Strength Training May Stunt Your Growth

[Foobar40]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...105/3/659.full

[Mark E. Hurling]

If y'all are fine with tens of thousands of American kids getting injured on farms every year, well heck, who am I to complain. Keep up the good work.

An article from that paragon of anti-Americanism Reuters. Now there's great source, no wonder your head's screwed on to a permanent left turn. That photo of the dirty faced little girl was a nice touch too in reinforcing your comment about stupid parents and their stupid kids. By their sources ye shall know them.

So lets take a look at what that fine bit of advocacy "journalism" actually has to say. Some excerpts:

(Reuters Health) - More than 26,000 kids and adolescents get injured on farms and ranches in the U.S. every year, racking up costs of more than $1.4 billion, according to new research. Less than a third of the accidents were work-related and only 84 were fatal, researchers found based on 2001-2006 Childhood Agricultural Injury Surveys.

I got a news flash for you Fat, kids play. So if only a third were work related how did the others happen? Kids at play in silos, haylofts, and grain bins. If the parents might not be around maybe even goose-assing around on a tractor. I grew up with some farm kids who would defy death at every turn just to entertain themselves in ways like that. So by your vaunted articles own admission, this aborted regulatory regime would have only stopped 30% of your hand wringing. The rest would still have happened but the kids involved would have been doing or learning nothing productive or useful. Perfect clients for your nanny state.

In 2001, about 1.1 million U.S. children and adolescents were living on farms or ranches. Fourteen percent of the injuries that occurred there led to hospitalization, compared to just 1.4 percent of the nation's child injuries overall.

OK now, were have a metric to bounce off of the casualty numbers. Can we agree that 84 out of 1.1 M is a really small number? Not that any is OK, but really small nonetheless. So now lets look at the 30% of work related numbers. Hm, 8666 (the one third) which comes out to .0078 %. You like how you depantsed yourself here?

The report shows deaths were typically due to injuries from machinery, fire or explosions. Falls and transportation were the most common reasons for non-deadly injuries.

Falls happen to all ages and everywhere. Falls are the most common source of injury in every kind of workplace and home, among both the young and the elderly like me. Some really profound patterns and trends revealed here.

"There are a lot of hazards for kids on farms, but there are also a lot of good things going on," Murphy said. "They are learning work ethics, they are learning responsibility."

Yup, and we can't have that now can we? Better they should be overseen by others at a youth programming center.

He added that parents should pay more attention to their children's safety on farms, and not let them handle equipment or do chores they aren't ready for. "Kids should not be in a rush to do adult things with tractors and other machines."

Here's another news flash for you. Kids will try to emulate their parents and show they are more grown up than they can handle. So they tackle tasks and equipment that they aren't ready for when the parents aren't around to stop them.

Here's some reality for someone who only eats the food (and by your own admission too much of it) that others provide for them. See, the thing is I know in my bones how dangerous it is. I grew with Frank Salm at the grain elevator who was missing a finger when his wedding ring caught on a bolt as he was jumping off a truck bed. There were two others who had lost fingers nearly the same whose names I can't recall. Then there was Jim Mann who I played football with who lost half of his right hand when he reached in to clear some jammed corn stalks in the snap rollers of a corn picker. There were other near misses like those too. But that's what life is like. Unless you are prepared to stay at home, be a sofa slug, and watch TV or play online games. Otherwise wrapping up in bubble pack.

[SumDumGoi]

Wow, I am impressed by the naivety of the arguments made in this thread so far. I just read through 3 pages of nonsensical arguments and people seem to be complaining about the OP's initial assertion that these "chores" are being banned due to stunting of growth or other analogous injuries that would happen during weight training. If that is what this law would be about then yes it would be ridiculous. However, these "chores" that are not being allowed for children under 16 do not involve the "hauling of hay" as has been asserted by many of the posters in this thread. The proposed law was intended to keep children from using power-driven farm equipment. The proposed ban on "manual labor" that many posters have made is a complete fabrication.

I'm not going to pretend to know the statistics behind the number of farm accidents and young children using "motor driven farm equipment", but as indicated by the link posted above there may be some merit to this and perhaps children shouldn't be looked upon as a source of cheap labor on farms when the use of such dangerous equipment is involved. But then again, I guess it is ok in this country to bitch about an 8 year old Chinese kid working in an I-Pad factory for 16 hours a day for 12 cents an hour, but to see no problem in having the same kid working on a farm for the same period of time while working with equipment that can rip off his arms.

Substantially more children also ride in cars compared to those who work on farms. This doesn't mean that driving is an inherently more dangerous activity compared to working with farm equipment. Statistics fail.

OK now, were have a metric to bounce off of the casualty numbers. Can we agree that 84 out of 1.1 M is a really small number? Not that any is OK, but really small nonetheless. So now lets look at the 30% of work related numbers. Hm, 8666 (the one third) which comes out to .0078 %. You like how you depantsed yourself here?

There were 26,000 injuries and ~ one third of those were work-related. That means that greater than 8600 of those injuries were work related. Instead of pointing this out you chose to compare the number of fatalities vs. the number of injuries, which is a dishonest argument because many injuries may not be fatal. Is it only prudent to take action only when a fatality is involved and that no concerns are warranted if the kid is only missing a limb from an accident?

Once again, I'm not pretending to know any of the statistics behind farm-related injuries in children. It just seems as though you are being .ess than honest with your arguments.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Wow, I am impressed by the naivety of the arguments made in this thread so far. I just read through 3 pages of nonsensical arguments and people seem to be complaining about the OP's initial assertion that these "chores" are being banned due to stunting of growth or other analogous injuries that would happen during weight training. If that is what this law would be about then yes it would be ridiculous. However, these "chores" that are not being allowed for children under 16 do not involve the "hauling of hay" as has been asserted by many of the posters in this thread. The proposed law was intended to keep children from using power-driven farm equipment. The proposed ban on "manual labor" that many posters have made is a complete fabrication.

I'm not going to pretend to know the statistics behind the number of farm accidents and young children using "motor driven farm equipment", but as indicated by the link posted above there may be some merit to this and perhaps children shouldn't be looked upon as a source of cheap labor on farms when the use of such dangerous equipment is involved. But then again, I guess it is ok in this country to bitch about an 8 year old Chinese kid working in an I-Pad factory for 16 hours a day for 12 cents an hour, but to see no problem in having the same kid working on a farm for the same period of time while working with equipment that can rip off his arms.

Substantially more children also ride in cars compared to those who work on farms. This doesn't mean that driving is an inherently more dangerous activity compared to working with farm equipment. Statistics fail.



There were 26,000 injuries and ~ one third of those were work-related. That means that greater than 8600 of those injuries were work related. Instead of pointing this out you chose to compare the number of fatalities vs. the number of injuries, which is a dishonest argument because many injuries may not be fatal. Is it only prudent to take action only when a fatality is involved and that no concerns are warranted if the kid is only missing a limb from an accident?

Once again, I'm not pretending to know any of the statistics behind farm-related injuries in children. It just seems as though you are being .ess than honest with your arguments.

Like Fat, you clearly demonstrate that you have always lived in an urban area and apparently slept in the back seat of your parent's car when they would drive outside the city limits. You know nothing about farming and less about statistics. I'm no great shakes at them either, but your spin on the numbers is "interesting" shall we say. I don't know what point you think are triumphing over when you say that greater than 8600 (actually 8,666) were work related. The fact remains that the remaining 17344 were not work related and hence would not be affected by such regulations. In addition, my point about the 84 fatalities had nothing to do with comparing them to injuries. I was using 84 as a minute percentage of the 1.1 million under 18 people involved in farming. So reading comprehension fail, rather than statistics fail. You clearly don't need to pretend to know anything on this matter. Because you've already displayed abysmal ignorance on farming and basic numbers. As for honesty, you wouldn't know what that was if you were hit by a bale of it. Or better yet a grain shovel full of it.

From another thread on this subject in Ends and Pieces. I'm citing myself in response to tertius having listed specific provisions (in quotes below) of this travesty:

Prohibiting youth in both agricultural and nonagricultural employment from using electronic devices, including communication devices, while operating power-driven equipment.

You do realize that walkie talkies are used on farms right?

Prohibiting hired farm workers under the age of 16 from operating almost all power-driven equipment. A similar prohibition has existed as part of the nonagricultural child labor provisions for more than 50 years. A limited exemption would permit some student-learners to operate certain farm implements and tractors (when equipped with proper rollover protection structures and seat belts) under specified conditions.

Like the most fundamental piece of power equipment used to power or haul everything else on a farm called a tractor? Get a grip man.

Preventing children under 18 years of age from being employed in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm-product raw materials. Prohibited places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.

So they can't drive a truck filled with soybeans or corn to a grain bin co-op? This would also include overseeing use of an augur or conveyor to fill a farmer's personally owned corn crib or grain bin by someone under 18. Given the expansive definition of transport thanks of the SCOTUS living document on the Commerce Clause this means almost anything. I might add it would under such expansive interpretations include feeding one's own livestock. It makes no stipulation about powered equipment there either. Those other locations named? Pretty much covers the waterfront for farming.

I guess they should all just divest themselves of power equipment and go back to ploughshares, or better yet, mattocks, hoes, and planting sticks for seed planting. Yeah that's the ticket! Back to serfdom like in pre-Soviet Russia.

[DoctorWho]

I just read where Al Franken called withdrawal of the rules "a good outcome." Can any of the arguments in favor of the rules "for the children" have much merit when even Al Franken backs off?

[williamlexcrawford]

I grew up on a ranch outside of Midland, TX, where my father was a ranch foreman. I routinely operated vehicles (moving trucks and trailers from one end of a pasture to the other), enflicted pain on animals (flanking calves during branding), and did many other things that would be considered dangerous by the Department of Labor like roping bulls approaching 2000 pounds from horseback. Not only did it help to make sure I wasn't a momma's boy, I also was able to earn money working. Obviously this is a pretty small sample size, but I've only broken one bone and that was playing soccer. My father broke his arm from being bucked off a horse and he has blown out his knee a few times but that was from playing church basketball and ranch rodeos.

Despite my upbringing, I'm incredibly liberal, however I think that people should be able to participate in activities that do not harm others pretty much at their own discretion. I'm glad that they backed off this because if kids can play high school football, I can't imagine what kind of busy body imbecile thinks that working in an honorable trade is a bad thing.

[Greg C]

Wow, I am impressed by the naivety of the arguments made in this thread so far. I just read through 3 pages of nonsensical arguments and people seem to be complaining about the OP's initial assertion that these "chores" are being banned due to stunting of growth or other analogous injuries that would happen during weight training. If that is what this law would be about then yes it would be ridiculous. However, these "chores" that are not being allowed for children under 16 do not involve the "hauling of hay" as has been asserted by many of the posters in this thread. The proposed law was intended to keep children from using power-driven farm equipment. The proposed ban on "manual labor" that many posters have made is a complete fabrication.

I'm not going to pretend to know the statistics behind the number of farm accidents and young children using "motor driven farm equipment", but as indicated by the link posted above there may be some merit to this and perhaps children shouldn't be looked upon as a source of cheap labor on farms when the use of such dangerous equipment is involved. But then again, I guess it is ok in this country to bitch about an 8 year old Chinese kid working in an I-Pad factory for 16 hours a day for 12 cents an hour, but to see no problem in having the same kid working on a farm for the same period of time while working with equipment that can rip off his arms.

Substantially more children also ride in cars compared to those who work on farms. This doesn't mean that driving is an inherently more dangerous activity compared to working with farm equipment. Statistics fail.



There were 26,000 injuries and ~ one third of those were work-related. That means that greater than 8600 of those injuries were work related. Instead of pointing this out you chose to compare the number of fatalities vs. the number of injuries, which is a dishonest argument because many injuries may not be fatal. Is it only prudent to take action only when a fatality is involved and that no concerns are warranted if the kid is only missing a limb from an accident?

Once again, I'm not pretending to know any of the statistics behind farm-related injuries in children. It just seems as though you are being .ess than honest with your arguments.

Math not your strong-suit either (argumentation being an obvious weakness)? 8600/26000=0.33=33%

[Mark E. Hurling]

I just read where Al Franken called withdrawal of the rules "a good outcome." Can any of the arguments in favor of the rules "for the children" have much merit when even Al Franken backs off?

Al Franken is one of Minnesota's Senators. Minnesota has a lot of farmers. So much for integrity, his remarks were nothing but a function of self interest and wanting to appear to be on the most advantageous (as opposed to right) side of this matter. Feather merchant.

[FatButWeak]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...105/3/659.full

Soccer constitutes child abuse on many levels. That it is "dangerous" is not one of them.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Depends on what your definition of "danger" is. If the potential to get hurt means it's dangerous, soccer is the most dangerous organized sport on the planet, by a wide margin.