posted
And just for the record, I am still searching for statistics to support my views and all I can seem to find is FAQs from sites trying to sell pepper spray.
It is kinda hard to know how many crimes were prevented...as they were...prevented and all.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Stone Wolf, you give facts on how, but not WHY. "How" is probably the least interesting category of facts.
EDIT: BTW, I like having you around, I think you are a great Jatraquero, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with what you say
I had to look up Jatraquero...(we are in the urban dictionary, yay Hatrack)...thanks Boko...I'm still looking for facts.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Would you find that somewhat presumptuous and annoying?
-I- wouldn't. I think agreeing to disagree (although against the user agreement here) is a civilized and grown up way to approach things. And stating one's own opinion is again, not an issue. But if you took it negatively, I apologize, that was not my intent.
quote: Not choosing pepper spray is not necessarily choosing convenience over preparedness (although I grant it might be, you don't have enough information to make that assumption about me or anyone else here).
I was only basing that on your own words, and only for you: (emphasis mine)
quote:The massive nuisance that would entail would not be worth it weighed against the minuscule chance of being attacked.
quote:In 2009, an estimated 1,318,398 violent crimes occurred nationwide...
...that were reported to the authorities.
quote:There were an estimated 429.4 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009.
Or, about one in every 233 people were victims of violent crime.
quote:Aggravated assaults accounted for the highest number of violent crimes reported to law enforcement at 61.2 percent. Robbery comprised 31.0 percent of violent crimes, forcible rape accounted for 6.7 percent, and murder accounted for 1.2 percent of estimated violent crimes in 2009.
quote:Pepper spray may have saved the life of one Norfolk woman Wednesday night. The 26-year-old was almost abducted as she headed to her car on Maury Ave. A knife was put to her back and she was told to get in and drive, by her attacker. She escaped by spraying the man with mace.
Video of an (long and boring) interview with Jack Hanna about how pepper spray saved his life from a bear attack while hiking.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure David Bowles came up with it as pseudo-Spanish. I think there may have been a pseudo-Portuguese version, too, but I can't remember what it was.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also a case (IIRC) of a woman in trouble being sprayed with mace and then dying because she couldn't be intubated on the scene -- too many secretions, and the EMTs couldn't see. And several cases of escalated violence when it was thought that just handing over the purse or whatever would have ended the confrontation.
Not that these anecdotes establish much, either. I think you'd have to look for a general analysis.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Persuasive of what, exactly? I'd still say a self-defense course is better than pepper spray, for general application.
That crime happens, even frequently, doesn't imply any one course of action, without additional info. And even if pepper spray is a net benefit, it may be a smaller benefit than several other courses of action.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I thought that 1 in 233 people might be a bit persuasive though.
That's from national numbers, right?
I don't think you can extrapolate from national numbers straight to individual's expected experience, though. Inner city New York is likely to be very very very very different from the small town where I grew up. In the greater metro area of where I grew up, including the nearby "city," there were a few hundred thousand people scattered out through the towns and farms. We all were still talking about the murder that happened 40 years ago, because can you believe???? He killed his wife. She done dead and gone.
[Joey found her, you know Joey, he work out at the gas station and them been having something on the side. He like to died himself when he saw her laying there. Had to go dunk his head in the well to revive his wits.]
My risk for violent crime while living there wasn't 1 in 233. It wasn't "0," but it must've been a lot closer to 1 in 5000, easy.
[More like 1 in 10,000. While living there, I didn't know anyone myself who had ever had a run in with violent crime. The only one I heard about was 40 years before I was born. Ah, let's see, there were a couple of knife fights at one of the bars in the 70s, too, or at least that's what people said.]
For different reasons, someone living in the projects of NYC would only dream of having a 1 in 233 chance of violent crime.
Do you see why the context matters? Ignoring this sort of context for the individual is part of what makes it hard to justify that one knows more than another what *that* person should do. If I lived in the projects, I might well carry pepper spray. If I move back to podunk Midwest where I know all the dogs, there aren't any wild boars, and my folks *still* haven't bothered to replace the front door locks since 1974 when they lost their keys -- well, I'd be more likely to accidentally puncture it and injure myself than to use it on another.
posted
Oh, and a random anecdote off the web when searching "pepper spray backfire" was a woman who saw a pack of dogs in the distance while jogging, so she took out and tested her pepper spray. She ended getting it on herself, while the dogs were harmless.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boko: As I said on page one, I am pro self defense class. It requires a lot more time and effort and has arguably less reliable results (depending on circumstances). What other courses of action are you referring to? In general terms, I am saying pepper spray is WAY better then nothing, and arguably better then most other options, for various reasons.
CT: Of course national number don't apply to everyone, but since these numbers are only partially relevant in the first place, I wasn't going to dig and get all specific.
Boko again: Hardly relevant...stupid people need love too.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: CT: Of course national number don't apply to everyone, but since these numbers are only partially relevant in the first place, I wasn't going to dig and get all specific.
But they don't really apply to anyone. At the least, you have to separate out urban and rural.
The rate cited is meaningless as is. [That isn't a small or picky point -- when your range is from something like 1 in 2 to something like 1 in 1000 or more, to cite "1 in 233" implies a specificity that just isn't there.]
I wonder whether national law enforcement officer organizations have come out either for or against routine civilian arming with pepper spray? I honestly don't know, but I'd be curious to find out.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Boko...I agree...but it's the best I could come up with so far.
I thought that 1 in 233 people might be a bit persuasive though.
Why? That's an impressively low figure. How many of those do you actually think are random or completely unexpected acts of violence? You've been trying through this whole discussion to convey the impression that that one attack out of hundreds of people is a middle aged woman being hit over the head in a parking lot by a random stranger. But no, most violent crimes are not random acts of violence. Most violent crime is perpetrated by family members and friends- people you know. I don't think you'll find statistics on this, but I'd bet less than one in 100 violent crimes occurs in a place and time that is actually surprising, in that "omg I can't believe this happened" kind of way.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only random "violence" I have come across in my life (much of which has been in a fairly urban environment) so far would only have been escalated by pepper spray. For example, other people fighting on the el where my wading in with pepper spray would have been a supremely bad idea.
In your random purse snatching, I would guess that the best idea would be to hand over the bag rather than try to pepper spray the culprit.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm finding this discussion on the straight Dope boards interesting. People are weighing in from many sides, both for and against routinely carrying pepper spray. Some concerns that stood out to me:
quote:I've seen pepper spray used pretty regularly over the course of the last 4 years or so, inside a maximum-security prison.
I think it's a useful tool for a cell-entry team to use to incapacitate an inmate while reducing the risk to themselves.
However, first they flood the room with pepper spray. Then once the inmate appears incapacitated (and it can take a bit), they go in as a team, wear body armor, wield shields and batons, goggles, etc etc etc. Even so, I've seen some of them gasping and red-eyed because the spray went in unexpected directions.
I saw a video of one of my own patients, being extracted this way. He took a few direct hits in the face with the pepper spray, and his reaction was "hoo-ah! I love it hot! That's good!. Then he slammed a chair up against the walls and the door for a minute or two.
So, pepper spray will not necessarily immediately incapacitate someone. But it will often piss them off. This could result in more actual violence directed at the sprayer, not less.
quote: I used to study at a dojo/self defense school (multi-art, based more on a practical application of Kenpo/Wang Chun/Jujitso/boxing than ring sparing; think more Krav Maga than Tae Kwon Do) where we did volunteer assertiveness/self-defense classes for women's shelters and defense groups. One of the demos was on the effectiveness of OC spray. The instructor would give a large size 10% cannister (the kind with a pistol grip) to a woman with instructions to spray at his face and charge her from 30 feet. Only once out of about a dozen times I witnessed this was he not able to get the woman in a bear hug, and then only because the woman clubbed him on the temple with the can and dodged out of the way.
Now, you can argue this wasn't a realistic scenerio--that the attacker was prepared and knowledgable about the effects of the spray--but on the other hand the woman was far more prepared and had a larger, easy-to-use spray can rather than the small, hard to orient minicans most people carry. On the whole, I think it illustrates the point that OC can be effective in some situations, but you'd better be prepared to back it up with something stronger.
I don't think those anecdotes establish that one shouldn't carry pepper spray, either. I just think it's a complicated question, and it depends on context (place, time, person).
On the other hand, I could get behind a general call to take a well-run self defense class that goes over how to recognize danger signs, why to trust your gut, how to avoid escalations, and specifically practices what to do if assaulted. That's a lot easier to make a general case for, in my mind.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've been trying through this whole discussion to convey the impression that that one attack out of hundreds of people is a middle aged woman being hit over the head in a parking lot by a random stranger.
That's news to me...I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts you can't find anything to support this in any of my posts.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: CT: Here is a chart: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_17.html Which, unless I'm reading it wrong, says that rural violent crime is more common. I'm not sure I'm reading this right.
I don't see "rural" there, just "suburban city" and "nonsuburban city."(?)
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Suburban cities include law enforcement agencies in cities with less than 50,000 inhabitants that are within a Metropolitan Statistical Area. Suburban cities exclude all metropolitan agencies associated with a principal city. Nonsuburban cities include law enforcement agencies in cities with less than 50,000 inhabitants that are not associated with a Metropolitan Statistical Area.
In the nonsuburban city side they are subdivided by population size into 50-25k, 25-10k and >10k. I take it to mean a nonsuburban city with less then ten thousand people is rural...although I could have that wrong.
posted
Oh, and CT, I looked on the LAPD and FBI websites for any info on if they recommend for or against civilians carrying pepper spray and couldn't find anything...FBI head quarters said (yes I called the FBI headquarters in Washing DC) it's a matter of personal preference and they do not recommend either way.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I take it to mean a nonsuburban city with less then ten thousand people is rural...although I could have that wrong.
Ah, no, that would be a town or "small city," but by definition rural areas don't include cities of any size. They are non-urbanized areas, often mostly farmland.
quote:It's government...it's confusing.
Yup, agreed. *grin
There are problems with interpreting data like this, because when you have smaller overall numbers (like in the less-populated areas), a single event skews the rate much more. So typically an analysis would be averaged out over years with outliers removed, for example.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh, and CT, I looked on the LAPD and FBI websites for any info on if they recommend for or against civilians carrying pepper spray and couldn't find anything...FBI head quarters said (yes I called the FBI headquarters in Washing DC) it's a matter of personal preference and they do not recommend either way.
Thanks for doing the work! I'm checking into some national federations of police officers, etc. I think there is probably a reason why those you checked do not advocate for (or against) routine carry of pepper spray, but we likely cannot draw conclusions from that. It may just be an issue of needing to avoid institutional liability.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not choosing pepper spray is not necessarily choosing convenience over preparedness (although I grant it might be, you don't have enough information to make that assumption about me or anyone else here).
I was only basing that on your own words, and only for you: (emphasis mine)
quote:The massive nuisance that would entail would not be worth it weighed against the minuscule chance of being attacked.
Let me remind you that the context of that quote was your suggestion that I make sure I had pepper spray to hand every time I enter a public restroom. Massive nuisance. Minuscule chance of attack.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry if I took what you said out of context.
The vast majority of public bathrooms are likely safe, but there are some which pose as a likely place for ambush, and should be treated as such.
Perhaps in the future you might be a bit more sensitive about posting in such a terse manor when people are discussing loved one who have been harmed.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sorry about your loved one. What happened to her was hideous, and horrible. But the specifics of it are very, very unlikely. It's tempting to want to defend against a particular scenario, because it happened to someone you know. But I worry that too much energy is spent worrying about unlikely scenarios and not enough attention paid to statistically much more dangerous situations.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you. It is exactly because it is impossible to know when you are or are not walking into a dangerous situation that I advocate having a means of protecting yourself easily at hand at all times. The vast majority of the time it will likely be a giant waste of time (although a good habit to form none the less) but that one time in a billion it might just save your life, and for me, it is worth it.
posted
You can avoid chances higher than one in a billion of getting cancer by never eating lettuce, or carrots. Red meat. Chicken. Barbecue. Never drinking. Never having coffee. Never using a microwave. Never having an x-ray, never flying in a plane, never taking an over the counter cold medication, never visiting a large city, etc.
You don't know when you'll be hit by a drunk driver, so wear a helmet while driving. That is the quality of this logic. The thing that people are pointing out is that "plan for the worst," taken as a lifestyle choice, is impossible in modern society. You are advocating planning for one situation in particular, when there are myriad equally plausible and equally dangerous situations for which people do not plan. The point being that while it may be a small thing to take this one added precaution, it constitutes one of thousands of added small precautions which, if people actually did take them, would cause them to be unable to carry on with their daily lives. As anathema as it is to your own feelings, it may actually be better for society, and the people in it, if your advice was ignored- even as it may be better for certain individuals, in certain courses of certain events, to have taken your advice.
It's like: you get on a plane, and it crashes. If you refused to fly, this would never have happened to you. But if you fly, even once, then there is a chance. But society benefits from the ability to fly, have nuclear reactors, drive cars, use public bathrooms, and etc. If you spend your life planning for the one time in a billion in which something may save your life, you will not be actually living.
So while people rejecting and mocking even the *small* gesture of a can of pepper spray as a part of their daily lives seems rather churlish to you, it is an expression of an attitude that allows all people to survive and thrive in society, with all of its dangers. It is the rejection of a *million* small gestures that people cannot afford to make in their lives, if they wish to accomplish their goals- mainly just living a normal life (and yes, while you *can* lead a normal life and still carry pepper spray, you *cannot* lead a normal life and still find the logic that you have been using to advocate it compelling).
And maybe you'll say: "yeah but still! Pepper spray could save your life!" Yes it could. But that alone is not a compelling reason to carry it- not to anyone with a decently healthy sense of perspective. Just think of all the other things that could save your life.
ETA: This reminds me of this British anarchist I met in Prague maybe a year ago. He went on and on about how we are "trapped" and "not free" in modern society. He didn't like what I had to say about that- mainly that nearly everything that makes you feel "trapped" and "not free" in modern society was built to free you from ignorance, poverty, and constant fear of death. That your freedom from the rules of law is also your condemnation to the will of anyone stronger than you are. As I said, he didn't appreciate these points.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This logic, by the way, applies to anyone who thinks we should all be carrying concealed firearms around to make ourselves safer.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Realistically we are going to always nibble away at the margins - try to reduce or eliminate remaining dangers in our (historically very safe) lives. But the more we can do this with technology that DOESN'T require increased vigilance, and doesn't reduce our perception of freedom and relaxation, the better.
There may be some baseline level of anxiety or vigilance that we can't eliminate just by being ridiculously safe, but that's an issue for technology to address once nobody dies in car accidents or of cancer anymore (if people want to, that is).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you are not taking into consideration is that 1 in 233 is per year. Over an average lifetime of say 75 years old, it's more like 1 in 3. Of course as CT pointed out, this changes wildly by what area you live in.
The actual numbers I'll look into later, and are not the point. The point is that you don't have to live your whole life by the ideals that you must prepare for every possibility. But stacking deck in your favor when it comes to being raped, or hurt or killed by doing something simple and effective is a good idea.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, despite the fundamental, all-encompassing differences of opinion, this has been largely too informative and good-natured a discussion, what's wrong with everyone
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first stats I quoted are from the FBI, and are reported violent crime.
quote:In 2009, an estimated 1,318,398 violent crimes occurred nationwide...
The other major statistical keeper of crimes in America is the Bureau of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, which attempts to track all violent crime.
quote:An estimated 4.3 million violent crimes...were committed against U.S. residents age 12 or older in 2009.
310 mil (U.S. population) divided by 4.3 mil violent crimes = 72. One in seventy two people per year will be victims of violent crime. Over an average life span of, let's say, 72 years, that is one out of one people in this country who will be victims of violent crime.
quote:Over an average life span of, let's say, 72 years, that is one out of one people in this country who will be victims of violent crime.
Statistics don't work like that. With an average lifespan of 72 years, if all people were equally likely (they aren't, by far) to experience violent crime and each year's likelihood were independent (that isn't true, also by far), a given person would have a somewhat under 2/3 chance of experiencing violent crime in his or her lifetime. That's 1 - (1 - 1/72)^72.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Clearly in violation of the user agreement.
Wow, this is the first time in a long time that I have actually laughed out loud while reading Hatrack. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu...I don't follow your math, but I was rather unclear in my above post, that:
A) I am not a statistician. B) 4.3 mil is a national total, which means, as CT pointed out, depending on where you live, this number might affect you more or less. C) 4.3 mil is the total for 2009, so different years will have different totals (2009 is quite a bit down from previous years). D) I'm not suggesting that you will be a victim of violent crime, just that it is very common.
posted
There have been some question about when and where to use pepper spray...here is some good intel:
quote:90% of violent attacks occur in key-related situations. You are in a key-related situation anytime you are traveling to or from common everyday destinations. You are considered to be in a key-related situation until you have been inside your own home for 2.5 minutes.
Businesses such as post offices, hospitals or health care institutions, schools, banks, grocery stores, the mall, health spas, or possibly your own place of employment, are all considered to be key-related situations. These places are categorized this way because they are like big revolving doors, people are always coming in and going out.
Traveling to and from your home, car, grocery store or mall, bank, to and from work, walking or jogging, using an ATM, and picking kids up from school are excellent examples of key-related situations.
quote:If the attacker wants your money, give it to them!
If it's a carjacker, give them the car!
If the attacker tries to move or transport you, they are trying to take you to a second crime scene. It is now time to fight for your life!
Some people ask, "If they're pointing a gun at me and demanding that I get in the car with them or they'll shoot, what should I do?" If the attacker would shoot you in a parking lot or similar location before they had what they wanted, do you think they would have any hesitation or reservation about shooting you 10 miles outside of the city when it's just you, them, and the gun? It is now time to fight for your life!
The biggest one I mentioned in the OP...spray the person in the face before they can get within arm's reach of you.Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Over an average life span of, let's say, 72 years, that is one out of one people in this country who will be victims of violent crime.
Food for thought.
It is food for thought, but more for thinking about how to compile numbers. There are some very basic assumptions in this that make the conclusion unreliable.
For example, over and above the problems with treating socioeconomic status and geographic location as irrelevant, there is a hidden assumption that one's likelihood of being a victim of violent crime is the same regardless of age (that is, there is no weighting with reference to age -- so you assign the same likelihood to a wealthy white baby in the Hamptons during his first month of life as you do to a homeless crack-user in Harlem during his twenty-seond year of life).
You also assume that the incidence of violent crime can be appropriately partitioned out equally amongst lives. It can't. Violent crimes differentially affect those of lower socioeconomic status, those in certain locations, and those with other particular characteristics (such as illegal drug-dealing). In real life, there are some people that are very likely to experience violent crime monthly, and there are others that are very unlikely to experience violent crime ever.
It is food for thought. A lot more thought, a lot of careful parsing through confounding factors, and a studious avoidance of oversimplifying the numbers that makes the conclusions worth than irrelevant -- they become actively misleading.
posted
Thought: It's worth noting that when the statistic is "An estimated 4.3 million violent crimes...were committed against U.S. residents age 12 or older in 2009," not only can you not assume that each year's likelihood is independent, I'm not even sure you can assume that 4.3 million violent crimes were committed against 4.3 million distinct people.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Thought: It's worth noting that when the statistic is "An estimated 4.3 million violent crimes...were committed against U.S. residents age 12 or older in 2009," not only can you not assume that each year's likelihood is independent, I'm not even sure you can assume that 4.3 million violent crimes were committed against 4.3 million distinct people.
In fact, it is almost certain that they weren't all distinct people. They likely were not even distinct events -- one physical altercation on the street can lead to charges of physical assault, sexual assault, mugging, attempted manslaughter, etc., and those can be counted as separate crimes.
Stone_Wolf_, you've been citing the Protection Against Crime website for numbers. It's worth noting that it is a commercial website that is set up to sell personal defense items (see the "OMEGA" link in sidebar), and they don't specify how those numbers are calculated. Whoever did the analysis may well have made the same assumptions as noted above, and those are serious errors.
Or they may not -- I can't tell, though the conclusions don't seem to fit.
---
Added: assuming that one can take national crime rates for one year, divide that by the population, and multiply by an average lifespan is assuming a spherical cow.
posted
You guys are right on the money...this is the problem with statistics, they are never exactly right for any of the individuals in the group that generated them.
I will try continue to try and get more numbers from different sources.
I just want to get people to understand that the possibility of violent crime in their own lives is not nearly as small as it might seem, so taking a simple, inexpensive and effective step to keep safe makes sense.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You guys are right on the money...this is the problem with statistics, they are never exactly right for any of the individuals in the group that generated them.
You know they old saw, right? "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
quote:I will try continue to try and get more numbers from different sources.
You don't have to. It's okay to continue the discusison without spending time trying to dig up more.
quote:I just want to get people to understand that the possibility of violent crime in their own lives is not nearly as small as it might seem, so taking a simple, inexpensive and effective step to keep safe makes sense.
It may be that the possibility of a given person experiencing violent crime in their own lifetime is higher than they may expect but also lower than you yourself might estimate. That's okay, too -- we're all dealing with imperfect knowledge. But if the numbers that strike a chord with you aren't accurate ones, then it may (may!) well be that the chord needs retuning.
I think there is a general sense for some that if something is good, why not do it? Can't hurt, right? But the thing is, it can, even if it seems to you it shouldn't. That is the problem with unintended consequences (as someone raised earlier).
There might be a good way to illustrate this. I think I may have talked about it here on Hatrack before, but anyone is welcome to help suss it out. (Stone_Wolf_, I'd love to have you in the discussion, but you may not want to join in, as it's a bit of an artificial situation. I know the answers, and there's an element of unfairness to that. Just so's you know, it's fine by me if you want to continue other parts of the conversation, and not this.)
----------------------------------
Unintended Consequences
For many years, there has been standard newborn screening for various disorders, and new tests keep getting added. Ideally, the tests should be for diseases that have a significant impact on lives, for which there is early treatment that makes a difference, and which is hard to detect just by physical exam (e.g., if the disease came with bright blue skin, there would be no added benefit to a blood test -- you'd just look at the baby and know).
Some years back, there were only a few states that did the newborn blood test for cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is a disease that stems from a defect in a certain salt channel in body cells. The mucus gets really thick, and so it can't be cleared and infections arise. The pancreas often gets clogged up, and people with this problem may not be able to digest many foods.
It used to be disgnosed by noticing children that had frequent recurrnt lung infections, bad diarrhea, and failure to grow. If caught early, you could give kids nutritional supplementation that would help their bodies and brains to grow normally, could try to prevent the infections, and hopefully improve their lifespans and quality of life.
So ... there were a lot of people advocating that all US states should routinely test newborns for cystic fibrosis. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Why or why not? Would it have been worth testing whether that was a good idea first(and why or why not)?
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Here is a good source that is very old...so also not that relevant...(my summation of a chart, not an actual quote)
quote:Lifetime likelihood of victimization of violent crime is 83%
1. When you read the pdf linked, does it reference likelihood of being a "victim of a violent crime" or just "victim of a crime"?
2. How much have both violent and non-violent crime rates dropped since this 1987 report? (Hint: it's a lot. [e.g., see this for the 1990s)
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: A. What is the cost of the test?
It could be added on as part of the regular newborn screening for about $5 per baby. If this test was implemented on a large scale, bulk purchasing could drop the price to about $1 each.
The regular newborn screen is a heel prick done on the second day of life, and the drop of blood is put on a card that is sent to the state health department. Deending on the given state, somewhere from 10-40 diseases can be tested for just from that one drop of blood.
quote:B. Are there side effects to the test?
You are just adding on another lab test to the sample that would already be drawn.You don't even need to take extra blood.
quote:C. Is the disease vastly more common in one area of the country then another?
It doesn't seem to vary much by geography.
quote:D. There are more questions, but I have crying babies, and must go right now.
No worries. When you have time, and only so long as it proves interesting for you.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So ... there were a lot of people advocating that all US states should routinely test newborns for cystic fibrosis. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Why or why not? Would it have been worth testing whether that was a good idea first(and why or why not)?
I say yes, the blood test is already being done, the cost is low, you said the disease if caught early can be affected for the positive. I can only imagine that that was what happened and there will be some kind of twist ending where it is a bad thing.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
No really, it has been adopted across the US as a screening test. It's generally a good thing.
However, there were unintended consequences, and thankfully those were picked up -- but only because one of the states delayed implementation long enough to do an assessment, and they were (at least initially) rounded critized for the delay. Everyone else said "why not? Can't hurt!"
(Foreshadowing, a sign of quality literature.)
I'll be back to write up more in a bit.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
