attn children of the 50's

dieselhead

New member
Joined
2 Jan 2003
Messages
124
Location
Hamble, Hants
Visit site
attn children of the 50\'s

According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's probably shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with bright coloured lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets. Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking. As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags. We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle. Horrors! We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank lemonade with sugar in it, but we were never overweight because we were always outside playing. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one actually died from this. We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then rode down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem. We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the street lights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. No cell phones. Unthinkable! We did not have Playstations, Nintendo 64, X-Boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, video tape movies, surround sound, personal cellphones, personal computers, or Internet chat rooms. We had friends! We went outside and found them. We played cricket and football, and sometimes, the ball would really hurt. We fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. They were accidents. No one was to blame but us. Remember accidents? We had fights and punched each other and got black and blue and learned to get over it. We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and ate worms, and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes, nor did the worms live inside us forever. We rode bikes or walked to a friend's home and knocked on the door, or rang the bell or just walked in and talked to them. School examinations were tough and some students weren't as smart as others, so they failed a grade and were held back to repeat the same grade. Horrors! Tests were not adjusted for any reason. Our actions were our own. Consequences were expected The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke a law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law. Imagine that! This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers and problem solvers and inventors, ever. The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all. And you're one of them! Congratulations. Please pass this on to others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before lawyers and government regulated our lives, for our own good

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

AndrewB

Well-known member
Joined
7 Jun 2001
Messages
5,852
Location
Dover/Corfu
Visit site
Re: attn children of the 50\'s

<font size=1>Quote<hr width=100% size=1>those of us who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's probably shouldn't have survived.<hr width=100% size=1></font size=1>
And a lot of 'us' didn't.

Deaths in the first year of life:
> 1947: 44 per 1000 children;
> 1997: 6 per 1000 children.
(Source: ONS).

Those who didn't survive aren't putting their point of view though!
 

Observer

Active member
Joined
21 Nov 2002
Messages
2,782
Location
Bucks
Visit site
I sense possible sophistry?

No offence, Andrew. But I have to comment that providing selected statistics out of context is a favoured trick of politicians. I'm not disbelieving - but what's the trend. Surely downwards - but is it so steep as implied by your illustration?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

NigeCh

New member
Joined
28 Feb 2002
Messages
604
Location
Mortehoe
Visit site
Immune system defences

There's nothing like playing in muck to create antibodies. The trouble with today's children is that they are too clean.

I'm (born 1942) around now because I still play in muck .... Got told off a couple of weeks ago for not wearing a face mask when I was anti-fouling a friends boat .... It's all bollox - a good dollop of muck is, IMO, far bettter than any Health & Safety legislation or anything else that HMG wants to put in writing.

Yip, a dollop of muck is the way to go..

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

Neal

New member
Joined
6 Oct 2001
Messages
159
Location
Devon
Visit site
Is this relevant?

Andrew, let's assume you have been 'honest' in your statistics ie you have NOT taken an atypically bad year as base, and compared it to an atypically good year.

Even then, what do your figures show? Surely, the falling death rate is largely accounted for by the reduction in deaths during birth. ie it is achieved through midwifery techniques, hospital routines and improvements in surgery etc.

So nothing at all to do with exposure to risk, muck and responsibility, in formative years, don't you think?

Cheers!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

hlb

RIP
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
26,775
Location
Any Pub Lancashire or Wales
Visit site
Re: Is this relevant?

Besides that. I believe we had quite a big war only a couple of years earlier. Doubt if everything was working proper.

<hr width=100% size=1>
smiling.gif
Haydn
 

Joe_Cole

New member
Joined
14 Feb 2002
Messages
2,348
Visit site
Re: attn children of the 50\'s

Surely though, all the regulations that you object to have been passed by children of the 40's, 50's and 60's. Maybe some of your soul mates see things differently.

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

Footpad

New member
Joined
31 May 2001
Messages
84
Location
West Sussex England
Visit site
Re: Immune system defences

I agree with your opening, my Grandma used to say you've got to eat a peck of dirt before you die (and not as a consequence!) but the idea of developing antibodies that will protect you from the powerful biocides in antifouling is interesting. I think you are much more likely to suppress the effeciency of your immune system and go down with something else.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

Footpad

New member
Joined
31 May 2001
Messages
84
Location
West Sussex England
Visit site
Re: Immune system defences

I agree with your opening, my Grandma used to say you've got to eat a peck of dirt before you die (and not as a consequence!) but the idea of developing antibodies that will protect you from the powerful biocides in antifouling is interesting. I think you are much more likely to suppress the effeciency of your immune system and go down with something else.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

graham

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
8,085
Visit site
Re: attn children of the 50\'s

The biggest killer of children in Britain is motor cars.

A good few more of those around now than when I was a child.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

AndrewB

Well-known member
Joined
7 Jun 2001
Messages
5,852
Location
Dover/Corfu
Visit site
No, not sophistry.

There was a steady year-on-year reduction in infant mortality throughout the 20th century, faster dring the second half than the first. 1947 and 1997 are simply part of the trend. For the full figures see: <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?More=Y&vlnk=6668&All=Y&B2.x=67&B2.y=14>http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?More=Y&vlnk=6668&All=Y&B2.x=67&B2.y=14</A>

This particular table shows that the improvement was by no means purely in the early neonatal period as Neal suggests, but in fact holds good later during the first year of life, if a little less dramatically among older babies. (It gives a slightly different figure for 1947 than I previously quoted).

The same is true throughout childhood. I don't have the figures to hand at home, but from memory the probability of dying before 18 based on period life tables was around 10 times higher prior to 1950 than it is today. There has also been a reduction in chronic ill-health and disability among children and young adults.

Yes, in part the social history of childhood of the last 50 years has been about trading the advantages that Dieselhead describes, for improved health and survival from a more controlled environment (=sheltered upbringing). Has it been worth it? If you ask the opinions of those who survived, remember that they are the 'winners' in this process, who had those advantages, but did not pay the price.
 

AndrewD

New member
Joined
19 Jun 2001
Messages
42
Location
Scotland West Coast
Visit site
Re: No, not sophistry.

It would be interesting to know how many of those perinatal and neonatal deaths, now avoided, were due to infectious diseased now extinct.

I suspect we should be thanking Alexander Fleming rather than Nanny State.

Prove me wrong, Mr. B!

<hr width=100% size=1>No sig is a good sig
 

AndrewB

Well-known member
Joined
7 Jun 2001
Messages
5,852
Location
Dover/Corfu
Visit site
Hmm yes, interesting point.

Epidemiologists have long argued about the relative contributions of public health (= Nanny State), rising living standards and interventive technology in improving health expectancies, both in regard to infectious diseases and other health conditions. Improved sanitation, not penicillin, brought cholera, dysentry, typhus and the various plagues under control in the 19th century.

Granted both have a role now, but many argue that public health continues to be the more important factor in the sustained improvement.

However, you can if you wish eliminate infectious disease from the argument. Mortality statistics by age and cause have been published in the UK for nearly 100 years, latterly as ONS series DH2 (Mortality Statistics). Have a look at rates through time of child mortality for all causes excluding infectious diseases (ICD groups 1 - 199).

I'd do it but this is beginning to look far too much like my day job!
 

Oldhand

New member
Joined
21 Feb 2002
Messages
1,805
Location
UK, S.Coast
Visit site
Re: attn children of the 50\'s

You forgot to mention healthy and safety in the work place - when I think of the things we used to do to get the job done....

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Top