health and safety

Is football safe for kids?

Philmundo — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:01:48 -0700

by Phil Stott

About a month ago, my brother-in-law sent me a video of his four-year-old son's first touchdown in a flag football game. It's remarkable in several ways: first, that my nephew seems to understand the purpose of the game at such a young age-when he gets the ball in his own half of the field his first instinct is to head for the opposition end zone. Second: he understood that once he crossed the end zone line, he could stop running. And, third, he threw a proper football pass to the referee when returning the ball. A couple of weeks later, as if to prove it was no fluke, he did it again, and my brother-in-law again captured the evidence on video. Clearly he's a boy who's going to grow up loving his sport, and perhaps even has a natural aptitude for it.

All well and good, I thought. As someone who loves sport myself (albeit the other kind of "football"), I can remember the point in my childhood where I became infatuated with it-and it's lasted to this day. Becoming obsessed by a sport is a pleasure that, while not unique to boys, certainly seems to be more common among them-at least in my experience. Seeing that bloom in my nephew is a heart-warming thing, and I was happy both for him and his Dad, who is perhaps the quintessential jock-one that, to be honest, I don't know would have been able to relate to a son that didn't play sports.

My happiness for them both lasted approximately a week-right up until I read this disturbing piece on pro football in the New Yorker. While the premise of the piece is to present a parallel between football and dogfighting-a case that rests on a link between "gameness" in fighting dogs that keep coming back for more to please their owners and the culture in football of playing through pain, even to the detriment of your long-term wellbeing-the most disturbing evidence it offers is on the prevalence of serious brain injuries among ex football players.

Sure, the piece mainly details autopsy results of guys who have made the pros, therefore subjecting themselves to many more hits to the head-and at greater speeds from bigger guys-than someone who only plays through high school, but the evidence is frightening nonetheless. Guys in their forties showing symptoms of Alzheimer's disease normally seen only in the very elderly-the likely cause: brain damage from too many hits. The brain of an eighteen year-old who had "been playing football for a couple of years" with the kind of damage not normally seen in someone at 50, much less his own age.

There's obviously a long way between a fledgling love affair with flag football and taking recurring hits with the force of a car crash, but nonetheless the article left me concerned about my nephew. After all, I became obsessed with soccer at a very young age, and am still playing the game over a quarter of a century later (and, yes, typing that does make me feel very, very old)-who's to say he's not going to do the same with football? Even if he doesn't, even if he only plays until the end of high school, the evidence in the New Yorker piece suggests he's still got a better than average chance of sustaining some sort of damage to his brain from all the collisions.

Given all of that, then, it makes me wonder: is there anyone out there who's happy that their kid's playing football? And if so, why?

7 Back-to-School Swine Flu Tips

Philmundo — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:54:35 -0700

by Phil Stott

It's back to school week in my house, which means my wife has been busy getting her classroom in order, while Maeve has started back at daycare. In addition to all the usual preparations, we've been making sure that we're up to date on information concerning swine flu-an ailment that the media isn't hyping as badly as it did in the Spring, but one that we're still a little concerned about, particularly as Meghan is pregnant.

In the course of gathering information, I've come across a number of suggestions for what we should be doing to be prepared, and what we need to tell our kids. I've condensed the most level-headed of them into the following list:

1)      Wash your hands. Every time I read that piece of advice I think about how painfully obvious it is, and wonder why we need to be reminded. Then I go the bathroom at work and watch as guys come in, do their business, and then leave without once approaching the sink. If they're not willing to use a bit of soap and water after handling their penis, then what chance them doing it after sneezing.* Teaching your kids to wash their hands thoroughly-and often-could be the difference between them contracting the virus and missing out on it. And even if they do get it-there's never a bad time to learn good hygiene.

2)      Use hand sanitizer. I've heard a couple of different theories on this. The first says that sanitizers like Purell can be used instead of washing your hands. The second-which I've heard from a couple of medical professionals-says that it should only be used when hand-washing isn't an easy option. Regardless, for kids, it's probably enough to find out whether it's being provided at school and, if so, if it's alcohol-based or not. For kids, alcohol-free ones are probably a better bet, given that there's a greater possibility of a trip to the emergency room if they ingest the ones with alcohol in them

3)      Sneeze into your arm, not your hand. I'm the world's worst offender on this one; any time I sneeze and there isn't a tissue within easy reach, I'm guaranteed to have to make a trip to a bathroom to rinse my hands afterward. If it happens to me on the subway, though, it's often a while before I get the opportunity, and I may well have to touch poles and door handles before the chance comes along. For kids, the CDC has been working hard on spreading this message, and has teamed up with none other than Elmo to do so. The furry red one also has a message for kids about the importance of hand washing, which can be found here.

4)      Avoid sharing. I know, it goes against everything you want your kid to learn, but an important precaution is in avoiding sharing things that are likely to pass from one child's mouth to another. Things like snacks, cups and juice boxes are at the top of the list, but even toys should be considered for those with younger kids.

5)      Talk to your kids. Explain to your kids how important it is that they tell you at the first sign of any illness. And, if they tell you, act on it. The majority of swine flu deaths among kids in the U.S. so far have been in cases where the child wasn't given the anti-viral Tamiflu. If your child is diagnosed with H1N1, insist on Tamiflu.

6)      Talk to your kids' school. Even if you're not concerned about the H1N1 virus, it's important to know what procedures your child's school has in place should there be an outbreak, so you can plan accordingly. Here in New York, there were a rash of H1N1-related school closures in spring that lasted a week or more. Try to have a plan in place to deal with such an eventuality.

7)      Don't panic. Above all else, don't get carried away. Current estimates suggest that more than 50 percent of Americans will contract swine flu this flu season, and that the vast majority of those will be absolutely fine. So don't panic, but do be prepared. Know what the symptoms are and figure out a plan for what to do if you or a member of your family comes down with ailment. Vaccinations are a good idea-as soon as they become available-as is thinking about whether or not you can take time off work if necessary, or if you've got someone who can help you out if you get laid low.

*And before anyone comments, yes, I've heard the George Carlin theory on hand-washing. But what can I say: maybe he wasn't up on the science of hygiene. Or, y'know, maybe it's just harder to raise a laugh from coliform bacteria.

The Health Care Bill

Toby — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:56:28 -0700

Greetings Dads,
What is the deal with the healthcare bill? There is so much from both sides, I cannot digest it. http://tiny.cc/prAbe Any Dr., Nurse, Hospital admin, medical salesperson, etc that would like to share an opinion? Is it true those in Washington are rebuffing this plan for themselves to stay on their current plan? If it is so good for the people, why not for them? I do not want sides, I want information please.
This is one of the biggest votes in history and I want to make sure that we (and our politicians) have all the data. Again, please do not use this topic to post your political opinions, forget about Red and Blue states - we need to be UNITED! I, and other Dads, need to hear from those inside the Healthcare system so we can make the best decision for out families.
Thank you for your posts.
Cheers,
Toby

The health care question

Philmundo — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:38:32 -0700

by Phil Stott

I've been thinking a lot about the state of the health care industry in this country of late-probably not entirely surprising, given the amount of attention it's been getting in the media.

Aside from the media coverage of the now-defunct deadline set by President Obama for Congress to deliver a reform bill, there are a few things that have set me to pondering the question. First up is an ongoing wrangle my wife and I are having with our insurance company over coverage for Maeve; they're maintaining that she's entitled to fewer visits in her second year of life than our pediatrician says she needs. Not that there's anything wrong with her-we're talking general wellness and progress visits-but it's extremely galling to be told by an insurance company that they won't cover check-ups recommended by a medical professional.*

Now, maybe the insurance company is right. Maybe the pediatrician's office we visit is unusual in the number of check-ups they request. Maybe they're engaged in the kind of cost-gouging that have prompted articles such as this one of late. They certainly aren't shy about billing for things; following Maeve's most recent visit-not the one that caused the dispute-we were sent an itemized bill that included charges for things such as ear cleaning ($70 for the two minutes it took to scoop the wax out). As outraged as I was by the charge, the insurance company ponied up the money for it and everything else on the bill short of our co-pay. All told, the fee for the visit-which lasted no more than 30 minutes, with the actual portion with a doctor lasting more like 15-was in excess of $800. Nice work if you can get it.

Looking over the bill, my wife felt so bad about some of the fees that she suggested vetoing them next time around-despite being discouraged by Maeve's pediatrician from cleaning her ears ourselves, she's pretty sure we could handle it. The point, though, is that there's no incentive for us to do that; it won't lower our premiums at all. The insurance company covered it, and probably still made a profit, the doctor's office got paid, and Maeve has clean ears. Everybody wins, right? Well, everybody except the people actually paying for the health insurance-namely my wife's employer and us. We're watching the cost of our premiums go up every single year.

I can think of no other profession where I can go in to visit a professional and not only have absolutely no control over the costs that professional charges, but so little incentive to even care about controlling the costs. I get no reward from the insurance company for refusing treatment, even if I know I don't need it. And, as with the ear cleaning example above, I know of no other private enterprise where you can levy charges for performing work that no-one asked for or was asked to approve. If I took my car in for a $30 oil change and was handed a bill for $500 of work done without my approval, I'd be kind of steamed. But if I take my kid in for a check up and the doctor decides to clean her ears without asking and then bill for it, well, that's just the way health care works.

However, I also know the flip side of the coin: a hernia sustained in Britain saw me wait a full year for the operation to repair it, as it wasn't a priority. And, moan as I might, I'm glad Maeve was born in a U.S. hospital than in an NHS equivalent in the U.K.-even the beds are nicer here.

Blending the best of both systems together seems to me to be the way forward-eliminating waste without curbing the incentive for innovation and achievement, providing health care for all without overloading the system or destroying the budget. I'm convinced that there must be a solution somewhere, and I'd like to think that it could happen in my lifetime. I won't be holding my breath though.

*For the record, I can't understand why examples like this aren't the instant rebuttal to claims that univeral healthcare provision would mean that a government bureaucrat will stand between you and healthcare. But maybe that's because I can't understand why bureaucrats are any less likely to approve treatment than employees of a for-profit insurance company with a vested interest in not spending money on treatment.

Vaccinations: when fear meets science

Philmundo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:47:26 -0700

by Phil Stott

The issue of vaccinations is one that my wife and I have been facing up to ever since Maeve was born. At just 19 months of age, she's had no less than 22 separate jabs-a series that began within a week of her birth. The sheer containing her vaccination record, meanwhile, has spaces for at least 16 more-a figure that doesn't take into account vaccines that require multiple injections. Over the short time since Maeve's birth, that seems like a lot to have put her through, and I've questioned more than once whether all the injections are strictly necessary. To date, though, we've always gone ahead with whatever Maeve's pediatrician has recommended.

Ever since Maeve's 15-month checkup, however, one vaccine has figured in our thoughts more than any other, our willingness to have Maeve receive it clouded by second-hand stories from acquaintances, half-remembered news reports from years back, and, specifically, concerns about links between it and autism. I'm talking, of course, about the MMR vaccine.

Having talked around the issue for quite some time, and put the vaccination off at a couple of Maeve's doctor visits out of fear, I realized that I didn't have much more than hearsay to go on, and that my fears were grounded in ignorance, rather than fact. The long and short of it: I hadn't actually got around to doing any research, which meant that every time my wife and I had the discussion about what we should do, we ended up chasing the only possibilities-get it, delay it, or go live somewhere that proof of it isn't required before your child can be admitted to school.

When I did start looking into the vaccination, it wasn't difficult to find "evidence" of a link between MMR and autism. Sites abounded with personal stories of parents who witnessed their children's mental acuity declining after receiving the vaccination. Hearsay evidence is everywhere. What is conspicuous by its absence, however, is any kind of hard science to back the hearsay up. As far as I can tell, not one site or reputable study exists that provides conclusive proof of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

What I did find in the course of my research (which I'm compelled to point out is far from exhaustive) was the history of how rumors of a link-and a public health scare-came about. Basically, back in 1998, a British scientist by the name of Andrew Wakefield published an article in the medical journal The Lancet, claiming he had discovered existence of a link. Cue widespread panic, lawsuits, and more than a decade of arguing over the results of his research.

Since Wakefield made his claims, however, no other scientist has been able to reproduce his results. Additionally, British newspaper The Sunday Times (one of the respectable ones) has gone to considerable lengths to investigate his claims, and has repeatedly found problems with his research. Indeed, the paper has been covering the story for over a decade, and as recently as February of this year published an article alleging that some of the medical records Wakefield relied on had been altered or hidden. (The direct link to the article was broken when I tried it, but you can read a copy of it here.)

The article also points out the major advantage of getting Maeve vaccinated: being able to live without the fear my child getting three serious diseases. For, as full as the internet is of stories of people who have seen their child develop autism and blame it on the MMR vaccine, it's also pretty well-stocked with documentary evidence of the effects of measles, mumps, and rubella. Having read about each of them, I came to the conclusion that their potential effects-and the chances of Maeve contracting any of them without a vaccine-were much worse than an unproven link between the vaccine and autism.

So that's about it. More than a decade of fear over a link where the evidence may or may not have been manipulated. In light of that, I was finally able to make a decision over the MMR, swallow my fear, and allow Maeve to get it. Whether it was the right decision or not, I'll probably never know. But at least it was the best-informed one I could have made.

Ask the Savvy Daddy Expert MD

tony — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:56:04 -0700

by Tony Chen

You may have seen that we here at Savvy Daddy have recently added a distinguished Panel of Experts. You can see their bios here, but basically these folks are profs, physicians, clinicians, and academics that are savvy gurus on topics relevant to us dads trying to raise great kids. These experts have been gracious enough to answer real questions from real dads - email me your questions (tony at savvydaddy dot com) and I'll be passing along the most relevant & compelling questions to them. Today, we are honored to present to you Dr. Russell Robertson, Chairman of Family & Community Medicine at the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University.

Dad Question: What's your take on the explosion of ADHD in America? Are we diagnosing this disease correctly? Why do you think most ADHD cases are boys?

Robertson: We had dinner with good friends recently. The husband had just retired from a high ranking position at a Fortune 500 company. He described his behavior as a young boy as one that would have surely labeled him as ADHD and likely in today's world, would have found him on prescription medications. Yet many of his "ADHD" behaviors made him highly productive and successful at multitasking. He routinely answered over 300 emails per day.

My concern is that the energy and vitality of young boys is wrongly and often assumed to be ADHD as opposed to behaviors that indicate a high degree of intelligence and curiosity. Teachers (I was an elementary school and junior high school teacher) are often frustrated in dealing with these children and often because their classrooms are an increasingly challenging environment made more so by children who are presumed to be easily distracted.

Instead, I would ask parents and teachers to re-direct rather than attempt to suppress these behaviors. These boys, and they are mostly boys, are high energy kids and need to be exercised physically and mentally. They are like racehorses. Sitting them in front of a computer screen to play games or in front of a TV, while temporarily distracting, is not good for them at all. Make sure your kids are well exercised. Playing with them at home is a great thing to do. Ride bikes, play basketball, run with them. This is great bonding time as well. Challenge their intellects by learning more about their interests and then help them to engage in focusing on completing tasks. Only children with the most disruptive behavior should be evaluated for medications and even then, I would look for mental health providers who have a reputation for being stingy with medications.

I would also recommend a book my wife found for me to read. It is called, "The War Against Boys" by Susanna Hoff Summers - a fabulous read!

Dad Question: What's your take on the growing trend of parents refusing to have their children vaccinated for fear of negative side-effects (e.g. autism)? There seems to be "solid scientific evidence" on both sides of the argument, or is there?

Robertson: By way of example, in the early 70's, the vaccine for pertussis was not as pure as it could have been and there were children who did have reactions, some that were severe. In the United Kingdom, a number of parents chose not to vaccinate their children for pertussis as a response. Subsequently, the number of children who died from pertussis easily outnumbered those who had been having reactions.

What is happening at the present is a truly dangerous trend that is endangering the lives of millions of children. Because the first vaccines for measles are not given until the age of 15 months, all children under this age are at risk of contracting measles from unvaccinated children. World wide, over 200,000 children died from measles in 2007 and as new cases continue to appear in the US, there will inevitably be preventable deaths.

While having a child with autism is a challenge beyond my imagining and understanding that the desire to locate a treatable cause is understood, after numerous studies, there is NO EVIDENCE that vaccines are a cause of autism. Further, it is irresponsbile to perseverate the notion that vaccines are a cause and to choose not to have your children vaccinated.

Dad Question: How did you keep your promises to your wife and kids about being at games, etc? How did you handle it if you had a work emergency to attend to?

Robertson: As a physician, I learned that I needed to take every opportunity to control my schedule. I also did a great deal of reading early in my years as a Dad about what I would call "unintentional narcissism:, i.e. the notion that my presence at work or with my patients was essential. If one is not careful, this is an easy trap into which one can fall, regardless of your profession.

In the final analysis and in almost every situation, work was the place where I was most replaceable, not home. There are no "do overs" with your wife and children. Time accelerates as your children grow and I did not want to be like many of my colleagues whose careers were successful, but their personal and family lives were in ruins.

I made an effort to schedule everything and then to stick to it. That way, when there truly was an emergency, it was understood and accommodated. I also worked very hard to make no promises that I was not able to keep.

The other thing to keep in mind is that prioritizing family over one's work should not be considered a sacrifice! This is your wife for all time and your children. How could you not value them above all else!

Have a question for Dr. Robertson? Send your questions to me via email (tony at savvydaddy dot com).

How to Decipher New "Research"

tony — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:00:43 -0700

by Tony Chen

You may have seen that we here at Savvy Daddy have recently added a distinguished Panel of Experts. You can see their bios here, but basically these folks are profs, physicians, clinicians, and academics that are savvy gurus on topics relevant to us dads trying to raise great kids. These experts have been gracious enough to answer real questions from real dads - email me your questions (tony at savvydaddy dot com) and I'll be passing along the most relevant & compelling questions to them. Without further ado, our first Savvy Daddy Expert Panelist, Bob McMurray.

Dad Question: I feel completely overwhelmed at all of the new research coming out on infant development, and honestly, I'm growing increasingly skeptical of when news media reports on "breaking research." As a researcher yourself, what do you look for when you see new research? How do you discern how valid it is?

Bob McMurray, Language/Development Professor and Researcher
One of the most important things to look for in new research is how simple the story appears to be. Development is complex. Really complex. There's almost never a single thing that we can pinpoint as the "cause" of anything big like language or social behavior. On the other hand, the media has a hard time reporting on complex answers -- they really prefer the simple, single-cause studies. So that's most of what you're likely to hear from the media.

That's not to say that there aren't good studies being reported, or that sometimes there really are simple stories about development. But generally, you should raise an eye-brow to any researcher who claims to have a silver bullet regarding development.

Scientists are trained to hold lots and lots of things constant in our experiment, and only look at one thing at a time. It's an excellent way to really figure out what's causing what. But sometimes it warps our worldview (or the media does), in that we tend to assume that just because we found an effect of that single thing, it's the most important thing in the world. But in actuality, it's just one of a huge number of things that affect development.

Here's an example. We all know that breast feeding is preferred to bottle feeding (sorry to bring Mommies into this, guys!). It's good for bonding (for Mommies, at least, does nothing for us), better nutritionally, confers some immunities, and has lots of good micronutrients (like omega-3 fatty acids) that help with brain and eye-development. But in order to discover this, we had to run studies that kept everything constant except for whether babies were breast or bottle fed, things like the socio-economic status of the mom's, whether or not the dad is home, the birth-weight of the babies, etc (of course we cannot really control these things, but that's a topic for another post). When we find a small difference in cognitive abilities, then, we can can attribute it to the breast-milk. Hooray.

Funny thing is, many of us (by us, I mean us Daddies) were bottle fed. We turned out fine. What's going on? Two things. First, Well, even when you hold everything else constant, children vary. A lot. The studies, of course, are only reporting the average, not the individual kids. Second, all that other stuff that was held constant mattered! Those of us whose mom's fed us formula, were probably fed it because our pediatrician recomended it (that was the recomended practice in the 60s and 70s for many doctors). That means that we had access to health care, and our moms were the kind of moms that really tried to follow their doctor's advice. These things surely compensated for whatever we missed out from the breast milk.

The bottom line: lots of things contribute to healthy babies. But that's not what shows up in the media. What the media sees is "Breast is best", and then comes the extremists, who make every mommy with a bottle feel terrible. (be glad you don't have to be a part of this battle, Daddies!).

Here's another example. Genes. We live in a society in which the gene is king. We like to identify the genes for this and that trait, and we've mapped out every strand of DNA in the human genome (well actually for a handful of human's genomes). So naturally we're going to start seeing studies showing the language gene, or the intelligence gene. I've even seen studies reporting the liberal and/or conservative genes. It's kind of deflating -- all that work we put in to make our kids smart and successful, and it turns out that it's all set from birth. But here's the real deal: there is no gene for language, and there is no gene for intelligence. There are genes that are related to these things, but they may play only a small role, and the studies are designed to find the genes, not to tell us how important they are.

More importantly, all of these genes would do zilch without a body and an environment. We're now learning how genes themselves can be controlled by the environment (that is, whether or not a gene is expressed is determined by environmental factors). So genes are necessarily only a small part of development. Parents have a huge role to play. But the media, in it's relentless simplification of science doesn't report it that way. They just say that we've discovered the language genes. So be careful reading these claims.

So whenever you are reading media reports, look for complexity! Development is messy (particularly around meal-times) and complex, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong (or they were misquoted).

Have a question for Professor Bob? Send your development & language development questions to me via email (tony at savvydaddy dot com)

To leash or not to leash?

Philmundo — Fri, 15 May 2009 07:35:36 -0700

by Phill Stott

As Maeve gets ever older and ever more mobile, my wife and I are finding that keeping track of her movements just isn't as simple as it used to be. Within the house it's enough of a problem, but it really becomes an issue when we're out and about. As a willful, independent child, she likes being able to roam-something I'm happy to do in wide open spaces, but not when there are lots of people or traffic around. For that reason-and because Maeve falls more out of love with her stroller the older and more independent she gets-I recently purchased a child harness. Little did I guess the range of opinions on the subject.

As someone who hails from Europe, I grew up with the concept of children being tethered to their parents, and it's still a very common sight across the continent today. Polling a random selection of friends and colleagues in the U.S., however, I'm finding much more of a mixed reaction to the idea-and, as might be expected, even more extreme reactions in cyberspace. As such, I've heard a lot of opinions and criticisms on the subject of late, and thought I'd take the opportunity to summarize-and answer-some of them below.

For: The safety aspect.

Whether it's keeping track of Maeve in a store, or preventing her from running into traffic on the street, having my hand on a set of reins to keep her from getting too far away just seems like a good idea. Mostly because the alternative-not using them and possibly coming to regret it-seems awful.

Against: It just looks bad

I've heard several variations on this, from people who have witnessed parents using the leash inappropriately (yanking their kids around) to others that compare the sight of a child in a harness to a dog. I have no answer for that. The idea of it looking bad never occurred to me, or anyone I knew growing up where child-reins were common, so I can only assume it's a cultural thing.

For: It's no different to using a stroller

I'd love to provide a link to the piece where I read this, but I can't find it. Basically, though, the theory goes like this: you strap your child into a car seat for their own safety. You strap them into a stroller for their own safety. You even strap them into high chairs-both for their own safety and to make your life easier at feeding-time. So what's the big deal about using a little restraint for safety when allowing a toddler to walk around in public places?

Against: Kids should have freedom to roam

Granted, in an ideal world they would. In a wide open space where you can keep an eye on them? Definitely. But in Manhattan? Or a crowded mall? If the answer to those is no, but taking your child there is unavoidable, then restraint of some kind is the only option-whether they'd be less miserable strapped in a stroller or on foot with a harness depends on the child.

Against: You can hold their hand instead

Sure. But they can also slip out of your grasp, which takes away the safety component. And if we're talking "right to roam" for a toddler, a firm grip of the wrist is way more restrictive than a harness, which a parent can at least let go slack and follow. And, from a selfish point of view, try being six feet tall (OK, five-eleven) and walking around holding a toddler's hand for 15 minutes. It's just not comfortable, can't possibly be good for your back and, the taller the parent, the worse it gets.

For me, the issue basically comes down to two things: the desire to keep my child safe when we're out and about vs the reaction of strangers, and I'm pretty sure I know which side of that debate I'm on. Of course, maybe there's some piece of research or compelling reason that I've missed-I'm not so attached to the harness that I'm not willing to listen to reason. Feel free to approach the next Scottish guy you see in the greater NY area with a kid on a leash if you have any feedback you think I should hear. Failing that, post it below.

(Not) Concerned about Swine Flu?

Philmundo — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:30:54 -0700

by Phil Stott

I can't decide how worried I'm supposed to be about swine flu. On the one hand, as a suburban New Yorker, I'm kind of in the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak of the thing, which should be a cause for concern. On the other, I keep mentally referring to it as "bird flu," surely a sign that it's not troubling my consciousness-or humanity in general-as much as that particular event (although maybe I'm just a hardened vet now, given that I was living in Asia at the time).

At times of concern, the natural place to turn for clear information should be the news media, but I'm finding more and more that an industry that depends on always having a big story to populate its 24-hour cycle isn't the most likely place to find clear-headed, calm information. Sure, they'll toss out the occasional reminder that the public shouldn't be panicking, but it tends to get buried amongst the hysteria. As such, I've had to do a bit of digging on my own to try and figure out what's worth worrying about, and what's not.

First up, the major concern I have is a natural one as a parent: that my 18-month old is going to be affected. And, while I'm not in the business of doling out things to raise anyone's stress levels, the virus (H1N1 to give it its proper title) seems to be more likely to affect younger people-especially the under-9 age group.

Given that, my next concern is in how the virus is transmitted, and how to minimize the risk of it being transmitted to Maeve. According to the CDC, it can spread "in the same way that seasonal flu spreads." So, basically by being airborne following someone else coughing or sneezing or-to a lesser degree-by someone coming into contact with an object that has the virus on it and infecting themselves. Not much we can do about that at daycare, I guess, short of pulling Maeve out for a while (not going to happen), or trusting other parents to do the right thing if their own child is showing signs of being unwell.

Assuming that Maeve's daycare is doing the best it can to deal with the situation (and it seems to be), the next best thing my wife and I can do is to make sure we don't contract it and pass it on. Anyone who's watched any news coverage of the flu at all will have come across the "wash your hands" mantra over and over and over again. While it may seem repetitive (and a little obvious), it's also advice that's given for a good reason: it greatly reduces the risk of you infecting yourself if you've touched, say, a door handle that someone with flu has touched. That's why it's so important not to touch your eyes, mouth and nose as well-any part of the body that secretes fluid can also draw infection in much more easily.

Beyond that, there's not really much else to report. The CDC has a useful page tracking the spread of the virus throughout the U.S., while the folks at Google Flu Trends have set up a page to track the spread in Mexico, as well as carrying on with their usual work tracking all flu outbreaks (not just H1N1) across the U.S.

Well...there's almost nothing else to report. There were, of course, a couple of myths debunked along the way. First, swine have very little to do with the disease. According to the CDC, the virus bears a little resemblance to a flu strain found in pigs, but that's about it. There's no evidence at the moment, however, to suggest that any pigs have it (at least not in North America), but the name seems to have stuck. There's also no evidence to suggest that it you can get sick eating pork products. Perhaps most confusingly, no one's really sure how it's different to regular seasonal flu-and most cases can't be confirmed without a microscope, meaning there's sure to be a ton more misinformation and confusion to come.

The conclusion? I'm still not sure how worried I'm supposed to be, but I am a little bit better informed about the H1N1 thing, and a lot less panicked. While I wouldn't go as far as this guy, any thoughts I had of, say, staying home from work and barricading the house 28 Days Later-style are gone. Keeping a close eye on who I'm sharing a subway car with? Sure, I'll go that far. Extra hand-washing after I get out of it. Absolutely-although no-one in their right mind would willingly touch the poles in there anyway!

5 Kid-Friendly Earth Day Ideas

Philmundo — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:12:51 -0700

by Phil Stott

Hands up if you woke up on Earth Day and didn't realize was upon you. I certainly did, and feel more than a tad ashamed for not having planned anything to do to mark it. Y'know, like planting a couple of trees, or making arrangements to cycle my commute for the day-that kind of thing. Still, starting out in a (shorter than usual) shower, the thought struck me: Earth Day's only a reminder of things we're supposed to be doing every day anyway. To that end, one of the best things we could do for the planet is to educate our kids about why it is we need to take care of what we've got. Here, then, are five suggestions (plus a bonus one) for ways to go about doing that. And most of them are extremely cheap, if not free.

1. Recycle

The oldest chestnut of them all, as far as environmentalism goes, and an ongoing challenge for us all. For those with kids old enough to take on the responsibility, putting them in charge of household recycling is one of the easiest ways to get them involved in thinking about the environment. It won't take a child too long to sort the paper from the plastics (although you'll need to keep an eye on them where glass is involved), or to lug it to the kerb.

2. Composting

Obviously this isn't something I'd recommend for those in a third-floor walkup with no garden, but composting is essentially the ultimate form of recycling. Not only that, it's a cheap source of nutrient-rich soil for those with gardens, as well as a great way to ease the guilt over all that food you'd otherwise be throwing away. It's also a good mechanism for teaching your kids about things like the carbon cycle, as well as the virtues of reducing waste. For those that feel especially handy, Stopwaste.org has some great plans to assist you in building your own composter, although ready-made units are also available at most hardware stores. Depending which type you choose, you can get your kids further involved by having them decorate it.

3. Plant your own garden:

What better to do with all that freshly-generated soil than to plant your own garden? Even if you don't go down the composting route, there's no reason not to allocate a little patch of your garden (or a window-box, or even some empty yogurt pots) for planting a few seeds to allow your kids to experience the wonder of growing something. While the feeling of pride they'll get from seeing the family eating any vegetables they've grown is immense, even those pushed for space or completely lacking a green thumb should be able to handle the light/water ratios required to raise a few shoots of grass in a pot.

4. Make your own bird feeder

Who with children doesn't have an empty milk carton in their near future? Allfreecrafts.com has a very simple plan for turning one into a bird feeder. Easy to do, and the possibilities for decoration are almost limitless (although I'd think twice about letting your child use a montage of cat pictures!).

5. The "use less" challenge

Have your kids brainstorm all the ways in which they use different resources (water, electricity, packaged goods, etc). Then, challenge them to think of ways in which they could use less of them-shorter showers, less T.V. time, things like that. Those with slightly older kids could even challenge them to go for a set period of time (anything from an hour to a full day), without using any resources that aren't absolutely necessary. Hint: send them to play outside, and when they come in, encourage tap water rather than soda.

5 + 1. Talk to your kids

Perhaps the most important thing you can do is to explain why concepts such as reduce, reuse, recycle are more than just slogans or marketing gimmicks, and should be thought about and put into action for the 364 days that fall between each Earth Day as well. For further suggestion and resources on ways to do that, the EPA's Environmental Kids Club is a great place to start.