Comments on: CPSC’s Buckyballs ban

By: Lucas

Lucas — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:00:58 +0000

As far as I am concerned buckyballs can represent risk for children and can be dangerous for adults too. It’s a new technology so we don’t know how it can react in human body. It’s easy if we compare this new technology with technology that we had in the past, like nuclear power. Finally, I think that first scientists need to figure out all the possible risks for human in a long period, after that, government can allow that citizens use those.

By: Glenn Troester

Glenn Troester — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 19:26:24 +0000

I am a retired journalist, and spent a decade of my career as a nuclear communication coordinator with the nuclear industry. The concept of relative risk was a major part of my job.
Ron Miller seems to be saying that if even if one child is maimed or killed by something, that is sufficient to warrant banning it, whatever it is. That is a shortcut to a sterile world.
We humans now value a totally risk-free existence. But the truth is, to function we must accept the idea that some people will die, including kids. Perhaps we don’t punish parents if they kill a kid through their negligence. But that does not mean we should punish everybody else who was even tangentially implicated in the child’s death.
My question: what can we individuals do, aside from jawboning this, to force the CPSC to relent?

By: August 20 roundup - Overlawyered

August 20 roundup - Overlawyered — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:15:09 +0000

[…] “Guest Post: The Bucky Balls Ban” [Free-Range Kids, earlier] […]

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:28:16 +0000

“Swimming pools and alcohol are not things I think we would allow in modern society”

obvious troll is obvious, try again

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:21:24 +0000

You took that comment as my suggesting that we bring back the 18th? Seriously? Richard, do you have any idea how many conservative thinkers – who would never consider considering limitations on alcohol – have said the same thing. My thought is not exactly original.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:28:17 +0000

Swimming pools and alcohol are not things I think we would allow in modern society if we were starting the whole thing from scratch. We tolerate both because they are so deeply – deeply – embedded in our culture.

Ron, all I can say is Wow! Please tell me you are not being serious. The 18th Amendment didn’t work out very well, now did it? What else would be banned in your utopian society?

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 02:52:17 +0000

Those number are misleading but let’s accept them as you have presented them.

(That *ecstatic* thing is real cute. I’m always excited when people find new ways to be condescending on the Internet. Because, you know, we don’t have enough now. )

By: wfjag

wfjag — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:46:09 +0000

@DensityDuck:
“Ron, I’d be *ecstatic* to hear your opinion on swimming pools.”

Actually, since windmills may be a much worse mortality hazard, I think we can all agree that they should be banned. As of July 12, 2012 there are 76 confirmed deaths, including 27 in the US. Of those 76, the youngest was age 3 (so, we’re covering the danger to children angle), 8 were members of the public (the first of whom was a parachutist who literally flew into a turbine in Germany. This fatality was also the first women killed by wind energy. This gets us covered on another angle — name the 2 things that fall out of the sky — women and . . .– old paratrooper joke that wasn’t especially funny even then, so the ban of windmills also is a strike against stale humor).

Further, there are anecdotal reports of wind turbines throwing their blades. On Samsø a 55 kW Nordtank threw a blade through a window into an indoor swimming pool, according to one knowledgeable source. Fortunately nobody was home. (Ahhh! But did it have an ADA compliant handicapped person chairlift installed ?)

For further information on the swirling death menace of windmills, see Wind Energy — The Breath of Life or the Kiss of Death: Contemporary Wind Mortality Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html

Essentially, depending on whose ox you’re willing to gore, we can argue that anything lacks the utility to overcome its danger (under some circumstances, however rare or warned or guarded against) and so should be banned.

[Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s ban guys (and books and plays and movies about guys) who joust with windmills. There’s a little too much culture in those and that’s probably dangerous, as well.]

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:01:16 +0000

Richard, I agree with you about risk. Freaknomics will tell you the same thing.

But your reading comp is just off. I’m suggesting a balance test which is not exactly revolutionary. Even you implicitly suggest such a test.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:08:35 +0000

Ron: Utility should not considered by the government. Even if a product has no conceivable use whatsoever, there is no reason the government should prohibit it from being sold to adults just because it’s dangerous to children. Anyone other than the government is welcome to do a cost/benefit analysis.