Israel Amirav on fri 4 feb 00
>When he was a few weeks old I propped my son up on my worktable in his
>little baby seat to watch me throw. Sometimes I set his swing up next to my
>wheel. A word of caution here. I put it a little too close one time and he
>got a clay bath. He didn't seem to mind, he just laughed.
Dear Clayarters,
My wife asked me to contribute here, on the issue of babies in the studio,
so I would like to present you with the way it looks from a pulmonary
pediatrician's point of view :
To put your baby in your studio is simply CHILD ABUSE.
The first couple of years are the critical period for the lung development.
Any insult during this vulnerable period will have major consequences.
ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) in that respect, is a good example for
something 20 years ago would not be considered a problem near a baby.
Things have changed, yet, ETS is a MUCH lower risk than the air inhaled in
a clay studio.
It really doesn't matter if you ventilate the studio,since particles are
settling all around and resist simple ventilation. Vacuuming just blows
them from one spot to another.
Babies may not exhibit any signs of respiratory problems to this exposure,
but subtle symptoms may accumulate- these may be a mild cough, rhinitis,
irritability, difficulty in sleeping and feeding problems. The most serious
concern is subtle hypoxemia due to chronic repetitive irritation of the
lung epithel which results in reduction in oxygenation capacity and
cognitive performance.
There is no argument that your baby enjoys your company, but,this bonding
should happen in a safe environment.You owe it to your baby.
My tuppence...
Israel Amirav MD
Pediatric Pulmonologist
Cindy Strnad on sat 5 feb 00
Dr. Amirav,
Thanks for your letter. I agree with you. Of course, our children will be
exposed to dust in the air regardless of whether they spend time in the
studio or not. (I, for example, live on a dirt road.) Nevertheless, why make
the situation worse?
For those of us who haven't learned medicalese, I'd like to paraphrase a few
of the things you said in the last paragraph. Most of us can probably
understand it, so long as we know the language, but I wouldn't have known
that language unless I'd gone to nursing school.
Hypoxia due to chronic repetitive irritation of the lung epithelia=low
oxygen levels in the blood resulting from recurring irritation of the
linings of the lung passageways.
Reduction in oxygenation capacity and cognitive performance=reduction in the
ability of the lungs to supply sufficient oxygen to the blood for optimal
mental performance and development.
The idea of keeping a baby in such a down-to-earth and homey environment as
Mommy's pottery shop has a great deal of romantic appeal. Folks have done
this sort of thing for millennia. However, conditions in the past are not
always the same as conditions today. For one thing, a potter working
outdoors or in an open shed is very different from a potter working in a
closed basement.
For another, many health hazards (lead, for example) of yesteryear were
considered perfectly safe. That doesn't mean they *were* perfectly safe. No,
the world doesn't need to be sterilized for the baby's sake, but we all need
to exercise good judgment based on what we know *today*.
Cindy Strnad
earthenv@gwtc.net
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730
Norman van der Sluys on sun 6 feb 00
Please don't throw around words like child abuse with such abandon! It does
nothing to contribute to understanding the pros and cons of the situation.
Certainly the possible consequences of environmental conditions on infants and
their development deserves consideration, but there are also other factors to
consider that are just as important in the minds of many.
Nothing we do in life is free of risk, and it seems that many in contemporary
society are trying to change that. I have news for those of you who think that
way - it aint going to happen. No matter how much we "learn" about the hazards
associated with human activities ,the substances we employ, and the environments
we inhabit, there will be risks involved and eventually we will all succumb to
one or another of them. (We know enough now to have made death from old age
obsolete!)
Yes, we owe it to our small children to afford them every reasonable protection
from harm. We also need to nurture them emotionally and mentally and creatively.
It is possible to provide a child with impeccable physical care and be guilty of
neglect in one or several of these areas - in fact it happens all too often. To
say that one area is more important than another is to admit to wearing
intellectual blinders.
Why not use the subject of this thread to remind ourselves of the hazards we fac
in the studio everyday. If we bring our young children into the studio we should
be doing an extra careful job of keeping dust to a minimum. We owe it to
ourselves as well as to the little ones. What about air filtration units? there
are some out there for the cost of a slab roller. Which operations raise more
dust than others? We can be sensible about what we do when infants are present i
the studio. As far as I know there is little hazard connected with the handling
of moist clay. Mixing glazes is another matter. I think most of us know that dry
vacuuming in the studio is a no-no, and that the much older technology of the we
mop is a safer choice.
Whichever way we choose, child abuse is not a relevant term to characterize any
of the situations described in this thread. Giving the child a sense of the
integrity of work and the rest of life (one of the biggest rewards of a studio
potter's life) is a prescious gift. Allowing mothers to maintain their creative
activities while they raise their children is good for their self esteem, and
that cannot help but be good for the youngsters.
Norman van der Sluys
Jackpottery!
Israel Amirav wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> >When he was a few weeks old I propped my son up on my worktable in his
> >little baby seat to watch me throw. Sometimes I set his swing up next to my
> >wheel. A word of caution here. I put it a little too close one time and he
> >got a clay bath. He didn't seem to mind, he just laughed.
>
> Dear Clayarters,
>
> My wife asked me to contribute here, on the issue of babies in the studio,
> so I would like to present you with the way it looks from a pulmonary
> pediatrician's point of view :
>
> To put your baby in your studio is simply CHILD ABUSE.
> The first couple of years are the critical period for the lung development.
> Any insult during this vulnerable period will have major consequences.
> ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) in that respect, is a good example for
> something 20 years ago would not be considered a problem near a baby.
> Things have changed, yet, ETS is a MUCH lower risk than the air inhaled in
> a clay studio.
>
> It really doesn't matter if you ventilate the studio,since particles are
> settling all around and resist simple ventilation. Vacuuming just blows
> them from one spot to another.
>
> Babies may not exhibit any signs of respiratory problems to this exposure,
> but subtle symptoms may accumulate- these may be a mild cough, rhinitis,
> irritability, difficulty in sleeping and feeding problems. The most serious
> concern is subtle hypoxemia due to chronic repetitive irritation of the
> lung epithel which results in reduction in oxygenation capacity and
> cognitive performance.
> There is no argument that your baby enjoys your company, but,this bonding
> should happen in a safe environment.You owe it to your baby.
>
> My tuppence...
>
> Israel Amirav MD
> Pediatric Pulmonologist
Carolyn Nygren Curran on sun 6 feb 00
Potters in this country B.S. (before stoneware) often gave their
children the chore of grinding the raw lead for their glazes, and
children were therefore the ones who suffered from lead poisoning. It must
have made sense to give the kids a chore they were capable of - one which
would keep them out of mischief and allow them to be useful at the same
time. And yet those well meaning parents were doing a lot of damage
through ignorance. I brought our youngest into the basement studio once
in a while, but not for long periods of time and not on a regular basis.
I might not have even done that if I had been a clayart subscriber! What
else do we do out of ignorance? And what about those old classic glaze
recipes lying around with raw lead? If you have a solid enough background,
you'll be cautious, but........ The more you learn, the less you
think you know. CNC
Kathy McDonald on mon 7 feb 00
Good morning,,,
and it is a Monday morning too!!
I have been reading the replies to this thread and letting them digest and simme
for a few days. I assume that the physician who responded to this thread was do
so in a direct and somewhat responsible manner, but I wonder if such an extreme
point of view is really called for or even helpful. I have been in the field of
school psychology and child protective services for 25 years now and a practicin
potter for at least 22 of those,,,and I NEVER considered having my babies in the
studio or close to me when I worked in either profession anything but a wonderfu
experience,
Hell I've seen babies coexisting with rats and living in abject poverty.
I've seen babies from extremely sterile (both in terms of hygiene and emotion)
environments who are brutally abused who grow up to be angry and violent.
Sooooooooo...having ones babe in the studio called abuse,,,I DON"T THINK SO!!!!
My kids were with me in the studio from the minutes after their births that I co
return to potting,
My babies are now 19 and 16...and seem to have excellent cardiopulmonary
function...one is a solo soprano performer, the other plays as many as 5 games o
hockey and an equivalent amount of indoor soccer every week.
The basic point I am making is similiar to several others on the list,,,,,,take
reasonable precautions,,,,,
and,,,,,
*don't throw the baby out with the slip*
Kathy McDonald
http://sites.netscape.net/potterkath
Norman van der Sluys wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Please don't throw around words like child abuse with such abandon! It does
> nothing to contribute to understanding the pros and cons of the situation.
> Certainly the possible consequences of environmental conditions on infants and
> their development deserves consideration, but there are also other factors to
> consider that are just as important in the minds of many.
> Nothing we do in life is free of risk, and it seems that many in contemporary
> society are trying to change that. I have news for those of you who think tha
> way - it aint going to happen. No matter how much we "learn" about the hazards
> associated with human activities ,the substances we employ, and the environmen
> we inhabit, there will be risks involved and eventually we will all succumb to
> one or another of them. (We know enough now to have made death from old age
> obsolete!)
> Yes, we owe it to our small children to afford them every reasonable protectio
> from harm. We also need to nurture them emotionally and mentally and creativel
> It is possible to provide a child with impeccable physical care and be guilty
> neglect in one or several of these areas - in fact it happens all too often. T
> say that one area is more important than another is to admit to wearing
> intellectual blinders.
> Why not use the subject of this thread to remind ourselves of the hazards we f
> in the studio everyday. If we bring our young children into the studio we shou
> be doing an extra careful job of keeping dust to a minimum. We owe it to
> ourselves as well as to the little ones. What about air filtration units? ther
> are some out there for the cost of a slab roller. Which operations raise more
> dust than others? We can be sensible about what we do when infants are present
> the studio. As far as I know there is little hazard connected with the handlin
> of moist clay. Mixing glazes is another matter. I think most of us know that d
> vacuuming in the studio is a no-no, and that the much older technology of the
> mop is a safer choice.
> Whichever way we choose, child abuse is not a relevant term to characterize an
> of the situations described in this thread. Giving the child a sense of the
> integrity of work and the rest of life (one of the biggest rewards of a studio
> potter's life) is a prescious gift. Allowing mothers to maintain their creativ
> activities while they raise their children is good for their self esteem, and
> that cannot help but be good for the youngsters.
>
> Norman van der Sluys
> Jackpottery!
>
>
>
> Israel Amirav wrote:
>
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >
> > >When he was a few weeks old I propped my son up on my worktable in his
> > >little baby seat to watch me throw. Sometimes I set his swing up next to m
> > >wheel. A word of caution here. I put it a little too close one time and h
> > >got a clay bath. He didn't seem to mind, he just laughed.
> >
> > Dear Clayarters,
> >
> > My wife asked me to contribute here, on the issue of babies in the studio,
> > so I would like to present you with the way it looks from a pulmonary
> > pediatrician's point of view :
> >
> > To put your baby in your studio is simply CHILD ABUSE.
> > The first couple of years are the critical period for the lung development.
> > Any insult during this vulnerable period will have major consequences.
> > ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) in that respect, is a good example for
> > something 20 years ago would not be considered a problem near a baby.
> > Things have changed, yet, ETS is a MUCH lower risk than the air inhaled in
> > a clay studio.
> >
> > It really doesn't matter if you ventilate the studio,since particles are
> > settling all around and resist simple ventilation. Vacuuming just blows
> > them from one spot to another.
> >
> > Babies may not exhibit any signs of respiratory problems to this exposure,
> > but subtle symptoms may accumulate- these may be a mild cough, rhinitis,
> > irritability, difficulty in sleeping and feeding problems. The most serious
> > concern is subtle hypoxemia due to chronic repetitive irritation of the
> > lung epithel which results in reduction in oxygenation capacity and
> > cognitive performance.
> > There is no argument that your baby enjoys your company, but,this bonding
> > should happen in a safe environment.You owe it to your baby.
> >
> > My tuppence...
> >
> > Israel Amirav MD
> > Pediatric Pulmonologist
Kathy McDonald on tue 8 feb 00
HMMMM!!!! Sorry thet the post nipped off all my endings to words,,,with have to
have *word* with my mail program.
Kathy
Kathy McDonald wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Good morning,,,
> and it is a Monday morning too!!
>
> I have been reading the replies to this thread and letting them digest and sim
> for a few days. I assume that the physician who responded to this thread was
> so in a direct and somewhat responsible manner, but I wonder if such an extrem
> point of view is really called for or even helpful. I have been in the field
> school psychology and child protective services for 25 years now and a practic
> potter for at least 22 of those,,,and I NEVER considered having my babies in t
> studio or close to me when I worked in either profession anything but a wonder
> experience,
>
> Hell I've seen babies coexisting with rats and living in abject poverty.
> I've seen babies from extremely sterile (both in terms of hygiene and emotion)
> environments who are brutally abused who grow up to be angry and violent.
>
> Sooooooooo...having ones babe in the studio called abuse,,,I DON"T THINK SO!!
>
> My kids were with me in the studio from the minutes after their births that I
> return to potting,
>
> My babies are now 19 and 16...and seem to have excellent cardiopulmonary
> function...one is a solo soprano performer, the other plays as many as 5 games
> hockey and an equivalent amount of indoor soccer every week.
>
> The basic point I am making is similiar to several others on the list,,,,,,tak
> reasonable precautions,,,,,
> and,,,,,
> *don't throw the baby out with the slip*
>
> Kathy McDonald
> http://sites.netscape.net/potterkath
>
> Norman van der Sluys wrote:
>
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > Please don't throw around words like child abuse with such abandon! It does
> > nothing to contribute to understanding the pros and cons of the situation.
> > Certainly the possible consequences of environmental conditions on infants a
> > their development deserves consideration, but there are also other factors t
> > consider that are just as important in the minds of many.
> > Nothing we do in life is free of risk, and it seems that many in contemporar
> > society are trying to change that. I have news for those of you who think t
> > way - it aint going to happen. No matter how much we "learn" about the hazar
> > associated with human activities ,the substances we employ, and the environm
> > we inhabit, there will be risks involved and eventually we will all succumb
> > one or another of them. (We know enough now to have made death from old age
> > obsolete!)
> > Yes, we owe it to our small children to afford them every reasonable protect
> > from harm. We also need to nurture them emotionally and mentally and creativ
> > It is possible to provide a child with impeccable physical care and be guilt
> > neglect in one or several of these areas - in fact it happens all too often.
> > say that one area is more important than another is to admit to wearing
> > intellectual blinders.
> > Why not use the subject of this thread to remind ourselves of the hazards we
> > in the studio everyday. If we bring our young children into the studio we sh
> > be doing an extra careful job of keeping dust to a minimum. We owe it to
> > ourselves as well as to the little ones. What about air filtration units? th
> > are some out there for the cost of a slab roller. Which operations raise mor
> > dust than others? We can be sensible about what we do when infants are prese
> > the studio. As far as I know there is little hazard connected with the handl
> > of moist clay. Mixing glazes is another matter. I think most of us know that
> > vacuuming in the studio is a no-no, and that the much older technology of th
> > mop is a safer choice.
> > Whichever way we choose, child abuse is not a relevant term to characterize
> > of the situations described in this thread. Giving the child a sense of the
> > integrity of work and the rest of life (one of the biggest rewards of a stud
> > potter's life) is a prescious gift. Allowing mothers to maintain their creat
> > activities while they raise their children is good for their self esteem, an
> > that cannot help but be good for the youngsters.
> >
> > Norman van der Sluys
> > Jackpottery!
> >
> >
> >
> > Israel Amirav wrote:
> >
> > > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > >
> > > >When he was a few weeks old I propped my son up on my worktable in his
> > > >little baby seat to watch me throw. Sometimes I set his swing up next to
> > > >wheel. A word of caution here. I put it a little too close one time and
> > > >got a clay bath. He didn't seem to mind, he just laughed.
> > >
> > > Dear Clayarters,
> > >
> > > My wife asked me to contribute here, on the issue of babies in the studio
> > > so I would like to present you with the way it looks from a pulmonary
> > > pediatrician's point of view :
> > >
> > > To put your baby in your studio is simply CHILD ABUSE.
> > > The first couple of years are the critical period for the lung development
> > > Any insult during this vulnerable period will have major consequences.
> > > ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) in that respect, is a good example for
> > > something 20 years ago would not be considered a problem near a baby.
> > > Things have changed, yet, ETS is a MUCH lower risk than the air inhaled i
> > > a clay studio.
> > >
> > > It really doesn't matter if you ventilate the studio,since particles are
> > > settling all around and resist simple ventilation. Vacuuming just blows
> > > them from one spot to another.
> > >
> > > Babies may not exhibit any signs of respiratory problems to this exposure,
> > > but subtle symptoms may accumulate- these may be a mild cough, rhinitis,
> > > irritability, difficulty in sleeping and feeding problems. The most seriou
> > > concern is subtle hypoxemia due to chronic repetitive irritation of the
> > > lung epithel which results in reduction in oxygenation capacity and
> > > cognitive performance.
> > > There is no argument that your baby enjoys your company, but,this bonding
> > > should happen in a safe environment.You owe it to your baby.
> > >
> > > My tuppence...
> > >
> > > Israel Amirav MD
> > > Pediatric Pulmonologist
Edouard Bastarache on tue 8 feb 00
------------------
Hello Kath (my favorite opponent in canadian politics),
the term used =22child abuse=22 was probably =22une figure de style=22
i.e.a=22stylistic device=22.
I think he is a very knowledgeable doctor, being a paediatrician
specialized in pulmonary diseases . He is also
married to a potter, so he knows of the hazards of our workplaces=3B
at least of his wife.
I think he was trying to warn us about overexposing
very young children to the different air chemicals in a potter's shop.
He also explained why very young children are more
vulnerable to different air chemicals, not only ceramics materials.
Naturally exposure to these chemicals depends on many factors
and many posts to Clayart have dealt with this problem.
Fellow clayarters are now more aware of their potential toxicity.
Knowing all these things, mothers and grandmothers of very
young children can decide WHERE, WHEN and for HOW LONG
they should bring the young ones in the studio.
We live in a free world, so when well informed we should be able
to make the right decisions.
=22Prevention tastes better then treatment=22,
Edouard Bastarache
Dans / In =22La Belle Province=22
edouardb=40sorel-tracy.qc.ca
http://www.sorel-tracy.qc.ca/=7Eedouardb/
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Kathy McDonald =3Cpotter=40westman.wave.ca=3E
=C0 : CLAYART=40LSV.UKY.EDU =3CCLAYART=40LSV.UKY.EDU=3E
Date : 7 f=E9vrier, 2000 15:13
Objet : Re: Studio Babies-child abuse
=3E----------------------------Original message----------------------------
=3EGood morning,,,
=3Eand it is a Monday morning too=21=21
=3E
=3EI have been reading the replies to this thread and letting them digest =
and
simme
=3Efor a few days. I assume that the physician who responded to this thread
was do
=3Eso in a direct and somewhat responsible manner, but I wonder if such an
extreme
=3Epoint of view is really called for or even helpful. I have been in the
field of
=3Eschool psychology and child protective services for 25 years now and a
practicin
=3Epotter for at least 22 of those,,,and I NEVER considered having my babies
in the
=3Estudio or close to me when I worked in either profession anything but a
wonderfu
=3Eexperience,
=3E
=3EHell I've seen babies coexisting with rats and living in abject poverty.
=3EI've seen babies from extremely sterile (both in terms of hygiene and
emotion)
=3Eenvironments who are brutally abused who grow up to be angry and violent.
=3E
=3ESooooooooo...having ones babe in the studio called abuse,,,I DON=22T =
THINK
SO=21=21=21=21
=3E
=3EMy kids were with me in the studio from the minutes after their births =
that
I co
=3Ereturn to potting,
=3E
=3EMy babies are now 19 and 16...and seem to have excellent cardiopulmonary
=3Efunction...one is a solo soprano performer, the other plays as many as 5
games o
=3Ehockey and an equivalent amount of indoor soccer every week.
=3E
=3EThe basic point I am making is similiar to several others on the
list,,,,,,take
=3Ereasonable precautions,,,,,
=3Eand,,,,,
=3E=2Adon't throw the baby out with the slip=2A
=3E
=3EKathy McDonald
=3Ehttp://sites.netscape.net/potterkath
=3E
=3E
=3ENorman van der Sluys wrote:
=3E
=3E=3E ----------------------------Original =
message----------------------------
=3E=3E Please don't throw around words like child abuse with such abandon=21=
It
does
=3E=3E nothing to contribute to understanding the pros and cons of the
situation.
=3E=3E Certainly the possible consequences of environmental conditions on
infants and
=3E=3E their development deserves consideration, but there are also other
factors to
=3E=3E consider that are just as important in the minds of many.
=3E=3E Nothing we do in life is free of risk, and it seems that many in
contemporary
=3E=3E society are trying to change that. I have news for those of you who
think tha
=3E=3E way - it aint going to happen. No matter how much we =22learn=22 =
about the
hazards
=3E=3E associated with human activities ,the substances we employ, and the
environmen
=3E=3E we inhabit, there will be risks involved and eventually we will all
succumb to
=3E=3E one or another of them. (We know enough now to have made death from =
old
age
=3E=3E obsolete=21)
=3E=3E Yes, we owe it to our small children to afford them every reasonable
protectio
=3E=3E from harm. We also need to nurture them emotionally and mentally and
creativel
=3E=3E It is possible to provide a child with impeccable physical care and =
be
guilty
=3E=3E neglect in one or several of these areas - in fact it happens all too
often. T
=3E=3E say that one area is more important than another is to admit to =
wearing
=3E=3E intellectual blinders.
=3E=3E Why not use the subject of this thread to remind ourselves of the =
hazards
we f
=3E=3E in the studio everyday. If we bring our young children into the =
studio we
shou
=3E=3E be doing an extra careful job of keeping dust to a minimum. We owe it=
to
=3E=3E ourselves as well as to the little ones. What about air filtration =
units?
ther
=3E=3E are some out there for the cost of a slab roller. Which operations =
raise
more
=3E=3E dust than others? We can be sensible about what we do when infants =
are
present
=3E=3E the studio. As far as I know there is little hazard connected with =
the
handlin
=3E=3E of moist clay. Mixing glazes is another matter. I think most of us =
know
that d
=3E=3E vacuuming in the studio is a no-no, and that the much older =
technology of
the
=3E=3E mop is a safer choice.
=3E=3E Whichever way we choose, child abuse is not a relevant term to
characterize an
=3E=3E of the situations described in this thread. Giving the child a sense =
of
the
=3E=3E integrity of work and the rest of life (one of the biggest rewards of=
a
studio
=3E=3E potter's life) is a prescious gift. Allowing mothers to maintain =
their
creativ
=3E=3E activities while they raise their children is good for their self =
esteem,
and
=3E=3E that cannot help but be good for the youngsters.
=3E=3E
=3E=3E Norman van der Sluys
=3E=3E Jackpottery=21
=3E=3E =3Chttp://jackpottery.tripod.com/=3E
=3E=3E =3Chttp://jackpottery.tripod.com/nlci/=3E
=3E=3E
=3E=3E Israel Amirav wrote:
=3E=3E
=3E=3E =3E ----------------------------Original
message----------------------------
=3E=3E =3E
=3E=3E =3E =3EWhen he was a few weeks old I propped my son up on my =
worktable in his
=3E=3E =3E =3Elittle baby seat to watch me throw. Sometimes I set his swing=
up next
to m
=3E=3E =3E =3Ewheel. A word of caution here. I put it a little too close =
one time
and h
=3E=3E =3E =3Egot a clay bath. He didn't seem to mind, he just laughed.
=3E=3E =3E
=3E=3E =3E Dear Clayarters,
=3E=3E =3E
=3E=3E =3E My wife asked me to contribute here, on the issue of babies in =
the
studio,
=3E=3E =3E so I would like to present you with the way it looks from a =
pulmonary
=3E=3E =3E pediatrician's point of view :
=3E=3E =3E
=3E=3E =3E To put your baby in your studio is simply CHILD ABUSE.
=3E=3E =3E The first couple of years are the critical period for the lung
development.
=3E=3E =3E Any insult during this vulnerable period will have major =
consequences.
=3E=3E =3E ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) in that respect, is a good =
example
for
=3E=3E =3E something 20 years ago would not be considered a problem near a =
baby.
=3E=3E =3E Things have changed, yet, ETS is a MUCH lower risk than the air
inhaled in
=3E=3E =3E a clay studio.
=3E=3E =3E
=3E=3E =3E It really doesn't matter if you ventilate the studio,since =
particles
are
=3E=3E =3E settling all around and resist simple ventilation. Vacuuming just=
blows
=3E=3E =3E them from one spot to another.
=3E=3E =3E
=3E=3E =3E Babies may not exhibit any signs of respiratory problems to this
exposure,
=3E=3E =3E but subtle symptoms may accumulate- these may be a mild cough,
rhinitis,
=3E=3E =3E irritability, difficulty in sleeping and feeding problems. The =
most
serious
=3E=3E =3E concern is subtle hypoxemia due to chronic repetitive irritation =
of the
=3E=3E =3E lung epithel which results in reduction in oxygenation capacity =
and
=3E=3E =3E cognitive performance.
=3E=3E =3E There is no argument that your baby enjoys your company, but,this
bonding
=3E=3E =3E should happen in a safe environment.You owe it to your baby.
=3E=3E =3E
=3E=3E =3E My tuppence...
=3E=3E =3E
=3E=3E =3E Israel Amirav MD
=3E=3E =3E Pediatric Pulmonologist
Terrance Lazaroff on wed 9 feb 00
I could not agree more with the words of Edouard Bastarache
Dans / In "La Belle Province". Some say "the truth hurts". As for me I
don't even feel good when people bring their dog into the studio. I like
having the animal around but I worry for its health.
Terrnce Frank Lazaroff
St-Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Zalt's Web Page
Lana Reeves on thu 10 feb 00
Terrence-- If your studio is not safe for a dog, is it safe for you?
Lana in Somerville, MA
-----Original Message-----
From: Terrance Lazaroff
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Date: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Studio Babies-child abuse
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I could not agree more with the words of Edouard Bastarache
>Dans / In "La Belle Province". Some say "the truth hurts". As for me I
>don't even feel good when people bring their dog into the studio. I like
>having the animal around but I worry for its health.
>
>Terrnce Frank Lazaroff
>St-Hubert, Quebec, Canada
>Zalt's Web Page
| |
|
