Hanging By a Thread

The Killing Fields {Out of the Mouths of Babes}

Why are We so Stupid?

My six year-old loves honeybees and everything to do with them. When I mentioned to him that many were dying or getting sick and weak and explained why this was happening this was his response.

"Don't people know that we need the earth to survive? I mean, it's the only planet we have to live on. So, if we are doing things to destroy our earth, we are basically destroying ourselves. Why do people do things like that?"

Man, I love this kid. He is so witty, so smart and so perceptive on issues so far beyond his 6 years on this earth! And he's right; it's that simple....if we are doing things that destroy our earth and the living, growing, working organisms on our earth, we are destroying ourselves.

The Need for Bees

In the last few years, I have read several articles on our dwindling population of honeybees and the concern over this issue. In the last few months, I have read and seen a continual flow of articles on this topic.

The concern is growing. Some say this may be the worst year on record for honey production, but honey is not the only issue. Honeybees are needed to pollinate over 95 different fruits and vegetables crops, including almonds, berries, avocados, apples, pumpkins and pears, to name just a few.

Since 2006, honeybee numbers have been closely watched, with beekeepers losing approximately 30 % of their bees a year; however, this winter keepers are reporting a 70 to 90 percent loss. This spells trouble for all of us who eat food.

The Killing Fields

So, what is sickening our honeybees? Well, the buzz word, if you'll pardon the pun, is pesticide, and not just any pesticides, but a certain class.

Scientists have linked this Colony Collapse Disorder to neonicotinoids. Included in this class are clothiandin, thiamethoxam, imidicloprid and sulfoxaflor, which are currently under consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

"Neonicotinoids are applied before planting to coat seeds. The pesticide is then taken up through the vascular system of the plant and expressed through the pollen and nectar, which bees rely on for food," according to Paul Towers of the Pesticide Action Network (PAN). Apparently, these pesticides linger in the soil affecting the next crop, as well.

Consider this, "In the United States, such neonicotinoids are routinely used on more than 100 million acres of corn, wheat, soy and cotton and are in some home gardening products." Thomson Reuters

It's not just bee populations being destroyed; it's also bats, birds, butterflies, beetles and other small mammals. They too, play a large role in pollinating our plants. According, to North American Pollinator Protection Campaign, some species have seen a 90 percent decline in their numbers just in the past decade.

Taking Action

A couple of weeks ago, four professional beekeepers and five environmental and consumer groups filed a lawsuit in federal court against the EPA. In the lawsuit, the groups claim , "the U.S. environmental regulators are failing to protect honeybees and their role in pollinating important food crops, and should immediately suspend use of some toxic insecticides tied to the widespread deaths of the bees." science.ncbnews.com

"Despite our best efforts to warn the agency about the problems posed by neonicotinoids, the EPA continued to ignore the clear warning signs of an ag system in trouble," says Paul Tower of PAN. It's also worth noting that in Europe, the European Commission has proposed a ban on neonicotinoids because the European Food Safety Authority found that there is a high risk to the health of the honeybees when this class of pesticide is used.

The Scoop

We all eat food. If our crops fail here and/or abroad because there are no honeybees to pollinate them, then prices go up, food is scarce and we are all adversely affected.

There is an ever mounting pile of crap that leads to companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer and other companies manufacturing pesticides and manipulating seeds and plants. Believe it or not, it was just a few years ago that such pesticides from the neonicotinoids class began being used widespread to grow stronger, disease/pest resistant crops. Unfortunately, this was done at the expense of health of humans and animals. I believe we are only starting to see the repercussions of the use of such strong and harmful chemicals.

So, why should we care about this issue? Because it matters to all of us; that is, all of us who eat food. More to come on this and other food issues. Over and out...

Anna

A Pinterest{ing} Question: Is it Safe to Pin?

Failing to See the Forest for the Trees

A few weeks ago, we tried one of those do-it-yourself yogurt bars where you choose from 16 some odd flavors of yogurt and then pile on the toppings. You can go crazy or keep it modest. I let the boys choose their flavors and toppings with minimal help from me, allowing them to create their own unique treat. They actually kept it pretty respectable with a balance of fruit and candy.

On the way out the door, Darling 1 dropped his cup, spilling some of the kiwi fruit, gummy bears and brownie chunks out on the sidewalk. He panicked and began to go into hysterics, but I scooped it up and assured him that I had saved most of his delicious concoction. Once seated and chowing down on his frozen yogurt treat, he forgot about those lost gummy bears; and despite this small hiccup and near meltdown, he enjoyed his very distinctive "fro-yo" creation.

Sometimes we lack vision and can't see past a small stone in the path that we mistaken for a giant boulder. When that happens it takes insight from others to realize it's not really such a big deal.

Jumping the Gun

About a month ago, a woman wrote a post explaining her tearful decision to close her Pinterest account over fear of lawsuits regarding the photo links she "pinned" on this social media platform. After reading the Pinterest Terms of Use and considering copyright laws she basically panicked, pulled her boards down and spread her paranoid post across the blogosphere. I've been ruminating on this issue since reading the article. And finally, I have a chance to write about it.

For those who don't know, Pinterest is a relatively new social media platform where users can create virtual bulletin boards with different themes. Each time a user places a photo link on a board, it's called "a pin." Many websites have added buttons titled "Pin This" or other similar statements to encourage readers to post the link with a photo to their Pinterest boards.

I do have a Pinterest account, but I admit that I have barely used it and I'm certainly no expert on Pinterest, but my opinion is that this woman made a mountain out of a molehill. There are two issues to address: 1) Terms of Use; and 2) copyright laws. Neither of these issues are unique to Pinterest.

Terms of Use

The woman who sadly left Pinterest was apparently shocked to find that Pinterest claimed indemnity when it came to copyright issues, including attorney fees. Well, let me tell you that all online platforms who have covered all their bases, dotted every i and crossed every t is going to place all the blame squarely on your shoulders and leave your mess in your lap should you violate someone's copyright. And why shouldn't they?

After all, it's not Typepad's {my blog host} responsibility to make sure that I don't infringe on anyone's copyright, etc. They are merely the paid host of thousands of blogs. They are not the regulators of content, nor the owners of any of the content contained within each blog. Just as it is not Pinterest's obligation to ensure that everyone being pinned is alright with this. So, any legal actions, including any costs incurred, are the user's liability not the platform's problem.

This should not have been a shock to this woman. This is standard language in a Terms of Use policy. I would be shocked if the Terms of Use didn't contain these provisions. There's no reason to quit Pinterest because of this standard and fair language.

Copyrighted Material

As with any social media platform, all users should have at the very least a vague understanding of copyright laws in order to protect their own works and protect themselves from getting in trouble if using someone else's original work. I think, in general, misunderstandings about what constitutes copyrighted material and what is an infringement of such copyright abound in the world of social media.

It's actually quite easy to infringe on someone's copyrighted material if you're pinning content on Pinterest, posting photos that you didn't take or writing articles with liberal use of other's written words without permission from the copyright owner.

Here are a few of the basic concepts:

• What type of material is protected by copyright? {the short answer}
  • Copyright protects original works of authorship including literary, musicals. Dramatic and artistic works.
  • Copyright does not include ideas, systems, facts or methods of operation.
• What constitutes copyright infringement?
  • In general terms, a copyright is infringed when a person makes a derivative work, reproduces, performs, publicly displays or distributes copyrighted material without the permission from the copyright owner.
• What is fair use?
  • Fair use is a doctrine that allows for limited use of copyrighted materials without first acquiring permission from the copyright owner.
  • Under fair use, copyrighted material may be used for news reporting, criticism, commentary, educational uses, research and the like.
  • In determining whether fair use applies, a court will look at 4 factors;
    • Purpose and character of the use;
    • Nature of the original; material made for commercial use is less protected;
    • Amount and substance of original used; and
    • Effect that the use has had on the market of the original material.

Pinning without Permission

While "pinning" a photo that acts as a link to the original source, may or may not be considered copyright infringement {the courts haven't considered this specific issue yet}, most website owners are not going to be upset by this link. The pinning to a board in Pinterest will likely cause increased traffic to the original source's site, which for most will be considered a positive effect.

One exception might be photographers who are showcasing photos of clients or selling their art on their sites. These sites are often protected by passwords and/or have water marks on photos and provide language about the use of their photos.

However, should your "pin" not link the material to the original source, a problem could arise. And yet, most likely the first course of action will not be to file a lawsuit. Most of these issues can easily be corrected by contacting the person who is infringing on another's copyright and demand that the offending person take down copyrighted material immediately.

If that doesn't do the trick, a formal cease and desist letter would follow. And then, if there is still infringement or if there is a gross infringement or habitual infringement, a petition would most likely be filed in federal court.

The Scoop

Few with a heavy online presence haven't had to send a demand to take down a page or post or photo. It happens often, whether on purpose or in ignorance. I don't mean to say it isn't a big deal; it is. But it's usually something that can easily be dealt with without filing a lawsuit.

So, should you close up shop at Facebook, Twitter, your blog, Pinterest, et al? I don't think so. But I do think you should know what the Terms of Use that you have agreed to say and understand the basics of copyright law. When in doubt about whether what you're "taking" from another constitutes copyright infringement be sure to look it up; you can find anything online. Oh, and I'm fine with you "pinning" this on Pinterest, sharing it on Facebook or Retweeting it on Twitter Over and out....

Anna

Too Dangerous to Consume? Hazards of Doing the Dew & Having Some Wip at the Reddi

Considering Junk Food

At this time of year, the start of one year before us and the food-laden holidays and past year behind us, many of us take stock of our diet and exercise routines. We all know which foods we should be filling our diets with, but why is it that ALL seriously delicious, crave-worthy foods are terrible for us? It seems like a really cruel joke.

Although I think that on the whole I eat pretty well, I am often snared by the chocolate traps and can fall very far down in the ooey, gooey, rich chocolate pit {which I don't necessary think of as bad thing}. At least chocolate does have a number of redeeming qualities, which I have mentioned to you before.

However, there are other foods sitting on grocery store shelves looking very innocent, indeed; that are actually deadly {to a mouse} or could be used illegally. How could these corrosive, dangerous items be legal to sell? These junk foods are actually quite often consumed. It might surprise you when you find out what I'm talking about.

Last week, I happened upon two stories regarding food items and the law. Each story is completely different from the other, but both are interesting.

Whipped Topping No Laughing Matter

In the first instance, last week in St. Cloud, MN, a 23 year-old male was arrested driving while impaired from a hazardous substance after he crashed his car into a pole. What was this substance? Well, inside the vehicle were numerous cans of whipped topping.

My first reaction was "what, you can sniff whipped topping?" How crazy is that? Well, as it turns out whipped topping is included on the list of dangerous inhalants.

While the whipped topping contains mostly fat and sweeteners {and no cream}, it also contains nitrous oxide gas. You may be more familiar with its other name, "laughing gas." Yep, that's right; nitrous oxide is the same stuff your dentist might administer to you as an anesthetic. This gas aids in the dispensing of the whipped topping and whipping it at the same time.

There are actually a number of household items that are can be inhaled. Some you are quite aware of, but others may surprise you. They are categorized as gases (nitrous oxide, propane tank gas, chloroform, whipped topping, gases from a refrigerator, etc.) aerosols (contained in spray bottles, such as hair spray, vegetable oil sprays, spray paint, etc.), nitrites (often contained in cleaning products, leather cleaners and scented air fresheners; butyl, amyl and cyclohexyl) and volatile solvents (Often found at home, in schools and in the work place, including glues, paint thinner, degreasers, felt-tipped markers, etc).

Not many consumables on that list. Did you take a good look at other items in the same category as the whipped topping? I bet you'll think twice the next time you spray whipped topping on your pie? But seriously, would you really want to eat this product again?

Do the Dew or Maybe Not

The second story involves a lawsuit. A man alleges he found a mouse in his Mountain Dew. He says he sent the mouse remains he found in his Dew to the folks at PepsiCo for analysis and they destroyed the mouse. The lawyers for PepsiCo came back with an argument that isn't quite what you might expect.

They say that if a mouse had indeed ended up in a Mountain Dew container, the soda would have dissolved the mouse into a jelly-like substance before the consumer ever opened the container; approximately 15 months after bottling. Hmmm. Well, that makes me want to drink this pop.

Let's ponder that for a minute. I'm not talking about a cleaning substance or poison or toxic substance that could dissolve a mouse. I am talking about a consumable; a beverage. OK, so it looks like toxic waste and tastes a bit like what I would imagine Windex might taste like, but still many people do "Do the Dew" quite often.

So, here's the skinny: Mountain Dew contains citric acid that is corrosive enough to destroy teeth and bones in a matter of months {if soaked in the liquid}, as noted by several studies. While citrus fruit juices have more citric acid and the rate of decay of teeth and/or bones would be the same; at least there is vitamin C in the fruit juices. So, will Mountain Dew kill you? Well, it's not going to dissolve your teeth and bones; unless you soak in it for a couple of weeks; and it's not known to be corrosive on your "innards". For the record, I'm not taking any chances.

The Scoop

At the risk of sounding like a food snob, I don't consume these particular foods, and I have to admit I'm really glad I don't'. So, there you have it; a few interesting legal issues involving foods under inconsumable circumstances. Over and out...

Anna

Rudolph The Rich Reindeer: A Quite Different & Slightly Legal Version of Rudy the Red-Nosed Reindeer

You Only Think You Know This Story

You may be familiar with the story of a little reindeer named Rudolph who happened to be born with a birth defect. His nose, instead of being black like other reindeer, was big and red and even glowed like a light bulb.

His red nose didn't bother him or hinder him in any way. Rudy grew and developed just like any other little reindeer, but then one day he went to play with the others. Well, you can imagine how the young reindeer girls and boys teased Rudy about his nose. They had never seen such a nose before and they treated him as an outcast.

Reindeer Have Feelings Too

Well, actually it was even worse than making him feel like an outcast. They didn't ever leave him alone. They made jokes about him; they taunted him; they butted him with their little antlers; and they called him names. They were ruthless in the way they bullied poor Rudy. The other cruel reindeer basically cut him off from all reindeer contact; completely isolating him from society.

His father, Donner, was one of Santa's top reindeer. He didn't understand his son with the red nose and didn't think much of the teasing. Donner, a big, strong jock buck, simply told his son to "buck up" and butt back, which really wasn't very supportive.

Rudy ended up quite depressed. He wouldn't eat; he had trouble sleeping; he felt hopeless; and he refused to go to school or out to play with the other young reindeer. Instead, he spent all of his time in his room listening to Britney Spears' Blackout album over and over, which just made him feel worse about his troubles. He sat on his bed with his lights off and his red nose lighting the room.

Santa owned all of the reindeer and he was aware of Rudy's red nose and the physical and mental bullying that went on. In all his years of reindeer ownership he had never seen such a nose. He considered him to be a weak link, an embarrassment and just didn't care how he was treated. In fact, he himself, that right jolly old elf, even gave a hearty "ho, ho, ho" over some of the cruel jokes and nicknames for Rudy, which Rudy heard. Having Santa against him was the last nail in the coffin.

The Lawsuit

Rudy decided to consult with the outcast elf, Hermey, who originally wanted to be a dentist, but after realizing that you have to stick your hands in other elves' mouths, decided to become an attorney and represent the down trodden and outcast characters in the World of Fiction. Hermey decided that Rudy had a good case for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

While this cause of action is typically quite difficult to prove, Hermey felt that with the specific instances of ridicule and Rudy's doctor certified bouts of depression, Rudy had a good case. Hermey had to show:

1. Santa and his reindeer, hereinafter referred to as Defendants, acted intentional or recklessly; and
2. Defendants' conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3. Defendants' actions were the cause of the distress; and
4. Rudolph T. Reindeer, hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff, suffers severe emotional distress as a result of Defendants' conduct.

Hermey was a very good attorney with a very convincing argument, and Rudy won the lawsuit.

Part of the damages awarded to Rudy included the right of first refusal to lead Santa's team of reindeer on foggy Christmas Eves as long as he is able. Additional damages included having a Christmas song, children's story and movie written about Rudy's plight as an outcast reindeer due to his uniqueness. The movie must be played on every television channel at least once during the Christmas holiday season for eternity. Of course, Santa had to pay 3.4 million dollars in damages, as well.

The Scoop

So, what happened to poor Rudy? Why he went down in history as the first {but not the last} reindeer to sue Santa and win. But the newly wealthy Rudy didn't let it all go to his nose....er, um, I mean head. No, he became an advocate for all special needs and bullied cartoon and book characters.

Rudy went on to work the speaker's circuit, charging half a million to speak. He became the wealthiest, best known reindeer ever. And Hermey....why, he never wanted for clients again. He became the Gloria Allred of fictional characters. And they all lived happily ever after....except for Santa, perhaps. Over and out...

Anna

On A Soapbox: Suing Mom?

Worst Mommy in the World

I am not the most patient mom in the world. I'll admit it. I have been known to lose my temper. It's true. I have, at times, been called "the worst mommy in the WORLD!" by my hot-headed, tantrum-throwing offspring. I've been judged and sentenced to time out or prison, whatever that is to a 5 year-old. I have sometimes agreed with the sentences pronounced upon me...sometimes.

But my children are still young, impetuous and unschooled in life, and I expect that in time they'll grow and mature and understand that life isn't fair; they don't get everything they want whether they deserve it or not; and that they won't always deserve, or need, the things they may think they simply cannot live without.

Extreme and Outrageous Behavior

I pray that my kids will understand these things and love me regardless of how much {or how little} I spend on them. I sincerely hope my kids don't ever sue me because I wasn't the "world's best mommy" in their view every day.

You think it's absurd that I would hope such a thing? Because seriously, what kind of values am I teaching my kids, right? What kind of brat would sue a parent over such trivial and unimportant issues? Who, indeed? Well, I'll tell you precisely who: Stephen A. Miner II and Kathryn Miner, now 23 and 20, respectively, of Barrington Hills, a wealthy Chicago suburb.

These spoiled, rotten brats {in my opinion}...ahem...siblings sued their mother. What did they claim she did to them as children? Were there allegations of locking them in the closet; leaving them in the car until 2 a.m. while she sat in a bar drinking; physically, sexually or mentally abusing them, withholding food or shelter from them? No, these two claimed emotional distress and sought damages for her alleged "extreme and outrageous" behavior. Here are some of the specific instances that lead to these claims by said Plaintiffs: The Respondent, a.k.a. Mom, allegedly:

• Told Steven when he was 7 that she would call police if he didn't buckle his seat belt.
• Failed to send college care packages and birthday cards for many years, and when she sent cards, failed to include cash.
• Changed her last name, causing distress at school events.
• Sent Steven a birthday card showing a bunch of tomatoes, one with googly eyes, with the caption: "Son I got you this birthday card because it's just like you … different from all the rest!"
• Haggled over the amount spent on Kathryn Miner's party dresses.
• Called Kathryn Miner at midnight while she was at homecoming and told her to come home.
• Played favorites with the kids.

~Source: ABA Journal, August 29, 2011

Family Dynamics

So, where was the father of these shallow kids when they were contemplating suing dear ol' mom? Where, indeed? Why he was one of the attorneys who helped to bring this suit to court. Their father represented them in this lawsuit. Ah, this is starting to make more sense, isn't it?

When little Steven and Kathryn were and 7 and 4, their parents divorced. Steven Miner, Sr., their father, was awarded full custody of young Steven and the two parents shared custody of their young daughter. Clearly, there are still some issues that should probably be resolved in therapy or during long, open-hearted, emotional conversations with each other.

This week, an Illinois appellate court dismissed this case finding that the mother's alleged conduct was neither extreme nor outrageous. The Court further stated that a ruling in favor of the children "could potentially open the floodgate to subject family child rearing to ...excessive judicial scrutiny and interference" as quoted in the ABA Journal, August 29, 2011.

The Scoop

This frivolous, petty, overly litigious claim not only wasted the time and money for all involved, but as nj.com points out it also lessens the very real and tragic stories of kids who are truly abused and mistreated by their parents.

The mother, Kimberly Garrity, other than perhaps having her heart broken by her malcontent offspring, also could have gone broke fighting this lawsuit. From several articles I read, it looks like Ms. Garrity will not recoup her attorney fees in this matter. And yet, the Plaintiffs, who supposedly lost this battle, won't have to pay much, if anything, considering Daddy was their attorney. So, who really won?

Hmmmm, something stinks here. Clearly, there was some abuse here. The Miners, all three of them, abused the judicial system in trying to settle a personal and very petty score. Over and out...

Anna

Your Liability: Inflatable Bounce Houses

Torts

Negligence is defined as "the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm. Source: Black's Law Dictionary, 9^th Ed.

Now this takes me back to my 1^st semester of law school; Torts class with Professor Peter B Kutner. No, I don't mean the pastry kind of tortes. A tort is quite simply a civil wrong; a breach of duty owed to another. Torts are a big part of the first year of law school; one of the basic building blocks of law. Negligence is a tort.

When one is negligent in action {or inaction, as the case may be} and causes an injury to a person or property, one is liable to the one sustaining such injury. This is all simply put, and of course, each case is unique in circumstances, etc., but in general, it's that simple.

What determines whether someone was negligent in a situation is the illusory reasonable person. The reasonable person is a hypothetical person used as a legal standard to determine whether someone acted in a negligent manner. The reasonable person acts sensibly, does things without serious delay and takes proper but not excessive precautions. Source: Black's Law Dictionary.

In my 1L {First Year of Law School} section we playfully imagined the prudent "Reasonable Person" as a super hero of sorts with a cape and a giant R on his chest running around doing sensible things. But in truth, the reasonable person is not mightier, smarter or better than everyone else, just always alert, always aware and always doing the "reasonable" thing in any given situation.

Liability Issues

When it comes to bounce house injuries and liability there is no sure answer as to whether someone would be liable if a person was injured in conjunction with the bounce house activity while attending a party at your home; or if a person was injured by you or your child while jumping in a bounce house elsewhere; or if you or a family member was injured at a bounce house business or at a private party, etc. Each case is unique and if a lawsuit was filed following an injury that case would be decided in a court of law based on the particular facts as applied to the law.

With that said, here are a few tips when it comes to negligence and liability and bounce houses:

• If you sign a waiver, you are accepting the risk associated with the activity itself, but you are NOT accepting the risk associated with a negligent act on the part of the business or someone associated with that business. You can still file a lawsuit if you are injured due to negligent maintenance, set up or management, etc. of the bounce houses, regardless of whether you signed a waiver;
• If a risk of danger or injury is obvious or should be obvious to a person using the premises and an injury occurs, that is generally not considered negligence;
• If an injury occurs in or around a bounce house, liability may lie with the operator of the bounce house, owner of the structure and/or business where it's located, the manufacturer and/or other jumpers or invitees, depending on the particular circumstances;
• If you rent a bounce house for your home, business or event do be sure to follow all rules provided to you and use reasonable caution in operating and monitoring the bounce house. If you follow all rules and closely monitor the usage of it while on your property and under your care, you will decrease the chance of injury and the chance that you are liable for any injuries;
• You should check to see if the operator or owner of the bounce house has insurance covering injuries. Also, if you are inviting people to your house to use a rented bounce house, check with your own insurance company covering your property. An umbrella policy could be useful in this circumstance, as well. Read more about umbrella insurance policies here in a past post;
• As a parent, it's your duty to protect your child. If you see something that seems dangerous feel that the structure is in ill repair or the operator is being unsafe or not monitoring the use of the structure, use reasonable judgment and remove your child from the bounce house; avoid injury, if possible; and
• Remember accidents do happen; not every injury is due to someone else's negligence.

The Scoop

So, in the end it's up to you to decide when it's safe and when it's not safe for your child to play in and around a bounce house. Many people have left comments here, on Twitter or on Facebook this week saying that they were just at a bounce house or are attending a party this week at a bounce structure business, etc. It's would be hard to avoid them altogether. They are at schools, at churches, almost all children's events have them and many birthday parties, large family gatherings and business activities for employees and families rent them.

Bounce structures are everywhere. The number of injuries sustained involving bounce houses continues to grow with their popularity. Is it simply a trend? Will bounce houses begin to go away, especially after the negative news stories of late involving injuries and catastrophe? We'll see, but for now, follow the rules, watch for unsafe conditions and monitor the situation while your kids are in the bounce structure. Over and out...

Anna

 You might also like:

*The photo is of a bounce structure I just happened on as I was driving yesterday. It's looks to be part bounce house/part slip and slide. Either way, you can see from the photo that it was not anchored to the ground, but merely sitting there.

** The information in this post is not in any way to be considered legal advice. Nothing in this article creates an attorney-client relationship.

 

Dirty Little {Hidden} Toxins: Exposure to Lead in Bounce Houses {2012 Reminder}

Dirty Hands

My Darling Boys are always sticking their fingers in the mouths or grabbing a snack with their fingers and eating it after playing at the park or in the dirt before I can clean off their hands or send them to the sink for a thorough washing.

This grosses me out and sends thousands of warnings messages through my neurons. I try to stop them and get their hands clean before it happens, but it invariably does happen. Darling 2 will say, "Why, Ma?" as he sticks little goldfish crackers in his mouth with his filthy little hands. And yet, they have survived and a little dirt is OK, but it's all the chemicals and germs that scare me. And now, another danger to be wary of...

Hidden Bounce House Dangers

We are aware of the threat of lead in old paint, in toys, in jewelry and on strands of Christmas lights, but here's one that might surprise you: beware of dangerous levels of lead in inflatable bounce house vinyl. Last August, the CA attorney general's office filed a lawsuit against 8 bounce house manufacturers claiming there are unsafe levels of lead in the vinyl. In February, a settlement was reached with 2 of the major suppliers to reduce the lead in the vinyl, making it safer for about half of the bounce houses.

The lawsuit was filed after the Center for Environmental Health tested dozens of bounce houses. The advocacy group focused on the vinyl of the structures; the very thing that makes them bouncy. The group used Field Portable XRF analyzers with X-rays to determine the chemical makeup of solid objects. What they found was surprising.

Lead Exposure

The tests revealed that the vinyl tested contained lead in levels of 5,000 parts per million to 29,000 parts per million. These number far exceed the federal limit of 90 to 300 parts per million. These levels are potentially toxic.

Lead is a cumulative poison; every little bit exposed to can make a big difference in the long run, particularly for kids. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that exposure to lead can lead to learning disabilities, behavioral problems and seizures, coma and even death, in cases of extreme exposure.

Precautions

If you choose not to boycott bounce houses altogether, based on this issue and others, then be sure to wash hands and face after your child is finished in the bounce house and before eating. What happens is the lead dust gets on a child's hands and face and clothes, the child then gets out and grabs a drink or eats some food and ingests the lead dust in the process.

The two manufacturers who agreed to the settlement in California also agreed to test their structures that are already in circulation for rental for parties and events and replace those with dangerous levels. However, the safe assumption is that your child may be exposed to lead when using a bounce house. So, make sure to wipe your child's hands and face after playing in a bounce house.

The Scoop

We can choose to be overly cautious or throw caution to the wind or settle somewhere in the middle. We fall in the middle ground. I'm not a fanatic about washing hands every three minutes; I let me kids play in the dirt; we swim in lakes; and haven't had all of our toys tested for lead or other dangerous chemicals. Yep, we're living on the edge. Over and out...

Anna

Coffee with Anna Vlog #2: Banning Kids from Restaurants and Targeting the Happy Meal

 

This vlog business is much harder than you would imagine. Sorry for the delay. I had loud kids and a barking dog to contend with this morning. Perhaps, I should ban them from my "recording studio."

These first few weeks are certainly based on trial and error. So, please stick with me as I work out the kinks and format. My biggest problem is brevity. I want it to be conversational and not strictly here are the points: bam, bam, bam, done. This is long, but I stay on point and cover only the two news items. I think I will have to choose just one news item to discuss in the future.

I will continue to work on the length of the video and other fine details, but today it was this or nothing. I've got work I've got to get to now. I hope you enjoy it, and if you don't that's fine too. Please let me know your thoughts, but again, please be nice either way. Over and out...

Anna

Exposed: Privacy Rights

The Open Door Policy

When you have little kids in your home privacy is not something you get much of, especially if you are the mama. Our bathroom door is rarely closed, and if it is, that probably means one of the Darlings is up to no good.

If I shut a door in our home it seems to act as a beacon, calling to the Darlings to stop whatever they are doing, approach the closed door and yell, pound, push toys under, cry, jab fingers and toes under and generally have a fit. I end up getting less privacy with closed doors at our house. It leaves me feeling exposed and weary; never quite getting "alone time" at home.

Need for Privacy

Privacy is something each of us craves starting from a very young age. Some may need more privacy than others, but everyone does require it in some amount. This could mean actual physical privacy to attend to private matters or collect one's thoughts or pray or read or make a phone call, etc.; or the privacy could regard information, accounts, records and documents. Either way, we, the citizens of the United States of America, expect privacy in our lives.

In comparison to the rest of the world, the U.S. affords quite a bit of privacy to its citizens. Of course, over the years our rights to privacy have been diminishing thanks in large part to the Internet, societal habits and terrorism. We have accepted the long lines at airport security, the never-ending list of passwords, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and other semi-invasive measures in order to protect the majority of our privacies and freedoms.

Protected Rights

While the U.S. Constitution does not specifically provide for any right to privacy, the Bill of Rights does include rights to privacy: the 1^st Amendment protects specific personal issues, including privacy of beliefs, the 3^rd Amendment grants privacy in the home, protecting against soldiers being housed in one's home, the 4^th Amendment ensures privacy of one's body and property, guaranteeing no unreasonable searches and the 5^th Amendment protects one's private information, guarding against self-incrimination.

Various state and federal laws also ensure privacy rights such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Additionally, the Privacy Act of 1974 protects privacy rights through "the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies." Source: Wikipedia.com

Invasion of Privacy

The term "invasion of privacy" is a tort, or civil wrong, and includes four types of wrongs. These are causes of action for which someone who feels he or she has suffered from an invasion of privacy can file a lawsuit against another:

1. Intrusion of solitude and seclusion. Intrusion of solitude is when one person exposes another person to unwarranted publicity. Intrusion of seclusion happens when a person physically, electronically or by other method interferes with the private affairs or space of another;
2. Public Disclosure. This type of invasion of privacy occurs when a person exposes private information to the public when such exposure would offend a reasonable person;
3. False Light. False light is similar to defamation. Here, a non-public person's private information is revealed, which puts that person in a false light. Generally, this involves information that is highly offensive and embarrassing to a reasonable person;
4. Appropriation of name or likeness. This invasion of privacy occurs when a person uses the name or likeness of another for his advantage and/or monetary gain.

Other, more controversial rights to privacy include the right to an abortion, the right to marry and the right to die. At some point I'm sure I'll cover each of these subjects too.

The Scoop

As stated in Article 2, §10 of the Montana Constitution, "The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest." We must carefully guard our rights of privacy, in regards to our homes, our persons and our information. Over and out...

Anna

The Law with a Side of Bacon: Social Media Breakfast MSP Panel Discussion on Law & Social Media

BACON

 It's What's For Dinner

 

 

Early Wake Up Call {For This Night Owl}

This morning I participated in the Social Media Breakfast Social Media and the Law panel discussion moderated by Albert Maruggi. Joining me on the panel were three esteemed members of the bar; Teresa Thompson, James Quinn, and Jon Garon. Thomson Reuters sponsored this meeting of SMBMSP. It was a lively discussion of many areas of the law that impact how social media is used and consumed.

Much of the discussion centered on employment issues and use of social media, both as a means of business marketing and a person's private account. We briefly touched on how the courts are using social media as material to be included in discovery requests and as a part of the jury selection process.

I wish we had had more time to discuss the FTC Guidelines regarding disclosure, defamation issues and blogging, whether to trademark and whether there's a need to acquire an insurance policy as a social media participant. That's the beauty of the law; one discussion leads to a host of other interesting legal issues.

The Scoop

So, what's with the bacon and BLTs? Bacon is a part of the Social Media Breakfast's logo/theme. So, Thomson Reuters gave each panel participant a package of Hormel's Fully Cooked Bacon {and a deluxe edition of the newest version of Black's Law Dictionary, published by West, and engraved with each person's name, weighing a full 10 pounds; I'm not exaggerating...I weighed it}.

My Darlings and my dogs were most excited about the bacon. And that's what we had for dinner; BLT's. The bacon is fully cooked, but I still crisped it in the microwave for 2 minutes. It was really tasty; which is much more than I expected from fully cooked bacon that doesn't have to be refrigerated until opened. And just to be on the safe side with the FTC and the disclosure guidelines: Thomson Reuters gave me the bacon as a gift. I followed the directions on the box, ate it and enjoyed it!

Enjoy the weekend. We, in Minnesota, are beginning to see the ground... without snow on it. That's not the case in my yard, but maybe by Monday. Over and out...

Anna

You might also like:

 

Social Media Faux Pas: Defamation Lawsuits

Twitter 101: Engage, Build Relationships, Reply...

Our Comfortable Connection: The Information You Post Online Could Be Used Against You