SAFE NATURAL CURES & LIVING

Today, kids 13 or over are allowed to ride in the front seat of a car with a passenger-side airbag, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommendations.  Some parents may even think that their younger child is safe if he is tall for his age.

Dr. Craig Newgard is assistant professor of emergency medicine in the Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine’s Center for Policy and Research in Emergency Medicine, and an emergency physician at OHSU and Doernbecher hospitals.   He “felt it was time to study whether more children could be at risk, and assess whether age or body size were good measurement guidelines.”

According to his 2005 study, “children 14 and younger were at high risk for serious injury from air bags when they sat in the front passenger seat during car crashes.  In contrast, air bags had a protective effect for children aged 15 to 18.  In addition, the study showed age may be a better indicator of risk than height or weight.”

“Several body changes during puberty, such as muscle mass, bone density, and bone mineral content, may help explain why body size isn’t a good measurement of risk in children.”

Automakers have switched to airbags with sensors for the front passenger seat, to deploy with less force than a regular airbag.  The sensor may be able to detect the passenger’s weight, but not the age.

If a child under 15 must ride in the front seat of a car, it is only safe if there is no airbag at all, or if the airbag can be turned off or set to a lower force.  In addition, the child must use a lap belt and shoulder harness.

Much of the country has the opinion that those who lost their homes to the wildfires in California deserve little sympathy. 

One reason is that reporters and journalists flamed the heat of their stories with mention of multi-million dollar beachfront homes of the rich and famous.  In fact, none of those homes burned. 

Most of the homes lost were of average price, owned by middle-income families.  Many people who lost their homes were not homeowners at all, but renters, so their belongings were not covered by the home’s insurance policy.  And, contrary to rumors, homeowners in California, whether in a fire-prone area or not, are required to have fire insurance in order to get a mortgage, so few of the homes were not insured. 

Another reason for the lack of sympathy for Californians is that some of the homes were located in fire-prone areas.  People wonder why they should feel sorry for anyone who dares to live in such an area.

That thinking is understandable.  People in California have wondered for years why the government (meaning everyone, in the end) should bail out people who continue to live next to the Mississippi River even though it is guaranteed to flood nearby areas on a regular basis.  Why should anyone have sympathy for those who lose everything in a hurricane when their area is hit by hurricanes over and over?  And, what about those living in “tornado alley?”

Very little of this United States is not threatened by earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, fires, tsunamis, volcanoes, or even extended drought.  Disasters can happen no matter where we live.

And, the fact that homes in California cost more than those in many areas of the country may bother people in other states in times of tragedy.  But, it bothers those of us living in California all the time.  We live in a tiny three-bedroom house to which only recently we added a second bathroom.  For half of our monthly mortgage payment, we could buy a home in most other states that is four times the size on a lot that is ten times larger.  Californians also pay 10 times the state taxes as those in Missouri and 100 times the state taxes as those in South Dakota – every year.

We all need to count our blessings when we have them, which is most of the time, and help the other guy when he needs it.