Eggs protected from breakage by the use of 'polystyrene helmet'.

Paulmouk wrote:

I turned the radio on (BBC 4) at 1650 today and heard the end of a
program so don't actually know all that was in it.
However, the bit I did hear was referring to brain damage and
children were expressing their amazement at the fact that an egg in a
'polystyrene helmet' could be thrown repeatedly at the floor and not
break.
Implied that the skull could be similarly protected but as I didn't
hear the start, I've no idea if head protection of any form had been
discussed.

This is Angie Lee's party trick.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Paulmouk wrote:

Folks,

I turned the radio on (BBC 4) at 1650 today and heard the end of a program
so don't actually know all that was in it.
However, the bit I did hear was referring to brain damage and children were
expressing their amazement at the fact that an egg in a 'polystyrene helmet'
could be thrown repeatedly at the floor and not break.
Implied that the skull could be similarly protected but as I didn't hear the
start, I've no idea if head protection of any form had been discussed.

A cracked skull isn't particularly serious. It's the movement of the
brain within that is the problem.

Folks,

I turned the radio on (BBC 4) at 1650 today and heard the end of a program
so don't actually know all that was in it.
However, the bit I did hear was referring to brain damage and children were
expressing their amazement at the fact that an egg in a 'polystyrene helmet'
could be thrown repeatedly at the floor and not break.
Implied that the skull could be similarly protected but as I didn't hear the
start, I've no idea if head protection of any form had been discussed.

Will be repeated on Sunday.

16:30 The Learning Curve
Libby Purves presents a guide to the world of learning, with education news
and practical advice. [Rptd Sun 11.00pm]

Paul.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:51:52 +0100, Zog The Undeniable
wrote in message 40ead740.0@entanet:

A cracked skull isn't particularly serious. It's the movement of the
brain within that is the problem.

And a skull is fractionally stronger than an eggshell.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Paulmouk" wrote in message
...
Folks,

I turned the radio on (BBC 4) at 1650 today and heard the end of a program
so don't actually know all that was in it.
However, the bit I did hear was referring to brain damage and children
were
expressing their amazement at the fact that an egg in a 'polystyrene
helmet'
could be thrown repeatedly at the floor and not break.
Implied that the skull could be similarly protected but as I didn't hear
the
start, I've no idea if head protection of any form had been discussed.

Will be repeated on Sunday.

16:30 The Learning Curve
Libby Purves presents a guide to the world of learning, with education
news
and practical advice. [Rptd Sun 11.00pm]

Paul.


I heard the item, it was about educating children about brain injuries,
their implications and avoidance. The avoidance of injury bit was itself
avoided, I was waiting for the lecture about helmets on bikes but it never
came. The only reference to helmets was the aforementioned egg experiment,
the same sort of setup can give a convincing demonstration of the effect of
a seat belt. Talking of which, the importance of protecting children in
cars was not mentioned either.

--
Nigel Randell

"Paulmouk" wrote in message
...
Folks,

I turned the radio on (BBC 4) at 1650 today and heard the end of a program
so don't actually know all that was in it.
However, the bit I did hear was referring to brain damage and children
were
expressing their amazement at the fact that an egg in a 'polystyrene
helmet'
could be thrown repeatedly at the floor and not break.
Implied that the skull could be similarly protected but as I didn't hear
the
start, I've no idea if head protection of any form had been discussed.

Will be repeated on Sunday.

16:30 The Learning Curve
Libby Purves presents a guide to the world of learning, with education
news
and practical advice. [Rptd Sun 11.00pm]

Paul.

I heard the whole thing, and the point of the article was to tell you how
they were informing children about the potential for head injuries and how
to avoid them. Only one way of causing such a head injury was mentioned on
the programme: no prizes for guessing what it was. Their website is
marginally better, but still has undue emphasis on cycling.

I have tried complaining, writing to programmes, but the BBC continues to
act in an extremely biassed manner, practically putting out propaganda for
BHIT. Has anyone ever got a response from them?

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 19:35:14 GMT, "burt"
wrote in message
:

I heard the whole thing, and the point of the article was to tell you how
they were informing children about the potential for head injuries and how
to avoid them. Only one way of causing such a head injury was mentioned on
the programme: no prizes for guessing what it was. Their website is
marginally better, but still has undue emphasis on cycling.

I didn't hear it, so maybe you would like to go to their feedback
discussion board and mention that over half of child head injuries are
due to trips and falls, and there are more child head injury
admissions due to assault than due to cycling; and that the major
factor in deciding whether there will be a serious head injury is not
whether the child is cycling, but whether a motor vehicle is involved.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

there are more child head injury
admissions due to assault than due to cycling

Ah...but that's all been cured because we can't beat our kids any more ;-)

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
Ah...but that's all been cured because we can't beat our kids any more ;-)

I was reading the front pages of some papers today - and the war cry and
reasoning behind the smacking ban did go something like "Think of
???? murdered child". I can just picture the scene...

"Hello little child. I'm afraid I'd better not smack you as its
illegal. I'll just stick this knife into your ribs instead as thats OK"

I can see this law causing more harm than good, as I can't see how it
will stop people who really assault children, unless perhaps by
providing a means to arrest anyone who even slightly bruises a child,
you may include the abusers in your net. Its like increasing the gain to
detect something more easily - and getting more noise into the bargain.

What would happen if a child went to school and mentioned that they'd
been smacked or threatened with smacking? Would it be taken out of
context? How much would it take before they send in the social workers
and accuse you of being a bad parent?

What alternate immediate punishments are there for children? (out of
interest, as I'll hopefuly soon enough be in a situation to need to know
this kind of thing). It must have immediacy, as I wouldn't expect a
small child to relate cause and effect across large spans of time. Is
the Stern Voice enough? How long before the Stern Voice is classed as
mental chastisement? Bribing with sweets is not an option. Does
"distracting them from doing the bad thing" really teach them? I can't
see the logic there. Rather than "XXX implies Bad" you'd get "XXX
implies ???? - will have to find out when this distraction goes".

To be fair - I was rarely if ever smacked as a child, though the threat
existed. It seems from this, and other comments in the group, that the
environment that existed when I was a child just doesn't exist now.
We're so "safety concious" to avoid the risk of litigation. Has the
threat of mugging really increased dramatically, or is it a case of too
much media hype? There seems a lot more talk of different ways of being
accused of child abuse - if some MPs have their way even light smacking
would become another. Also I hear of more and more kids on various kinds
of chemicals to deal with "Attention Deficit".

Even physical factors have changed. There are a lot more cars on the
roads, though I used to live in a village, and now I live in the
suburbs. I'm not sure mobile phones were even invented when I was that
kind of age. We had lots of interesting places to play, and reasonable
free roaming whilst respecting other people's land. May have to move out
to a village some time in the future.

- Richard

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:49:18 +0100, Richard Corfield
wrote in message
:

I was reading the front pages of some papers today - and the war cry and
reasoning behind the smacking ban did go something like "Think of
???? murdered child". I can just picture the scene...

I thought it was ludicrous. It's OK to smackj them as long as you
don't injure them - but if you injured them you'd be committing an
offence anyway. Madness. The whole thing is an obvious stitch-up by
the control freaks who want to prescribe and proscribe every element
of our daily lives, watered down to appease the "damned good hiding
never did me any harm" brigade. In my view it's an utterly pointless
idea.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University