Health and cakey strike again..

[@meric@nwom@n]

My spouse has a severe food allergy. Coconut. Yes, if I eat coconut no kissing for a time. Has to go to the ER every time he is exposed or he will die. Grew up with it, went to school with it and survived without banning coconuts.

Whatever ridiculous analogy you want to come up with matters naught to me. It is asinine to ban peanuts in schools. It makes more sense to take responsibility for the safety of one's OWN child. Don't count on other folks to do it for you.

[Scooter]

Give me one good reason why a parent would ever wish to send their child to school with a knife?

To cut up a piece of steak he or she brought for lunch.
To whittle or sculpt wood for an art project.
To rehearse the Jets vs. Sharks fight scene for a school production of West Side Story.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Or spread peanut butter.

[Sean]

Give me one good reason why a parent would ever wish to send their child to school with a knife?

To cut up a piece of steak he or she brought for lunch.
To whittle or sculpt wood for an art project.
To rehearse the Jets vs. Sharks fight scene for a school production of West Side Story.

LMAO

Fair enough but...

Steak would be too heavy a lunch for a young child and could cause afternoon drowsiness and inattention.
Art supplies and equipment should be provided by the school.
Even adult productions would use prop knives.

[Scooter]

Bullies seem to sufficiently understand the dangers of peanut products to be using them as weapons to torment the victims of allergies; strange how some here don't seem to get it.

When a Wenatchee, Wash., high school student smeared peanut butter on the forehead of a fellow student with a serious peanut allergy two years ago, it was so shocking that the offender faced an assault charge and four days in jail.

“What were you thinking when you did this?” district court Judge Nancy Harmon asked Joshua Hickson, then 19, before the sentencing, according to news reports.

But a new study of parents and kids living with allergies suggests that bullying of youngsters allergic to foods of all types is actually a widespread — and potentially life-threatening — worry.

[F]or 35 percent of those who responded to the survey, the bullying took a physical form. That included everything from waving a peanut butter sandwich in front of an allergic child to intentionally contaminating food with an allergen.

Twelve of the kids said that they had been touched with foods to which they were allergic, contact that could cause minor skin irritation — or a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction.

Nearly 86 percent of those bullied said it had happened more than once. About 82 percent of the bullying incidents were carried out by other students, most often at schools. But, Sicherer noted, 18 of those who were bullied, or about 20 percent, were teased or harassed by a teacher or other school staff.

[loCAtek]

It's actually very rarely fatal;

"Dr. Christakis points out that about 3.3 million Americans are allergic to nuts[specifically a peanut allergy 0.4-0.6% of the population], and even more — 6.9 million — are allergic to seafood. But of 30 million hospitalizations each year, just 2,000 are due to food allergies, and about 150 people die annually from serious allergic food reactions. That’s the same number of people killed by bee stings and lightning strikes combined. About 10,000 children are hospitalized annually with traumatic brain injuries from sports, 2,000 children drown each year, and about 1,300 die in gun accidents, he writes." Media sensationalism has also been blamed.[15]

Wiki

[Lord Jim]

That’s the same number of people killed by bee stings and lightning strikes combined.

Well then an equally good case could be made for banning bees and lightning....

2,000 children drown each year,

Let's ban water!

[@meric@nwom@n]

Bullies seem to sufficiently understand the dangers of peanut products to be using them as weapons to torment the victims of allergies; strange how some here don't seem to get it.

When a Wenatchee, Wash., high school student smeared peanut butter on the forehead of a fellow student with a serious peanut allergy two years ago, it was so shocking that the offender faced an assault charge and four days in jail.

“What were you thinking when you did this?” district court Judge Nancy Harmon asked Joshua Hickson, then 19, before the sentencing, according to news reports.

But a new study of parents and kids living with allergies suggests that bullying of youngsters allergic to foods of all types is actually a widespread — and potentially life-threatening — worry.

[F]or 35 percent of those who responded to the survey, the bullying took a physical form. That included everything from waving a peanut butter sandwich in front of an allergic child to intentionally contaminating food with an allergen.

Twelve of the kids said that they had been touched with foods to which they were allergic, contact that could cause minor skin irritation — or a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction.

Nearly 86 percent of those bullied said it had happened more than once. About 82 percent of the bullying incidents were carried out by other students, most often at schools. But, Sicherer noted, 18 of those who were bullied, or about 20 percent, were teased or harassed by a teacher or other school staff.

I am aware and GET the bullying. I still believe that banning the peanuts is the answer. Deal with the kids doing the bullying.

[Big RR]

Indeed, let's ban bullying.

And as for allergies, peanuts are not the only airborne allergy that can cause death. My wife has a severe (severe enough to cause hospitalization if exposed, and severe enough that she always carries an epi-pen with her (even on planes)) allergy to cats, yet about a year back the two people directly behind on a plane us carried two cats in carriers and placed them directly under her seat. This was a airline which banned peanuts in any form, but didn't even think of cat allergies (one of the more common deadly allergies for airborne exposure); we raise enough hell that they relocated her to the front of the plane, but the cats were there. I guess there's not a big enough lobby as there is among the anti-peanut crowd to get them banned.

But again, those with particular sensitivities have to watch out for themselves; there's no way to achieve an effective ban. Indeed airport stores sell nuts of all kinds, and peanuts may well be consumed by passengers even if the airline does not serve them. Pets/service anmals may be carried on, and people may fly (or go to the theater ot teach school or ...) when their clothes are coated with pet hair or peanut oil or any other allergen containing material. Things cannot be made safe, and people with severe allergies have to learn that early on, or they may not well survive very long. It's not fair, but life seldom is.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Bullies seem to sufficiently understand the dangers of peanut products to be using them as weapons to torment the victims of allergies; strange how some here don't seem to get it.

When a Wenatchee, Wash., high school student smeared peanut butter on the forehead of a fellow student with a serious peanut allergy two years ago, it was so shocking that the offender faced an assault charge and four days in jail.

“What were you thinking when you did this?” district court Judge Nancy Harmon asked Joshua Hickson, then 19, before the sentencing, according to news reports.

But a new study of parents and kids living with allergies suggests that bullying of youngsters allergic to foods of all types is actually a widespread — and potentially life-threatening — worry.

[F]or 35 percent of those who responded to the survey, the bullying took a physical form. That included everything from waving a peanut butter sandwich in front of an allergic child to intentionally contaminating food with an allergen.

Twelve of the kids said that they had been touched with foods to which they were allergic, contact that could cause minor skin irritation — or a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction.

Nearly 86 percent of those bullied said it had happened more than once. About 82 percent of the bullying incidents were carried out by other students, most often at schools. But, Sicherer noted, 18 of those who were bullied, or about 20 percent, were teased or harassed by a teacher or other school staff.

I am aware and GET the bullying. I still believe that banning the peanuts is the answer. Deal with the kids doing the bullying.

Obviously, or maybe not so, I meant banning the peanuts is NOT the answer.

[@meric@nwom@n]

But again, those with particular sensitivities have to watch out for themselves; there's no way to achieve an effective ban. Indeed airport stores sell nuts of all kinds, and peanuts may well be consumed by passengers even if the airline does not serve them. Pets/service anmals may be carried on, and people may fly (or go to the theater ot teach school or ...) when their clothes are coated with pet hair or peanut oil or any other allergen containing material. Things cannot be made safe, and people with severe allergies have to learn that early on, or they may not well survive very long. It's not fair, but life seldom is.

Yep. So teaching those with allergies how to effectively fend for themselves in a world that will not be geared to revolve around their issue is really the only sensible approach.

[Scooter]

Indeed, let's ban bullying.

Let me know when you have reached Utopia, sounds like a wonderful place to live.

And as for allergies, peanuts are not the only airborne allergy that can cause death. My wife has a severe (severe enough to cause hospitalization if exposed, and severe enough that she always carries an epi-pen with her (even on planes)) allergy to cats, yet about a year back the two people directly behind on a plane us carried two cats in carriers and placed them directly under her seat. This was a airline which banned peanuts in any form, but didn't even think of cat allergies (one of the more common deadly allergies for airborne exposure); we raise enough hell that they relocated her to the front of the plane, but the cats were there. I guess there's not a big enough lobby as there is among the anti-peanut crowd to get them banned.

Air Canada banned pets in the cabin for that very reason, took a lot of shit for it, but there you are.

But again, those with particular sensitivities have to watch out for themselves; there's no way to achieve an effective ban. Indeed airport stores sell nuts of all kinds, and peanuts may well be consumed by passengers even if the airline does not serve them.

There's a difference between an adult (and any accompanying children) patronizing a private business, and a public institution where attendance is mandatory and who are entrusted with the safety of the children in their care, particularly when they can easily eliminate completely unnecessary risks posed by items bearing no relationship to the purpose of that institution.

[Gob]

There's a difference between an adult (and any accompanying children) patronizing a private business, and a public institution where attendance is mandatory and who are entrusted with the safety of the children in their care,

What about a public building, where attendance is voluntary and is not aimed at attracting children?

Say for instance, a meeting room at a library annex where a bunch of senior citizens are trying to attract older people to contribute to a local history project? Should they be allowed to offer cakes?

[Scooter]

A public library doesn't intend to attract children?

[Big RR]

particularly when they can easily eliminate completely unnecessary risks

Scooter--that is where you are wrong; they can ban the items which pose the risk, they can try to educate people why the risk(s) exst and what they are, but they cannot control the behavior of inidivduals entering the building, plae, etc. And people being how they are, someone is bound to open a peanut butter cracker or cup, or have peanut butter spots on their clothes, or whatever. The people who could conceivably die from the exposure cannot and should not rely on the bans to keep them safe--they cannot afford to because the downside is so horrible. Indeed, that's precisely the reason most sane people don't play Russian Roulette; even if the risk were only 1 in a thousand, I wouldn't play, would you?

[Gob]

Which part of "a meeting room at a library annex" do you find confusing Scoot?

[Scooter]

The people who could conceivably die from the exposure cannot and should not rely on the bans to keep them safe

Where did this straw man come from?

By your logic we should have no laws or policies whatsoever, since someone is bound to break them.

Which part of "a meeting room at a library annex" do you find confusing Scoot?

What part of "a library is a place where children are known, nay encouraged, to gather" do you find confusing Gob?

[Gob]

Which part of "a meeting room at a library annex" do you find confusing Scoot?

What part of "a library is a place where children are known, nay encouraged, to gather" do you find confusing Gob?

The bit where you are unable to differentiate between a meeting room set aside for as specific purpose, and the library itself. Are children encouraged to gather in the toilets at the library?

[Scooter]

This meeting room's sole function is to host this one event? It's vacant and locked up the rest of the time?

[oldr_n_wsr]

As someone who grew up alergic to chocolate, eggs, poison ivy and many types of perfume (not just a reaction, anaphalctic shock from just going near certain brands/types) I can relate to the peanut alergy. However, in my day and age, we did not ban these substances from everyday life, be it school, library, outdoors, wherever. I was taught to avoid what I could recognize, chocolate, eggs, poison ivy (I could identify poison ivy when I was only 5yo) and the rest was a risk. I probably took more benedril between the ages of 4 and 15 than 100 people do in their combined lifetimes. the first time I had a severe (shock) reaction to perfume, they pumped me with cortizone. Guess what, I was alergic to that. Was about 5 minutes away from a trache.

I am only midely allergic to perfume now and it seems to be concentrated to Chanel #5 for whatever reason. I have no problem with chocolate, eggs nor poison ivy anymore, but that was after extensive anti-allergy shots.

Yes, the general public should accomodate those with problems WITHIN REASON. But what's within reason? Sure the old ladies could bring in prepackaged things, some containing nuts and clearly labeled and some not containing nuts, also clearly labeled. So now what, they want their tea and scones, so they go and open those packages. Now the library is just as contaminted as if they baked it themselves.

And I really have been wondering this, just when did all the peanut allergy stuff start. In all my childhood and young adulthood I never heard of anyone having a peanut allergy. Heck, I would bet 50% of the kids I went to school with from grammar through high school brought PBJ sandwhiches to lunch everyday. Something in the water?