choosing huge, bold
Goyard
Handbags print, bright colors as well as a
captivating message.Replica
Aigner watches Laptop computer messenger bags Givenchy
handbagscome in lots of different styles. There is laptop
computer backpacks, Marni
handbags laptop computer briefcases, & lots of more. You
can get any of them that match you style & fashion for better travel
conveniences. Men love to wear the Replica
Watches  and Patek
Philippe watches   is one of the most replicated watch brands
worldwide, behind only Breitling
watches uk

 and Panerai. Omega watches tag
heuer watches are popular, and hence there is
a large range of Patek Philippe Omega replica watches available. These watches
range from poor Chinese copies to the latest high-end Swiss ETA replicas with
all the bells and whistles. Rolex
Replica Watches

Your reference to car seats is interesting in this context, in that they are probably a generally safe and good idea, but (a.) they known to contribute to infant death when improperly installed, and (b.) they are improperly installed in an estimated 82% of cases (NHTSA). The massive cognitive dissonance that should result from this information doesn’t seem to make a dent in our shared cultural belief that car seats are a Safe Thing. I mean, that’s got to be interesting– if we’re going to damn sling carriers due to the (comparably quite small) risks of improper usage, why do we still have not just a widespread acceptance but widespread insistence on the use of infant car seats? And this is leaving completely aside for the moment Stephen Leavitt’s much-maligned-but-as-of-yet-unrefuted argument about the relative uselessness of car seats for children above the age of 2. (Sadly, there’s a real dearth of good studies about infant car seat safety; it’s only been in the last two months that realistic data about infant car seat performance has started to be taken seriously in public discourse, and we’re probably a long way from the point at which research makes any dent in our current prescriptive policy regarding car seats.)

We’re hella inconsistent about our standards for safety, is all I’m saying. And it’s got to be at least interesting that we are fairly predictably inconsistent in (as I think Sierra’s getting at in her comment above) tending to favor irrational positions that are in line with entrenched and traditional parenting norms.

Your reference to car seats is interesting in this context, in that they are probably a generally safe and good idea, but (a.) they known to contribute to infant death when improperly installed, and (b.) they are improperly installed in an estimated 82% of cases (NHTSA). The massive cognitive dissonance that should result from this information doesn’t seem to make a dent in our shared cultural belief that car seats are a Safe Thing. I mean, that’s got to be interesting– if we’re going to damn sling carriers due to the (comparably quite small) risks of improper usage, why do we still have not just a widespread acceptance but widespread insistence on the use of infant car seats? And this is leaving completely aside for the moment Stephen Leavitt’s much-maligned-but-as-of-yet-unrefuted argument about the relative uselessness of car seats for children above the age of 2. (Sadly, there’s a real dearth of good studies about infant car seat safety; it’s only been in the last two months that realistic data about infant car seat performance has started to be taken seriously in public discourse, and we’re probably a long way from the point at which research makes any dent in our current prescriptive policy regarding car seats.)

We’re hella inconsistent about our standards for safety, is all I’m saying. And it’s got to be at least interesting that we are fairly predictably inconsistent in (as I think Sierra’s getting at in her comment above) tending to favor irrational positions that are in line with entrenched and traditional parenting norms.

On the positive side, CR is actually interested in the safety of consumers and being in the middle of a shit-storm like this might make them realize that there are a whole lot of consumers who are doing attachment parenting. And maybe next year instead of a “Five Products Not to Buy For Your Baby.” article, they’ll have a “Twenty Slings Tested and Reviewed” article. But maybe I’m just a hopeless optimist.

On the positive side, CR is actually interested in the safety of consumers and being in the middle of a shit-storm like this might make them realize that there are a whole lot of consumers who are doing attachment parenting. And maybe next year instead of a “Five Products Not to Buy For Your Baby.” article, they’ll have a “Twenty Slings Tested and Reviewed” article. But maybe I’m just a hopeless optimist.

The first is that we as a society often decide that practices are “not safe *enough*” for reasons other than real safety risks. This is, in my experience, especially true when it comes to children. There’s a lot of cultural anxiety that goes into decision-making about children and risk, plus a lot of fear and blame. It’s not a good environment for any kind of rational decision-making, and I think parents and kids have lost a lot of joy, peace and freedom in the quest for safety, often for very small safety gains. There’s a lot of good evidence that co-sleeping is in fact safe. I don’t know about co-sleepers per se, as I said. The products might introduce new risks, but in general having your baby in your bed is safer than having your baby in a crib.

My second point is that the Consumer Reports article was based on very sloppy reporting. For example, he says that 4 infants have died over the past five years as a result of falling from slings and therefore all slings are dangerous and no one should buy them. Here is an article that cites 4 infant deaths just in 2007 in one particular type of crib. And yet he does not suggest that consumers avoid all cribs. In fact he repeats the myth that the safest place for a baby to sleep is in a crib.

I’m not saying consumer reports should recommend these products in the absence of safety testing, but they should not slam them either. A responsible approach would be to point out that there are no safety standards and explore what appropriate safety features one should look for. Or just leave it alone until there is real safety evidence to report on one way or the other.

The first is that we as a society often decide that practices are “not safe *enough*” for reasons other than real safety risks. This is, in my experience, especially true when it comes to children. There’s a lot of cultural anxiety that goes into decision-making about children and risk, plus a lot of fear and blame. It’s not a good environment for any kind of rational decision-making, and I think parents and kids have lost a lot of joy, peace and freedom in the quest for safety, often for very small safety gains. There’s a lot of good evidence that co-sleeping is in fact safe. I don’t know about co-sleepers per se, as I said. The products might introduce new risks, but in general having your baby in your bed is safer than having your baby in a crib.

My second point is that the Consumer Reports article was based on very sloppy reporting. For example, he says that 4 infants have died over the past five years as a result of falling from slings and therefore all slings are dangerous and no one should buy them. Here is an article that cites 4 infant deaths just in 2007 in one particular type of crib. And yet he does not suggest that consumers avoid all cribs. In fact he repeats the myth that the safest place for a baby to sleep is in a crib.

I’m not saying consumer reports should recommend these products in the absence of safety testing, but they should not slam them either. A responsible approach would be to point out that there are no safety standards and explore what appropriate safety features one should look for. Or just leave it alone until there is real safety evidence to report on one way or the other.