- German post war black children
-
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
st_ouennais- October 14th, 8:52
Another sad expostion of organisations and states treating babies and infants as problems and hidden away without any propoer thought to the future implications of those actions. There is of course a local echo of this with those children born here of German fathers during the occupation. See Spiegel
- More inexplicable disconnects
-
- st_ouennais
- April 5th, 7:36
Two stories yesterday show just how bizarrely insane we have let things get.
The charity Save The Children is for the first time in its long history setting up grants for UK families. Britain has one of the worst child poverty rates in Europe, with around 1/3rd of children affected.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7982056.stm
At the same time we hear the showcase for farming in England - the Royal Show is to close. Visitor numbers have been dropping and many smaller farmers are just too hard up to go.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/7982360.stm
What a total outrage. We have farmers struggling to stay in business and produce food. We have children mal nourished and in need of food. Blindingly obvious isn't it. Any budding entrepreneur would see it - you have a clear need, and a clear means to help meet that need. But no, growing food to feed our children is far too straight forward. What we do is bail out the banks and tell them to lend to businesses (like farms) and 'keep the economy going'. Except it won't - it can't. Banks have been caught with their trousers round their ankles for giving out effectively unrepayable loans. They are not about to start lending to struggling farmers. Equally importantly many farmers are not going to go to a bank for a loan and take on the added costs of repaying that , and risk losing their farm, if there is any other way to get by.
I hate to use a term so intimately associated with the failings of the Thatcher experiment, but it really is time to get back to basics. Quit lofty theorising about untried macroeconomic strategies like quantitative easing , and get down to producing real, essential stuff of real value to ordinary people. Like decent food for children.
- Asthma, children, abuse and smoking
-
- st_ouennais
- 31st August 2008
From the New Scientist
Physical or sexual abuse doubles the odds that a child – from Puerto Rico, at least – will suffer from asthma. Puerto Ricans have the highest prevalence of asthma of any ethnic group in the US and the highest death rates from the illness. "They have the most asthma and the most trouble from asthma," says Juan Celedón, at Harvard Medical School in Boston.Previous studies have shown that violence and stress make asthma worse. Celedón and his colleagues wanted to know to what extent this was a contributing factor to asthma rates in Puerto Ricans, so they interviewed 1213 children and their primary caregivers living in either San Juan or Caguas.
They inquired about large stress factors, such as a death in the family or a divorce, and also about exposure to community violence, such as being shot at, arrested, chased by a gang or the victim of a break-in.
Parents and children were interviewed separately about abuse, which included being hit by an object, punched and being asked to touch the private parts of adults. Some 6% were classed as having experienced some form of abuse.
Data on whether the children had ever suffered from asthma, took medication for it, or had seen a doctor in the past 12 months for the condition, were also collected.
The researchers found that children with a history of physical or sexual abuse were twice as likely to have asthma. Other stress factors were not statistically significant. They speculate that the stress of abuse may alter the secretion of the stress hormone cortisol, leading to a constriction of the airways.
Celedón emphasises that it is important to study Hispanic groups separately: while Puerto Ricans have the country's highest lifetime prevalence for asthma, at over 25%, Mexicans have the lowest, at just 10.
In the Times I read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article379457.ece
The study suggests that some of the chemicals in smoke can permanently alter the DNA of those exposed to it in ways that can be inherited by smokers’ children, grandchildren and possibly subsequent generations too.The researchers analysed asthma rates in both the children and grandchildren of women who smoked during pregnancy.
They found the grandchildren of such women had 2.1 times the normal risk of developing asthma. The children of women who smoked in pregnancy were 1.5 times more likely to develop asthma.
I've absolutely no information about the incidence of prevalence of asthma in children in Jersey. Asthma only appears in the recent Chief Medical Officer's report as a part of a general group of chronic illnesses. That section of the report focuses on the health implications of ageing populations, not childhood.
It could be that child abuse and smoking in pregnancy are unrelated factors that both independently affect asthma. It does to my mind however indicate that smoking in pregnancy could be interpreted as a form of abuse of the child. I can't help wondering what other seemingly unrelated medical problems might be caused or aggravated by abuse in childhood?
For more info on asthma and children, go to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/children/downloads/asthma.pdf
- Climate change and children
-
- st_ouennais
- 17th July 2008
I recently commented on another local blog about reasons for blogging (http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2008/07/not-on-my-watch.html.) I think I should elaborate a bit further. First lets look at the timeline of our knowledge on Climate Change (see http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/31/Intro.timeline/index.html): 1896 Arrhenius suggested there is a man made greenhouse effect and that burning coal could lead to CO2 in the atmosphere and earth warming.1938 Callendar compiles temperature statistics showing the mean temperature over the century had risen markedly. He also discovered that CO2 levels had risen 10 percent during the same period. He concludes that CO2 was the most likely reason for the rise in temperature.1955 Gilbert Plass proves that increased levels of carbon dioxide could raise atmospheric temperature. By 1959 Plass predicted that the earth's temperature would rise more than 3 degrees by the end of the century. (He was wrong on the amount, but right otherwise).1970 The first "Earth Day" took place on April 22nd in America. Twenty million people participated in the event . It follows and precedes a series of U.S. Department for Energy reports highlighting concern about global warming.1985 A hole in the ozone layer is discovered over Antarctica.1988 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is set up.1992 The Earth Summit takes place in Rio de Janeiro attended by 172 countries. It is the first unified effort to get to grips with global warming.1997 The Kyoto Protocol: Industrialized countries agree to cut their emissions of six key greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2 percent. Under the terms of the agreement each country -- except developing countries -- commits to a reduction by 2008 compared to 1990 levels. (Most have failed to meet targets).2003 Europe experiences one the hottest summers on record causing widespread drought claiming the lives of over 30,000 people.2005 Following ratification by Russia - in November 2004, the Kyoto Protocol becomes a legally binding treaty. America and Australia continue their refusal to sign up claiming reducing emissions would damage their economies. (The new Australian Prime Minister Rudd has signed up to the treaty).2008 160 square miles of the Wilkins Shelf breaks away from the Antarctic coast. Scientists are concerned that climate change may be happening faster than previously thought.It's undeniable we have had an inkling about this for over a century, and have had clear evidence on the nature and scale of the problem for half a century. And yet still many individuals, businesses and some countries refuse to accept the evidence, even fewer commit to actions, fewer still actually follow up with sufficient action to meet the targets. The bottom line (and it is all about the bottom line accounting wise) is the wealthiest countries don't want to act because to do so may damage their wealth while those who really pay in all sorts of ways are the poorest and those least able to defend themselves.Reflecting on the local child abuse scandals leads me to see real parallels. There have been reports and claims of abuse going back to at least the occupation, but rarely if ever did they get to proper public attention, and seldom to a proper court. Clearly some, perhaps quite a number, of good people who were doing their job properly had some knowledge or at least reasonable suspicion of inappropriate or downright illegal activity, but did not take action. Compare that to the 'scientists' who deny climate change exists and support the’ its all a government scam’ argument.Clearly also the responsible government bodies failed in their general duty of care to those literally in their care, in effect they did nothing. We know that scientist have been reporting climate change for decades - and the largest employers of scientists are governments. They must have been aware, but it was convenient to sweep under the carpet.Clearly those victims who in the past came forward were dismissed, threatened or otherwise ignored for a variety of reasons by those who were in authority or a position to take action. Again those who should have acted failed to do so properly despite the evidence. Compare the USA and Australia not signing up to Kyoto because to do so would be damaging to their economy – that’s not so different from an employee failing to take action because it might be damaging to their career.And off course the people who bear the real burden of all these failings -the victims themselves, the ones with no resources and no voice, the ones who suffering goes unheard, and whose situation will only deteriorate the longer the inaction continues.Have we in Jersey learned any lessons from the shocking scandal that mires our Island? Have we taken on board that just because someone has a small voice, is dependent or is inexperienced, it doesn't lessen the value of what they say. Have we understood that those with a vested interest will be the slowest to accept, understand and react adequately to failings in 'their' system? Do we 'get it' that changing such a system can only be forced by a real public outcry? Have we learned that one individual diligently doing the right thing can sometimes precipitate big changes, and equally that failing to do the right thing, even though it may be personally inconvenient, is tantamount to colluding with the perpetrators?Now read the Unicef report http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Climate_Change_and_Children.pdf on climate change and children and ask yourself whether you are doing the right thing, or surreptitiously colluding with the ethical and moral wrongdoers and nay-sayers.
À bétôt
