Posted on 11/19/2013 7:25:36 AM PST by NautiNurse
Edited on 11/19/2013 7:34:03 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The culprit: single-dose detergent capsules that can have a candy-like appearance. In the past year, they were involved in roughly 10,000 cases of exposure involving young children...
Three years ago, officials at an Italian poison-control center in Milan contacted P&G to report that children were biting into small packets of a P&G concentrated liquid detergent called Dash Ecodosi. The Milan officials advised P&G to make the capsules' packaging opaque and harder to open, said Fabrizio Sesana, a toxicologist at the Milan poison center.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Draino is hydrochloric acid. Very destructive to tissue. Detergents are mostly surfactants, chemicals that reduce the surface tension of water. They have little effect on human tissue, although they may remove some of the protective oils from skin.
No comparison.
Wow, continuing with a bad assumption doesn't necessarily make it true. Recall "If you like your plan..."? you are doingt eh same thing. People don't buy them because they are pretty, hell, you can't even see the product when you buy it. People buy them because they are convenient and effective for the intended job. Enough with the "pretty" stupidity.
And that's one that'll definitely grow up voting Dumbascrap and spawn even more D's, so you can't really say a little laundry soap in the gene pool is a drawback in his case.
Get them a Kukri, each.
:^)
Lol
do you seriously object to these pods? i found them to be a wonderful thing to get for my son who does his laundry at college. No muss, no fuss. storing and scooping laundry detergent is a hassle, i use these exclusively and find it ludicrous that any child would mistake it for candy. i had zero trouble keeping toxic substances from my kids when they were little, i don’t see why this is any different.
Your honesty doesn’t depend on my repeating details that you already know.
The full article is now behind a subscribe-wall for WSJ.
All I see from the excerpt is something that says 10,000 “exposure incidents.” Nothing about 14,000 which is what the nurse claims. OK, exposed... how? Some kid fingered one and got it on his skin? That sounds more plausible. And why aren’t parents stepping up to their responsibility? Why should we nanny nurse everyone into a sanitized Teflon lined room because parents won’t do what God told them to do? This is FREE Republic, not NANNY “for the chilrun” Republic. Let’s besiege PARENTS with messages to watch out for their kids and not try to defang every danger in the world!!
And... sigh... I really do think the Nurse means well.
But we have a practicality problem here. Suppose Nurse got her super safe detergent packets. 1 danger down, 10,000 more to go?
When addressing PARENTS would be far more efficient in helping the “chilrun”?
By almighty heaven, YES! Let’s advertise it to the liberals! WATCH OUT FOR YOUR KIDS! IT’S FOR THE CHILRUN!
Makes sense, no?
And before you laugh at “well that’s obvious”
The trouble with the liberal spell of evil from hell (hey that rhymes) is that it makes the obvious, no longer so. It discombobulates the mind.
The antidote is truth. Ya know, speak the truth in love?
Yep, we really need to tell those careless parents that it’s for the children. It might dawn on them that hey, here’s a great idea! And one conservative ideal has been championed with minimal pain.
Well, yeah, only once for that particular punishment. Heh, heh.
ping
Original packaging resembled candy jars. See photos above. The article describes that the incidence of reported child poison exposure in Italy dropped 60% when the packaging was changed to eliminate visible pods. Without government intervention, P&G changed the packaging in the U.S. this year.
Sorry, I think demonizing people who want convenient products is ridiculous. Parents of small children routinely childproof and prevent access to harmful substances and always have. Irresponsible parents don’t, and if it wasn’t detergent pods, it would be something else. Should we go back to wash boards and bars of fels naphtha soap to save the children.
And I remember when my folks didn’t even do that much. I was kept in the playpen when not being directly watched or babysat (babysitters? remember those? and just about any teen was trustworthy?). Until I knew what the word POISON was supposed to mean. “It’ll kill you.” Enough said, I did not go poking into it, and if I ever touched it I’d be washing it off lickety split.
Lets hector the PARENTS, not the manufacturers.
And in a way, the risk of lawsuits spurred the move. Nobody had to write yet another piece of silly legislation.
And so fine. However launching jihads on what to your own confession sounds like what is now a non-problem, sounds a little ODD, shall I say, Ms. NN?
And! By the way. The lawsuit system may seem a red carpet for greed at times, but it HAS managed to keep the already huge number of government regulations from getting even huger. The principle becomes, don’t do what you’re likely to get sued over. Rather than a bureaucrat-drafted regulation which then gives the defense attorneys in such a suit a reason to argue that oh, the government covered that risk, so your suit is out of luck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.