and more specific warning labels were put on the product, the incidents of accidental ingestion and injury increased rather than decreasing.
Where's you proof that during that same time frame that consumers became less responsible?
Out of curiosity, are you engaging the thread or having a shouting match with Bowen?
What are the increases, though? Do we have anything close to numbers, like "In 2009 there were four deaths from the popular desk-toy Buckyballs. In 2011, by contrast, that rrate has increased by 100 times to over 400 deaths from said product..."
Do we have anything like that?
I haven't seen an argument here that suggests parents are becoming less responsible.
Presumably there would be a slight upward trend simply because the company keeps selling their products and therefore the number of people at risk increases. But, according to that press release:
Since 2009, CPSC staff has learned of more than two dozen ingestion incidents, with at least one dozen involving Buckyballs. Surgery was required in many of incidents. The Commission staff alleges in its complaint that it has concluded that despite the attempts to warn purchasers, warnings and education are ineffective and cannot prevent injuries and incidents with these rare earth magnets.
If there was a clear upward trend, I'm sure they'd mention it in their press release. Furthermore, there's no mention of Buckyballs causing a single death, ever. Sounds like a common case of a government agency pretending to do something useful even though the benefits remain marginal, if not entirely hypothetical. Buckyballs is an easy target, nobody "needs" their product, nobody cares if they get put out of business. But at least that hypothetical kid who might die from Buckyballs will stay alive -- until his useless parents let him down a handful of thumb tacks with drain cleaner.
I meant the liklihood of running into another owner of bucky balls than yourself is unlikely. If you are buying them, lock that shit up.
It is not hard to grasp that this is a dangerous toy. Just like you shouldn't let a 6 year old near a band saw, or drain cleaner.
I am at a loss for words why a lot of you think this concept is hard. Do you not think locking hunting rifles up is a good thing?
So you think this desk toy is obviously unsafe, is comparable to a band saw or drain cleaner one should have to lock it up, but don't think it should be banned when the actual real world sale of this product has produced an increasing number of children requiring surgical intervention to treat the otherwise fatal consequences of swallowing it.
How many people have died, how many were children? How many were because the parents didn't properly lock up and hide the toy?
Yes, they are adult toys, if these were marketed towards children, so be it, slap the company with fines. I don't know why I'm being lambasted with "you should know children put shit in their mouths you horrible man" and not these parents that didn't put their god damned desk toy away.
I mean fucking fuck, man, we should require people to go to the pharmacy every time they need a god damned medicine just because some large number of kids die/get sick from that shit and require medical/surgical intervention.
Multiple children have died, hundreds have required surgery that is among the most complex/expensive that exist (intestinal surgery is hardcore, and when there are magnets that want to stick to all your surgical tools, that doesn't help). My wife works is a pediatric nurse on a post-op floor, and I just double checked with her that she has personally had over 2 dozen patients in the last 4-5 years who have required surgery for this (and she only has 2-3 patients at a time) with a recovery period of at least a week. This is likely high because its a very good hospital and her floor does a lot of intestinal work (mostly transplants) but its not like we're talking one kid a single time.
We noticed an increase in magnetic ingestions during the first 4 months of 2012 in a children's hospital in New Orleans. Secondary to this observation we asked members of NASPGHAN about cases seen in the past 2 years. This informal survey answered by 33 pediatric gastroenterologists reported 84 cases.
There are 1500 pediatric gastroenterologists that are part of this organization. If the prevalence for these 33 was double that of the average rate, that would suggest 1000 cases a year (or less than 1% of incidents of children swallowing small foreign objects). That could be overcounting (or undercounting) this number significantly and they are doing a formal survey to get more information. That will of course not count those treated by non-pediatric specialists. But its a lot of kids
I think the interesting thing in the article you linked is that they find over 200 cases before 2008. Which is before Buckyballs (or similar products) were produced and marketed as toys. Does this mean we should ban all small rare earth magnets?
For all intents and purposes, they are exactly the same as Buckyballs. (smaller even!) The only difference is that they are not marketed as "desktoys". Should these also be banned?
They're only intrinsically dangerous around stupid children with bad parents which kind of invalidates the use of the word intrinsic.
Toddlers that put things in their mouths and swallow them aren't stupid.
They're toddlers.
Toddlers are less than a yard tall and clumsy as hell. How are they getting these things if the parent isn't leaving them on the coffee table or something?
Trust me, they aren't scaling to the top of a regular filing cabinet or bookshelf to chow down on these things when the cookie jar is always more easily reachable.
Meaning something that you're supposed to keep on your desk to play with when you're bored.
Which means that, when used as intended, toddlers will have much easier access to them than, say, cleaning supplies, power tools, or guns.
They'll also have access to paper clips, which can be either steel-colored like these Buckyball things or colored like candy, and pushpins, which generally are made of shiny plastic that is brightly colored like candy...so?
Also, as you said, these are a desk toys...presumably for the millions of people who work in offices and cubicles, not for mom who maybe sends out a couple faxes a day and goes over the checking account from the home office.
Ingesting a couple of rare earth magnets can do much more extensive internal damage than swallowing paper clips or pushpins. The magnets in Buckyballs are powerful enough that they can perforate through your stomach or your intestines.
Also, calling it a "desk"toy is purely semantics. Other toys designed for adult audiences are still held to the same safety regulation standards as toys designed for children, so why should rare earth magnet toys be an exception, especially since they're far more hazardous?
Also why the fuck should I be punished (I don't own them) because someone is a numbskull ? That's all kinds of stupid.
You're not being fucking punished. Its not about you. Turns out that society puts a greater emphasis on not wasting medical resources and the health and well being of children than the general availability of desktoy fucking magnets or making parents and their children pay for theoretical negligence
The negligence isn't "theoretical." Heck, I still remember going through the "These are Advil and these are M&Ms, they are the same size and shape, but you shouldn't eat a bunch of Advils..." presentation with Officer Smiley back in my first grade class.
The kids eating these aren't, according to the CPSC, toddlers, but kids old enough to at least understand the idea that, "Hey, don't eat things that don't come out of that big cold box in the middle of the kitchen. Even if you want to. Even if you want to very badly. Even if you just want to see what happens. Don't. Just don't."
Also why the fuck should I be punished (I don't own them) because someone is a numbskull ? That's all kinds of stupid.
You're not being fucking punished. Its not about you. Turns out that society puts a greater emphasis on not wasting medical resources and the health and well being of children than the general availability of desktoy fucking magnets or making parents and their children pay for theoretical negligence
Why the fuck is your dangerous toy near arms' reach of a toddler/small kid? Keep it out of reach just like medicines.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
They're only intrinsically dangerous around stupid children with bad parents which kind of invalidates the use of the word intrinsic.
Toddlers that put things in their mouths and swallow them aren't stupid.
They're toddlers.
Toddlers are less than a yard tall and clumsy as hell. How are they getting these things if the parent isn't leaving them on the coffee table or something?
Trust me, they aren't scaling to the top of a regular filing cabinet or bookshelf to chow down on these things when the cookie jar is always more easily reachable.
Meaning something that you're supposed to keep on your desk to play with when you're bored.
Which means that, when used as intended, toddlers will have much easier access to them than, say, cleaning supplies, power tools, or guns.
They'll also have access to paper clips, which can be either steel-colored like these Buckyball things or colored like candy, and pushpins, which generally are made of shiny plastic that is brightly colored like candy...so?
Also, as you said, these are a desk toys...presumably for the millions of people who work in offices and cubicles, not for mom who maybe sends out a couple faxes a day and goes over the checking account from the home office.
Ingesting a couple of rare earth magnets can do much more extensive internal damage than swallowing paper clips or pushpins. The magnets in Buckyballs are powerful enough that they can perforate through your stomach or your intestines.
Also, calling it a "desk"toy is purely semantics. Other toys designed for adult audiences are still held to the same safety regulation standards as toys designed for children, so why should rare earth magnet toys be an exception, especially since they're far more hazardous?
Um. I may be wrong here, since I've not researched it, but I'm pretty sure a paintball gun, airsoft replica, any number of collectable figurines with sharp sword things, ad so on are NOT held to the same standard as a Barbie doll.
I do know for a fact that toys for certain age groups have different safety testing for specific things, such as choking, etc, etc. This may or may not reflect differing standards.
I would honestly have no problem restricting the use of paintball guns to properly supervised facilities, since you asked.
This is all you people need to know about the person you are arguing with. There will be no convincing Lawndart. He believes in making the world as cuddly and safe as possible. My guess is you own a shitton of stuff Lawndart would like banned. There's no way to win this argument since it's not about facts, it's about belief and the type of place a person wants to live in.
Ingesting a couple of rare earth magnets can do much more extensive internal damage than swallowing paper clips or pushpins. The magnets in Buckyballs are powerful enough that they can perforate through your stomach or your intestines.
The notiong they might hurt someone worse has nothing to do with the idea that you're suggesting that toddlers will eat them because simply they're on a desk. They're also up there with more enticing, colorful objects that are also tiny and swallowable. Again, so?
I would honestly have no problem restricting the use of paintball guns to properly supervised facilities, since you asked.
This is all you people need to know about the person you are arguing with. There will be no convincing Lawndart. He believes in making the world as cuddly and safe as possible. My guess is you own a shitton of stuff Lawndart would like banned. There's no way to win this argument since it's not about facts, it's about belief and the type of place a person wants to live in.
Those little green plastic soldiers I have in my old toy collection are pre-molded murder.
Ingesting a couple of rare earth magnets can do much more extensive internal damage than swallowing paper clips or pushpins. The magnets in Buckyballs are powerful enough that they can perforate through your stomach or your intestines.
The notion they might hurt someone worse has nothing to do with the idea that you're suggesting that toddlers will eat them because simply they're on a desk. They're also up there with more enticing, colorful objects that are also tiny and swallowable. Again, so?
Uh, yes it has everything to do with the idea that toddlers will potentially swallow them. Pushpins and paper clips have actual uses other than amusement and are far less hazardous than small, round, rare earth magnets sold as toys. Which makes restricting the sale of those rare earth magnets a better idea than restricting the sale of office supplies.
My point was mainly that toddlers, regardless of intelligence, have an almost reflexive urge to put things in their mouth, and that even the most alert parents can't always prevent that from happening. Claiming that it's only "stupid" toddlers that do so, or that it's only "stupid" parents who wind up having their toddlers ingest non-food items, is a goosey assumption to make.
A tack is probably slightly less dangerous than buckyballs (you'd have to have multiple bucky balls but only one tack).
Plus tacks are colorful most of the time. Lawndart's concern is they're sold as toys... I don't really see the problem with this, they're not sold to children. You can't even get them at stores, and on the internet you'd have to be old enough to order it. And then all the warnings.
The company has done its due diligence here.
Edit: jesus christ my spelling
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I would honestly have no problem restricting the use of paintball guns to properly supervised facilities, since you asked.
This is all you people need to know about the person you are arguing with. There will be no convincing Lawndart. He believes in making the world as cuddly and safe as possible. My guess is you own a shitton of stuff Lawndart would like banned. There's no way to win this argument since it's not about facts, it's about belief and the type of place a person wants to live in.
You want to live in a world where kids die so you can have cool stuff. Yeah, definitely not about facts.
0
Options
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
I meant the liklihood of running into another owner of bucky balls than yourself is unlikely. If you are buying them, lock that shit up.
It is not hard to grasp that this is a dangerous toy. Just like you shouldn't let a 6 year old near a band saw, or drain cleaner.
I am at a loss for words why a lot of you think this concept is hard. Do you not think locking hunting rifles up is a good thing?
So you think this desk toy is obviously unsafe, is comparable to a band saw or drain cleaner one should have to lock it up, but don't think it should be banned when the actual real world sale of this product has produced an increasing number of children requiring surgical intervention to treat the otherwise fatal consequences of swallowing it.
How many people have died, how many were children? How many were because the parents didn't properly lock up and hide the toy?
Yes, they are adult toys, if these were marketed towards children, so be it, slap the company with fines. I don't know why I'm being lambasted with "you should know children put shit in their mouths you horrible man" and not these parents that didn't put their god damned desk toy away.
I mean fucking fuck, man, we should require people to go to the pharmacy every time they need a god damned medicine just because some large number of kids die/get sick from that shit and require medical/surgical intervention.
Multiple children have died, hundreds have required surgery that is among the most complex/expensive that exist (intestinal surgery is hardcore, and when there are magnets that want to stick to all your surgical tools, that doesn't help). My wife works is a pediatric nurse on a post-op floor, and I just double checked with her that she has personally had over 2 dozen patients in the last 4-5 years who have required surgery for this (and she only has 2-3 patients at a time) with a recovery period of at least a week. This is likely high because its a very good hospital and her floor does a lot of intestinal work (mostly transplants) but its not like we're talking one kid a single time.
We noticed an increase in magnetic ingestions during the first 4 months of 2012 in a children's hospital in New Orleans. Secondary to this observation we asked members of NASPGHAN about cases seen in the past 2 years. This informal survey answered by 33 pediatric gastroenterologists reported 84 cases.
There are 1500 pediatric gastroenterologists that are part of this organization. If the prevalence for these 33 was double that of the average rate, that would suggest 1000 cases a year (or less than 1% of incidents of children swallowing small foreign objects). That could be overcounting (or undercounting) this number significantly and they are doing a formal survey to get more information. That will of course not count those treated by non-pediatric specialists. But its a lot of kids
The "actual proof" that the warning labels are insufficient is because that after the new and more specific warning labels were put on the product, the incidents of accidental ingestion and injury increased rather than decreasing.
Where's you proof that during that same time frame that consumers became less responsible?
Out of curiosity, are you engaging the thread or having a shouting match with Bowen?
What are the increases, though? Do we have anything close to numbers, like "In 2009 there were four deaths from the popular desk-toy Buckyballs. In 2011, by contrast, that rrate has increased by 100 times to over 400 deaths from said product..."
Do we have anything like that?
I haven't seen an argument here that suggests parents are becoming less responsible.
Wait, I'm "shouting" now? Or are you just being a condescending goose for no reason?
I read your link and looked at what little numbers you put forward, but none of this is clear and reliable statistics, just guesswork based on anecdote. How can you decry something and call for it's banning with such little actual evidence? Sure the potential danger is great, but no figures exist that demonstrate what the government is claiming about Buckyballs: which is that the warning labels are ineffective. You can't clearly demonstrate the labels are ineffective with guesswork and that's all that's been presented thus far. In order to do that you'd have to clearly demonstrate that the increased incidence of injury is NOT caused by sales growth in the product, and the figures cited by both of you don't demonstrate that in the slightest, because they don't include sales figures of Buckyballs and similar toys (and desk toys) over the same time period as the incidences of injury.
With as few facts as you and the CPCS have gathered it is not even clear that the incidence of injury has actually increased from 2010 to 2012.
Personally I think this case has more to do with how the CPCS has become a (tiny) bit too wary of toys thanks to the backlash caused by their failure to detect unsafe Chinese toys that landed them in so much hot water over the last several years, and Obama's directive that they take a much more proactive stance in regards to child welfare. Otherwise the figures should be unquestionable before going to court.
Please show me the graph the proves that the rate of incidence increase is NOT due to growth in sales, and then I might believe the claim that it is instead due to something else. However, even then that would not affirmatively prove that the labels don't work, because there are numerous other possible causes that would have to be ruled out first, such as improper supervision, and parental negligence (it happens too, you know).
Ingesting a couple of rare earth magnets can do much more extensive internal damage than swallowing paper clips or pushpins. The magnets in Buckyballs are powerful enough that they can perforate through your stomach or your intestines.
The notion they might hurt someone worse has nothing to do with the idea that you're suggesting that toddlers will eat them because simply they're on a desk. They're also up there with more enticing, colorful objects that are also tiny and swallowable. Again, so?
Uh, yes it has everything to do with the idea that toddlers will potentially swallow them. Pushpins and paper clips have actual uses other than amusement and are far less hazardous than small, round, rare earth magnets sold as toys. Which makes restricting the sale of those rare earth magnets a better idea than restricting the sale of office supplies.
They're all found on a desk. To your hypothetical toddler, there's a feast to be had.
My point was mainly that toddlers, regardless of intelligence, have an almost reflexive urge to put things in their mouth, and that even the most alert parents can't always prevent that from happening. Claiming that it's only "stupid" toddlers that do so, or that it's only "stupid" parents who wind up having their toddlers ingest non-food items, is a goosey assumption to make.
But this, according to the CSPC isn't even involving toddlers...again, so?
I would honestly have no problem restricting the use of paintball guns to properly supervised facilities, since you asked.
This is all you people need to know about the person you are arguing with. There will be no convincing Lawndart. He believes in making the world as cuddly and safe as possible. My guess is you own a shitton of stuff Lawndart would like banned. There's no way to win this argument since it's not about facts, it's about belief and the type of place a person wants to live in.
You want to live in a world where kids die so you can have cool stuff. Yeah, definitely not about facts.
Yeah I do, fuck the other end of our gene pool, if you're not smart enough to parent your children properly (meaning you don't lock up dangerous shit).
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
A tack is probably slightly less dangerous than buckyballs (you'd have to have multiple bucky balls but only one tack).
Plus tacks are colorful mosts of the time. Lawndart's concern is they're sold as toys... I don't really see the problem with this, they're not sold to children. You can't even get them at stores, and on the internet you'd have to be old enough to order it. And then all the warnings.
The company has done its due diligence here.
The warnings have been shown to not be effective, and rare earth magnets are much more hazardous to ingest than tacks. The semantic difference between "toy" and "toy for adults" is meaningless when it comes to safety regulations. The company has also refused to participate in a voluntary recall.
A tack is probably slightly less dangerous than buckyballs (you'd have to have multiple bucky balls but only one tack).
Plus tacks are colorful mosts of the time. Lawndart's concern is they're sold as toys... I don't really see the problem with this, they're not sold to children. You can't even get them at stores, and on the internet you'd have to be old enough to order it. And then all the warnings.
The company has done its due diligence here.
The warnings have been shown to not be effective, and rare earth magnets are much more hazardous to ingest than tacks. The semantic difference between "toy" and "toy for adults" is meaningless when it comes to safety regulations. The company has also refused to participate in a voluntary recall.
Good, I don't give a fuck.
Idiot parent let's kid die because they didn't secure dangerous materials, news at 11.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I would honestly have no problem restricting the use of paintball guns to properly supervised facilities, since you asked.
This is all you people need to know about the person you are arguing with. There will be no convincing Lawndart. He believes in making the world as cuddly and safe as possible. My guess is you own a shitton of stuff Lawndart would like banned. There's no way to win this argument since it's not about facts, it's about belief and the type of place a person wants to live in.
You want to live in a world where kids die so you can have cool stuff. Yeah, definitely not about facts.
Ideally, I'd want a world where parents don't let their kids near things that can kill their kids if their kids put that shit in their mouth. Like, where parents lock up shit that their kids shouldn't eat if their kids put shit that they shouldn't eat in their mouth.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
I would honestly have no problem restricting the use of paintball guns to properly supervised facilities, since you asked.
This is all you people need to know about the person you are arguing with. There will be no convincing Lawndart. He believes in making the world as cuddly and safe as possible. My guess is you own a shitton of stuff Lawndart would like banned. There's no way to win this argument since it's not about facts, it's about belief and the type of place a person wants to live in.
You want to live in a world where kids die so you can have cool stuff. Yeah, definitely not about facts.
Yeah I do, fuck the other end of our gene pool, if you're not smart enough to parent your children properly (meaning you don't lock up dangerous shit).
Fuck the children, now that you are excluded from that group!
The semantic difference between "toy" and "toy for adults" is meaningless when it comes to safety regulations.
Dude, the semantic difference between "toy" and "toy" matters between things designed purely for kids. You realize that LEGO blocks have a choking warning on them while a frisbee doesn't, right?
A tack is probably slightly less dangerous than buckyballs (you'd have to have multiple bucky balls but only one tack).
Plus tacks are colorful mosts of the time. Lawndart's concern is they're sold as toys... I don't really see the problem with this, they're not sold to children. You can't even get them at stores, and on the internet you'd have to be old enough to order it. And then all the warnings.
The company has done its due diligence here.
The warnings have been shown to not be effective, and rare earth magnets are much more hazardous to ingest than tacks. The semantic difference between "toy" and "toy for adults" is meaningless when it comes to safety regulations. The company has also refused to participate in a voluntary recall.
Good, I don't give a fuck.
Idiot parent let's kid die because they didn't secure dangerous materials, news at 11.
Okay, since you're not actually arguing in good faith and are instead going for the trite sociopathic tough guy Social Darwnist cliche, I can safely ignore anything you have to say.
A tack is probably slightly less dangerous than buckyballs (you'd have to have multiple bucky balls but only one tack).
Plus tacks are colorful mosts of the time. Lawndart's concern is they're sold as toys... I don't really see the problem with this, they're not sold to children. You can't even get them at stores, and on the internet you'd have to be old enough to order it. And then all the warnings.
The company has done its due diligence here.
The warnings have been shown to not be effective, and rare earth magnets are much more hazardous to ingest than tacks. The semantic difference between "toy" and "toy for adults" is meaningless when it comes to safety regulations. The company has also refused to participate in a voluntary recall.
Good, I don't give a fuck.
Idiot parent let's kid die because they didn't secure dangerous materials, news at 11.
Okay, since you're not actually arguing in good faith and are instead going for the trite sociopathic tough guy Social Darwnist cliche, I can safely ignore anything you have to say.
I'm pretty sure we are talking about regular Darwinism here.
I would honestly have no problem restricting the use of paintball guns to properly supervised facilities, since you asked.
This is all you people need to know about the person you are arguing with. There will be no convincing Lawndart. He believes in making the world as cuddly and safe as possible. My guess is you own a shitton of stuff Lawndart would like banned. There's no way to win this argument since it's not about facts, it's about belief and the type of place a person wants to live in.
You want to live in a world where kids die so you can have cool stuff. Yeah, definitely not about facts.
Ideally, I'd want a world where parents don't let their kids near things that can kill their kids if their kids put that shit in their mouth. Like, where parents lock up shit that their kids shouldn't eat if their kids put shit that they shouldn't eat in their mouth.
Like, instead of banning the sale of specific toys, how about we educate adults so they're less shitty about their kids?
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
You're not even arguing in good faith to begin with, you're scared your precious snow flake is going to get a hold of a rare earth magnet and swallow the shit out of it and die. Because you forgot to put it away, but alas they're toys! Kids play with toys!
Like those "sex toys" they're just toys! :rotate: Sex is just a useless description, they're toys!
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I get your sentiment, but your point only stands if what you are claming is that you were stupid enough to eat ball bearings at a child.
For fuck's sake, little kids instinctively put things in their mouths. Claiming that it's only the "stupid" kids that do so shows that you are, in fact, completely ignorant about the actual behavior of small children.
I'm pretty sure we are talking about regular Darwinism here.
Since we're talking about a hazardous toy released as a commercial product, and the argument is between the supposed right to sell a hazardous toy vs. the right to hold toys to certain safety standards, it's very much social Darwinism.
Ingesting a couple of rare earth magnets can do much more extensive internal damage than swallowing paper clips or pushpins. The magnets in Buckyballs are powerful enough that they can perforate through your stomach or your intestines.
The notion they might hurt someone worse has nothing to do with the idea that you're suggesting that toddlers will eat them because simply they're on a desk. They're also up there with more enticing, colorful objects that are also tiny and swallowable. Again, so?
Uh, yes it has everything to do with the idea that toddlers will potentially swallow them. Pushpins and paper clips have actual uses other than amusement and are far less hazardous than small, round, rare earth magnets sold as toys. Which makes restricting the sale of those rare earth magnets a better idea than restricting the sale of office supplies.
My point was mainly that toddlers, regardless of intelligence, have an almost reflexive urge to put things in their mouth, and that even the most alert parents can't always prevent that from happening. Claiming that it's only "stupid" toddlers that do so, or that it's only "stupid" parents who wind up having their toddlers ingest non-food items, is a goosey assumption to make.
It's not stupid parents whose toddler ingests non-food items. It's stupid parents who have their toddler in close proximity to non-food items that will do dramatic internal damage if ingested. I can't think of any reason why a kid young enough to not be taught better would be in proximity to a pile of rare earth magnets outside of either bizarre happenstance or parental neglect. Don't have things like that in your house if you have a toddler. Don't take your toddler to places that have things like that in them. Done!
If the kid is old enough to have been taught better and wasn't, then it's only stupid parents -- or at least shitty parents -- who fail to do so.
Also: rare earth magnets in similar size and, sometimes, shape, to buckyballs are sold as office supplies, not just toys. The company that makes buckyballs also produces 'buckycubes', which are the same thing and the same size but cubical; they are in all fashions identical to rare earth magnets sold as actual magnets meant for holding shit to metal surfaces. Other companies sell cylindrical or rectangular prism-shaped magnets of similar size for the purpose of holding stuff to a surface. The only difference between those products and buckyballs or buckycubes is the packaging. I own both a box of buckyballs and a tube of rare earth magnets intended for use as holding-stuff-to-stuff-devices; the buckyballs had more safety warnings than the just-magnets did.
A tack is probably slightly less dangerous than buckyballs (you'd have to have multiple bucky balls but only one tack).
Plus tacks are colorful mosts of the time. Lawndart's concern is they're sold as toys... I don't really see the problem with this, they're not sold to children. You can't even get them at stores, and on the internet you'd have to be old enough to order it. And then all the warnings.
The company has done its due diligence here.
The warnings have been shown to not be effective, and rare earth magnets are much more hazardous to ingest than tacks. The semantic difference between "toy" and "toy for adults" is meaningless when it comes to safety regulations. The company has also refused to participate in a voluntary recall.
Nothing has been proven about the warnings at all. You don't even have reliable and complete figures for the rate of actual incidence.
As far as proving that the toy is intrinsically unsafe and no warning label can ever fix that, presumably that can't be considered proven until the CPCS wins the court case, and that hasn't even begun, yet.
It's not stupid parents whose toddler ingests non-food items. It's stupid parents who have their toddler in close proximity to non-food items that will do dramatic internal damage if ingested. I can't think of any reason why a kid young enough to not be taught better would be in proximity to a pile of rare earth magnets outside of either bizarre happenstance or parental neglect. Don't have things like that in your house if you have a toddler. Don't take your toddler to places that have things like that in them. Done!
If the kid is old enough to have been taught better and wasn't, then it's only stupid parents -- or at least shitty parents -- who fail to do so.
Also: rare earth magnets in similar size and, sometimes, shape, to buckyballs are sold as office supplies, not just toys. The company that makes buckyballs also produces 'buckycubes', which are the same thing and the same size but cubical; they are in all fashions identical to rare earth magnets sold as actual magnets meant for holding shit to metal surfaces. Other companies sell cylindrical or rectangular prism-shaped magnets of similar size for the purpose of holding stuff to a surface. The only difference between those products and buckyballs or buckycubes is the packaging. I own both a box of buckyballs and a tube of rare earth magnets intended for use as holding-stuff-to-stuff-devices; the buckyballs had more safety warnings than the just-magnets did.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
"Some toddlers ate some fridge magnets...boo Buckyballs!"
It doesn't tally with your first CPSC report which isn't about toddlers, but kids that should know better.
It's the same report.
Yes, but the report is unclear and poorly written. It is not clear that they were asserting that toddlers were eating Buckyballs, only that they "received reports of toddlers finding loose magnets left within reach and placing them in their mouths." Buckyballs are not the only magnets and considering how hard they are for adults to pry apart, it stands to reason that toddlers were almost certainly eating some other variety.
Face it, the CPCS is on a witch hunt here to make up for it's terrible failures in recent years over toys from China, and to show Obama that they are taking his directives seriously.
A side note: should I ever chose to buy as lame of a toy as Buckyballs, the Buckyballs will be locked up like the Drano and other dangerous things that my home contains.
Anyone have numbers on the number of incidents involving lawn darts that led to their ban? Unless I am mistaken the very act of using the lawn dart properly was inherently dangerous as it involved throwing a spiked object into the air with the purpose of it sticking into the ground some distance away.
Nobody answered this in the last couple pages: when the CPSC started looking at them, there had been three deaths and a number of injuries (I've seen claims from several dozen to around a hundred). There was at least one more before they were banned, and a few scattered incidents afterward. That's just in the US - not counting Canada, which also banned them after several deaths. Also not counting pets - way more dogs were hit than people.
The place where the lawn dart/buckyball comparison breaks down: The lawn dart deaths weren't attributed to improper use. They were playing the game as described in the instructions, and the third death, which sparked the investigation, the family was actually taking additional precautions beyond the instructions. Of course, like I mentioned before the instructions literally had you throwing them towards people, so I suppose "additional precautions" could mean "sunglasses."
A tack is probably slightly less dangerous than buckyballs (you'd have to have multiple bucky balls but only one tack).
Plus tacks are colorful mosts of the time. Lawndart's concern is they're sold as toys... I don't really see the problem with this, they're not sold to children. You can't even get them at stores, and on the internet you'd have to be old enough to order it. And then all the warnings.
The company has done its due diligence here.
The warnings have been shown to not be effective, and rare earth magnets are much more hazardous to ingest than tacks. The semantic difference between "toy" and "toy for adults" is meaningless when it comes to safety regulations. The company has also refused to participate in a voluntary recall.
Nothing has been proven about the warnings at all. You don't even have reliable and complete figures for the rate of actual incidence.
As far as proving that the toy is intrinsically unsafe and no warning label can ever fix that, presumably that can't be considered proven until the CPCS wins the court case, and that hasn't even begun, yet.
I'd say that the CPCS has more than enough grounds to file their lawsuit with the evidence they have, especially since the company that makes Buckyballs refused to agree to a voluntary recall.
My personal opinion is that Buckyballs are intrinsically unsafe to be sold as a toy, based on the evidence presented so far. The only response I've seen from the Buckyballs company, other than blaming Obama, is that they're not marketing their product as a children's toy and that alone is sufficient, not that the increased rate of accidental injury and ingestion can be attributed to increased sales. That was pure assumption made by someone in this thread, which may or may not be the case, but it's even less supported than the CPCS claims.
Why are these kids around random rare earth magnets? No one has fucking answered that yet. The product isn't dangerous in and of itself, it's dangerous because these fucktarded parents are just leaving this shit all over the place apparently. Coffee tables, the floor, bottom of the fridge.
For fucks sake lawndart stop being a silly goose.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
Presumably there would be a slight upward trend simply because the company keeps selling their products and therefore the number of people at risk increases. But, according to that press release:
If there was a clear upward trend, I'm sure they'd mention it in their press release. Furthermore, there's no mention of Buckyballs causing a single death, ever. Sounds like a common case of a government agency pretending to do something useful even though the benefits remain marginal, if not entirely hypothetical. Buckyballs is an easy target, nobody "needs" their product, nobody cares if they get put out of business. But at least that hypothetical kid who might die from Buckyballs will stay alive -- until his useless parents let him down a handful of thumb tacks with drain cleaner.
I think the interesting thing in the article you linked is that they find over 200 cases before 2008. Which is before Buckyballs (or similar products) were produced and marketed as toys. Does this mean we should ban all small rare earth magnets?
For example, you can go to Amazon and buy these:
http://www.amazon.com/Applied-Magnets-Earth-Neodymium-Discs/dp/B0012AUU84
For all intents and purposes, they are exactly the same as Buckyballs. (smaller even!) The only difference is that they are not marketed as "desktoys". Should these also be banned?
Ingesting a couple of rare earth magnets can do much more extensive internal damage than swallowing paper clips or pushpins. The magnets in Buckyballs are powerful enough that they can perforate through your stomach or your intestines.
Also, calling it a "desk"toy is purely semantics. Other toys designed for adult audiences are still held to the same safety regulation standards as toys designed for children, so why should rare earth magnet toys be an exception, especially since they're far more hazardous?
The negligence isn't "theoretical." Heck, I still remember going through the "These are Advil and these are M&Ms, they are the same size and shape, but you shouldn't eat a bunch of Advils..." presentation with Officer Smiley back in my first grade class.
The kids eating these aren't, according to the CPSC, toddlers, but kids old enough to at least understand the idea that, "Hey, don't eat things that don't come out of that big cold box in the middle of the kitchen. Even if you want to. Even if you want to very badly. Even if you just want to see what happens. Don't. Just don't."
Why the fuck is your dangerous toy near arms' reach of a toddler/small kid? Keep it out of reach just like medicines.
Um. I may be wrong here, since I've not researched it, but I'm pretty sure a paintball gun, airsoft replica, any number of collectable figurines with sharp sword things, ad so on are NOT held to the same standard as a Barbie doll.
I do know for a fact that toys for certain age groups have different safety testing for specific things, such as choking, etc, etc. This may or may not reflect differing standards.
This is all you people need to know about the person you are arguing with. There will be no convincing Lawndart. He believes in making the world as cuddly and safe as possible. My guess is you own a shitton of stuff Lawndart would like banned. There's no way to win this argument since it's not about facts, it's about belief and the type of place a person wants to live in.
The notiong they might hurt someone worse has nothing to do with the idea that you're suggesting that toddlers will eat them because simply they're on a desk. They're also up there with more enticing, colorful objects that are also tiny and swallowable. Again, so?
Those little green plastic soldiers I have in my old toy collection are pre-molded murder.
Uh, yes it has everything to do with the idea that toddlers will potentially swallow them. Pushpins and paper clips have actual uses other than amusement and are far less hazardous than small, round, rare earth magnets sold as toys. Which makes restricting the sale of those rare earth magnets a better idea than restricting the sale of office supplies.
My point was mainly that toddlers, regardless of intelligence, have an almost reflexive urge to put things in their mouth, and that even the most alert parents can't always prevent that from happening. Claiming that it's only "stupid" toddlers that do so, or that it's only "stupid" parents who wind up having their toddlers ingest non-food items, is a goosey assumption to make.
Plus tacks are colorful most of the time. Lawndart's concern is they're sold as toys... I don't really see the problem with this, they're not sold to children. You can't even get them at stores, and on the internet you'd have to be old enough to order it. And then all the warnings.
The company has done its due diligence here.
Edit: jesus christ my spelling
You want to live in a world where kids die so you can have cool stuff. Yeah, definitely not about facts.
With as few facts as you and the CPCS have gathered it is not even clear that the incidence of injury has actually increased from 2010 to 2012.
Personally I think this case has more to do with how the CPCS has become a (tiny) bit too wary of toys thanks to the backlash caused by their failure to detect unsafe Chinese toys that landed them in so much hot water over the last several years, and Obama's directive that they take a much more proactive stance in regards to child welfare. Otherwise the figures should be unquestionable before going to court.
Please show me the graph the proves that the rate of incidence increase is NOT due to growth in sales, and then I might believe the claim that it is instead due to something else. However, even then that would not affirmatively prove that the labels don't work, because there are numerous other possible causes that would have to be ruled out first, such as improper supervision, and parental negligence (it happens too, you know).
try this
They're all found on a desk. To your hypothetical toddler, there's a feast to be had.
But this, according to the CSPC isn't even involving toddlers...again, so?
Yeah I do, fuck the other end of our gene pool, if you're not smart enough to parent your children properly (meaning you don't lock up dangerous shit).
The warnings have been shown to not be effective, and rare earth magnets are much more hazardous to ingest than tacks. The semantic difference between "toy" and "toy for adults" is meaningless when it comes to safety regulations. The company has also refused to participate in a voluntary recall.
Good, I don't give a fuck.
Idiot parent let's kid die because they didn't secure dangerous materials, news at 11.
Ideally, I'd want a world where parents don't let their kids near things that can kill their kids if their kids put that shit in their mouth. Like, where parents lock up shit that their kids shouldn't eat if their kids put shit that they shouldn't eat in their mouth.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Fuck the children, now that you are excluded from that group!
Dude, the semantic difference between "toy" and "toy" matters between things designed purely for kids. You realize that LEGO blocks have a choking warning on them while a frisbee doesn't, right?
Okay, since you're not actually arguing in good faith and are instead going for the trite sociopathic tough guy Social Darwnist cliche, I can safely ignore anything you have to say.
"CPSC has received reports of toddlers finding loose magnets left within reach and placing them in their mouths."
I'm pretty sure we are talking about regular Darwinism here.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
I get your sentiment, but your point only stands if what you are claming is that you were stupid enough to eat ball bearings at a child.
Like, instead of banning the sale of specific toys, how about we educate adults so they're less shitty about their kids?
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Like those "sex toys" they're just toys! :rotate: Sex is just a useless description, they're toys!
"Some toddlers ate some fridge magnets...boo Buckyballs!"
It doesn't tally with your first CPSC report which isn't about toddlers, but kids that should know better.
For fuck's sake, little kids instinctively put things in their mouths. Claiming that it's only the "stupid" kids that do so shows that you are, in fact, completely ignorant about the actual behavior of small children.
Quit shifting from toddlers to little kids.
Since we're talking about a hazardous toy released as a commercial product, and the argument is between the supposed right to sell a hazardous toy vs. the right to hold toys to certain safety standards, it's very much social Darwinism.
It's not stupid parents whose toddler ingests non-food items. It's stupid parents who have their toddler in close proximity to non-food items that will do dramatic internal damage if ingested. I can't think of any reason why a kid young enough to not be taught better would be in proximity to a pile of rare earth magnets outside of either bizarre happenstance or parental neglect. Don't have things like that in your house if you have a toddler. Don't take your toddler to places that have things like that in them. Done!
If the kid is old enough to have been taught better and wasn't, then it's only stupid parents -- or at least shitty parents -- who fail to do so.
Also: rare earth magnets in similar size and, sometimes, shape, to buckyballs are sold as office supplies, not just toys. The company that makes buckyballs also produces 'buckycubes', which are the same thing and the same size but cubical; they are in all fashions identical to rare earth magnets sold as actual magnets meant for holding shit to metal surfaces. Other companies sell cylindrical or rectangular prism-shaped magnets of similar size for the purpose of holding stuff to a surface. The only difference between those products and buckyballs or buckycubes is the packaging. I own both a box of buckyballs and a tube of rare earth magnets intended for use as holding-stuff-to-stuff-devices; the buckyballs had more safety warnings than the just-magnets did.
It's the same report.
As far as proving that the toy is intrinsically unsafe and no warning label can ever fix that, presumably that can't be considered proven until the CPCS wins the court case, and that hasn't even begun, yet.
try this
My mistake. I thought the CPSC report someone responded to me with was the same one you had since they both dealt with kids eating magnets.
Either way, the "toddler" segment of the report you posted is so weasel worded it'd get clobbered on Wikipedia in a hot-second.
Face it, the CPCS is on a witch hunt here to make up for it's terrible failures in recent years over toys from China, and to show Obama that they are taking his directives seriously.
A side note: should I ever chose to buy as lame of a toy as Buckyballs, the Buckyballs will be locked up like the Drano and other dangerous things that my home contains.
try this
Nobody answered this in the last couple pages: when the CPSC started looking at them, there had been three deaths and a number of injuries (I've seen claims from several dozen to around a hundred). There was at least one more before they were banned, and a few scattered incidents afterward. That's just in the US - not counting Canada, which also banned them after several deaths. Also not counting pets - way more dogs were hit than people.
The place where the lawn dart/buckyball comparison breaks down: The lawn dart deaths weren't attributed to improper use. They were playing the game as described in the instructions, and the third death, which sparked the investigation, the family was actually taking additional precautions beyond the instructions. Of course, like I mentioned before the instructions literally had you throwing them towards people, so I suppose "additional precautions" could mean "sunglasses."
I'd say that the CPCS has more than enough grounds to file their lawsuit with the evidence they have, especially since the company that makes Buckyballs refused to agree to a voluntary recall.
My personal opinion is that Buckyballs are intrinsically unsafe to be sold as a toy, based on the evidence presented so far. The only response I've seen from the Buckyballs company, other than blaming Obama, is that they're not marketing their product as a children's toy and that alone is sufficient, not that the increased rate of accidental injury and ingestion can be attributed to increased sales. That was pure assumption made by someone in this thread, which may or may not be the case, but it's even less supported than the CPCS claims.
For fucks sake lawndart stop being a silly goose.