13 year old NOT the father!

An update to a posting from Saturday February 14th 2009 @ 5:06pm

Court documents show that a 13-year-old boy who was reported to be the father of a baby girl born earlier this year in Britain is not her dad.

Newspaper photos of the baby-faced teenager, Alfie, along with the 15-year-old mother and the infant shocked the country.

They also sparked debate about sex education in Britain, which has one of Europe’s highest teen pregnancy rates.

Details of DNA testing were revealed Tuesday when a court-ordered reporting ban was lifted.

The court documents show that another boy, aged 15, is the baby’s real father.

The mother lives in Eastbourne, on the southeast coast of England.

Sales of energy drinks to kids should be banned: medical society

Racing hearts, anxiety and high blood pressure are among the symptoms that can come from consuming energy drinks, says the P.E.I. Medical Society, and it wants stronger controls.

Society president Dr. Bill Scantlebury told the legislature's committee on social development Thursday that he's seeing people with a wide range of symptoms both in his practice and in the emergency room. He said it's a particular worry in kids.

"It's the youth that are more susceptible to the marketing, and they don't listen to the education as much as an adult should," Scantlebury told the committee.

"When the maturity's not there enough in a 12-year-old, they don't understand what caffeine is probably, and they're not going to understand necessarily the risks. Young people just don't worry about their health."

The medical society wants the province to ban the sale of energy drinks to kids, and Scantlebury found some support amongst MLAs on the committee.

"I think greed has surpassed good common sense here, and safety," said Progressive Conservative MLA Mike Currie.

Liberal MLA Cynthia Dunsford went after the industry's claims that it is not marketing to youth.

"When you look at this advertisement that the last group presented, with a young person on a skateboard surrounded by a Wii, energy drinks and all this ... that is directed at youth. I cannot see how any company can say that is not directed at youth," said Dunsford.

Anthony van Heyningen executive director of Refreshments Canada, an industry group representing soft drink companies, including Coca Cola and Pepsi, defended the products. He said they are safe if used according to directions on the label.

"They have a place within the market place; they are not targeted towards children," van Heyningen told the committee.

"I would suggest there may be a role for parents to assist in monitoring their intake. I know for my children, I would certainly be monitoring what they were doing."

Refreshments Canada says the market focus for energy drinks is adults in their early 20s.

Want a smart baby? turn off that TV

Watching television does not make babies smarter, according to a study released this week in the journal Pediatrics, adding to existing research that challenges the usefulness of baby educational videos and DVDs.



Researchers from Children's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School reached this conclusion after monitoring more than 800 children from birth to 3 years of age.

"Contrary to parents' perceptions that TV viewing is beneficial to their children's brain development, we found no evidence of cognitive benefit from watching TV during the first two years of life," the authors wrote.

Educational DVD and videos geared towards enriching babies and toddlers, such as "BabyGenius," "Brainy Baby" or "Baby Einstein," which proclaim to "encourage discovery and inspire," have no benefits, researchers said.

This echoes a similar finding published in the August issue of Pediatrics. Researchers from the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute found no evidence of benefit from baby DVDs and videos and suggested that it in fact may be harmful. Infants who watched the videos understood fewer words than those who did not watch them.

Pediatrician Dr. Michael Rich, a co-author of the latest study from Boston, calls baby educational DVDs and videos "just wasted time."

"At the very best, they steal time from much more productive cognitive developmental activities," he said. "Ultimately, what it's about is to make parents not feel guilty about an electronic baby sitter."

The parents of the 872 children in the Boston study estimated the number of hours their toddlers spent in front of the television, including TV programs and DVDs. Researchers did not have data on what kinds of programs the toddlers were watching.

On average, babies at 6 months watched approximately 0.9 hours of TV per day. That number increased as the child aged: 1.2 hours at 1 year and 1.4 hours at 2 years.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen media for children under the age of 2 years. Educational DVDs are tailored for babies as young as 3 months.

In the Harvard study, two I.Q.-related tests were administered to the children: the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III, which indicates how many words the child understands and uses, and the Wide-Range Assessment of Visual Motor Ability test, which presents puzzles and peg boards to test cognitive abilities.

Babies who spent more time watching TV had lower language and visual motor skills at age 3. But when results were adjusted for household income and education levels, the association did not appear.

Lead author Marie Evans Schmidt and her colleagues "did not find evidence of harm or benefit of TV viewing."

Based on the existing body of research, Schmidt, a developmental psychologist instructor at Harvard Medical School, said, "there's still more evidence of harm than benefit as far as TV viewing in infancy is concerned."

Studies exploring the relationship between TV viewing and the effects on children are just beginning, she said.

"My hope is that when this information is made available to the general public, that it won't be perceived as study that means there are no harmful effects of TV viewing on infants, because other studies have shown TV viewing at high levels can put kids at risk for some things like obesity, sleep disturbances and possibly attention problems," Schmidt said.

Rich, a pediatrician who directs the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston, said TV watching during infancy instills habits that promote obesity.

"You're teaching 4- or 5- or 6-month-olds how to watch TV," he said. "They're learning to watch TV. The more they watch as they get older, they're snacking in front of TV, they're exposed to snack-food commercials, which inspire them to eat even more and sit even more. It is a cumulative effect of many, many factors."

But Karen Hill Scott, a senior fellow at UCLA who works in the field of child development, said the criticism ignores real life. "To me, as a scientist and parent, we can't hold on to completely demonizing screen time when parents are really very determined to use it."

Modern parents "want kids to be literate on computers. They don't see the screen media as evil," said Scott, a consultant for Baby Einstein."The net effect that it's not harmful is a relief to many families who have been made to feel guilty or awful that they use screen time."

Scott said the material in educational baby DVDs is similar to what is in books.

Baby Einstein products were designed by Julie Clark, a teacher and mother, and were not devised through scientific research. Susan McLain, general manager of Baby Einstein, said the company receives thousands of letters from satisfied parents.

"We've basically stayed true to the philosophy to what [Clark] created. That was exposure to real-world imagery," she said. "The core themes are art, music and nature; that's the core essence of what we've created."

She said the Harvard study indicated that "screen time is not harmful for baby and infants."

Rich, the study co-author, recommended relying on what has been proved to benefit children.

"The best thing for our kids is to provide them with stimulus that we know is positive for their brain development," Rich said. He suggesting activities like reading, singing, interacting and stacking blocks to help children.

Woman answers ad for bird by offering kids as payment

Trading two children for a bird landed three people in jail in Louisiana, authorities say.

The biological mother, who was not involved in the alleged trade, is to be interviewed by authorities Friday. Investigators seek further details about a case that they say unfolded this way:

Paul and Brandy Romero advertised that they were selling their pet cockatoo for $1,500.

A woman named Donna Greenwell responded and said she wanted to buy the bird. Greenwell then told the Romeros that she was taking care of three children whose biological parents were going through a separation.

Greenwell proposed selling two of the couple's children to the Romeros for $2,000, saying that her job as a truck driver made it hard to take care of the children, said Capt. Keith Dupre of the Evangeline Parrish Sheriff's Office in Louisiana.

The parties allegedly negotiated a trade involving the two kids, the bird and $175 cash.

An anonymous tipster contacted authorities after the children began living with the Romeros.

As a result, Greenwell and the Romeros were arrested February 21 and charged with aggravated kidnapping, Dupre said.

The children were well taken care of when they were with the Romeros, who badly wanted children, according to Dupre.

Greenwell said she needed the cash for a lawyer to handle adoption paperwork, authorities said.

She had placed the third child with another Louisiana couple, Dupre said, but he didn't know whether bartering was involved.

The two children were ages 4 and 5, according to WGNO.

Police did not identify the biological parents, and no other information was available. The children have been placed in foster care.

Birth of 13-year-old dad's child sparks outrage

The birth of a child fathered by a 13-year-old boy has sparked an uproar in Britain.

Alfie Patten, who was only 12 when the baby was conceived with his girlfriend, Chantelle Steadman, 15, was first pictured on the front of Friday's tabloid Sun newspaper with his daughter, Maisie Roxanne, after her birth Monday.

He told the newspaper that he thought "it would be good to have a baby."

"I didn't think about how we would afford it. I don't really get pocket money. My dad sometimes gives me £10. When my mum found out, I thought I was going to get in trouble. We wanted to have the baby but were worried about how people would react. I didn't know what it would be like to be a dad. I will be good, though, and care for it."

Chantelle, meanwhile, said, "I'm tired after the birth. I was nervous after going into labor, but otherwise I was quite excited."

She later told the Sun that they wanted to "prove to everyone" that they could give Maisie a "great future" and said both of them planned to stay in school.

The Sun reported that police had investigated but said they were not going to prosecute, as it was "not in anyone's interests."

Conservative party leader David Cameron told the British Press Association that parenthood should not be something the teenagers should even have been contemplating.

Former Conservative party leader Iain Duncan Smith, who runs the Centre for Social Justice think tank, told PA that the birth highlighted another case of "broken Britain" where "anything goes."

"It's not being accusative; it's about pointing out the complete collapse in some parts of society of any sense of what's right and wrong."

"There is no opprobrium any more about behavior, and quite often, children witness behavior that's aggressive, violent, rude and sexual. It's as if no one is saying this is wrong."

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said "all of us would want to avoid teenage pregnancies," PA reported.

Tony Kerridge, of the sexual health specialist Marie Stopes International, told PA that children needed better education.

"We have got the social aspect of young girls in the UK seeing having a baby as a route to getting their own place," he said.

London's The Times newspaper reported Saturday that in the past decade, more than 40 other boys younger than 14 had fathered children.

The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Western Europe: 385 girls under the age of 14 became pregnant between 1998 and 2007.

Whatever happened to kids being kids, hanging out, playing sports, watching all the great new movies we can, playing video games..being kids...enjoying there youth? 13 year olds should not be having children, they themselves are still children, they are still developing both mentally and physically... The pressures that go with raising another human being in this world, making sure they are healthy, well nourished, cared for, clothed, have a roof over there heads... Are these things any 13 year old should have to be thinking about?? Should he/she be thinking about there excess homework load, projects due soon, getting a better post secondary education... or should they be thinking about there own child, if they're well fed, is there enough food for both them and the child, are they running out of diapers, formula, are they running out of clothes that fit.... when this kid (yes KID) is 19, when others his age are out partying, spending nights out with friends, studying hard for college/university and so on...He'll have to be thinking about his child and making sure they're in a good school, and doing well.... Is he really ready for all that??

His girlfriend, not to let her off here either, she's only 15... Is she really ready for this? They say they decided and made the decision that they wanted to be parents... What sort of real decision making can children that age really make? how well thought out can it really have been?

I fear for the future of these children (both, the parents, and the young one they brought into the world)... What happens when the kids have a change of heart (as all kids do, they'll be really interested in something one moment, lose interest in it the next) and decide they no longer want to be parents? What then? Leave the child to THERE parents and have the child raised by the grandparents?

As the saying goes "Anyone can be a dad...But, it takes a real MAN to be a father" at 13... being called a man would be a real stretch....

Thoughts???

Rare sickness kills child; officials urge vaccination

A childhood illness that has mostly been curbed through vaccinations has killed one child and sickened four others in Minnesota, USA health officials said Friday.

The five children were infected with a bacterial infection known as Hib: Haemophilus influenzae type b.

Three of the affected children had not received any vaccinations, including the 7-month-old who died, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"The situation is of concern," said Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease at the CDC. "It could be happening elsewhere, and of course it's tragic that one of the children actually died from a preventable disease."

Hib primarily affects infants and children under 5 years of age. The vaccine prevents pneumonia, epiglottis (severe throat infection) and meningitis, which is an infection of the covering of the brain and spinal cord, caused by the bacteria.

One in 20 children infected with Hib dies, according to the CDC. Survivors of the disease can become deaf; 10 to 30 percent have permanent brain damage.

"Parents may not realize the importance of this vaccine," Schuchat said. "The disease is still around."

People tend to "think it's gone because it has not been seen for a while. Clearly, the bacteria is in the community in Minnesota, and babies that haven't gotten their vaccines are at risk," she said.

Before vaccines became widely used, about 20,000 Hib cases were reported each year in the country. After children began receiving the vaccinations in the early 1990s, CDC officials said, there was a 99 percent drop in cases.

A shortage of the Hib vaccine is also causing concern, officials said.

One of the two companies that produce the vaccine, Merck Inc., recalled more than a million doses in December 2007 because of contamination. The recall left a unit of Sanofi Aventis as the only vaccine supplier, creating a shortage.

Under normal circumstances, the first series of the Hib vaccine is administered to children when they are 2, 4 and 6 months old. A booster shot is administered between a child's 12th and 15th month.

Because of the vaccine shortage, the CDC recommended that the primary series for infants should get priority and that older children, who have stronger immune systems, should defer the booster shot until the supply situation improved. Officials said the supply should be back to normal by this summer.

The vaccine shortage did not cause the infection of the five Minnesota children, federal and state health officials said. Three of the children had not received any vaccination because of their parents' decisions, not because of a vaccine shortage, officials said.

One of the infected children, a 5-month old, had not completed the three-dose series of the vaccination, and a 15-month old child had received all doses but had an immune deficiency.

The cases are not related and were in different counties, said Dr. Ruth Lynfield, Minnesota state epidemiologist.

But the shortage may be having an effect in the community.

"When there are high immunization rates, there is herd immunity," Lynfield said. "It may be that because of the shortage, that herd immunity has dropped. That first manifests in unimmunized children."

Some parents don't vaccinate their children because of claims that childhood vaccinations cause autism. Health agencies say there is no evidence linking vaccines to autism.

"For parents that are wavering about whether they need the vaccine, they need to know it's an important vaccine to protect their child from serious infection," Schuchat said.

The Minnesota cases have alarmed health officials because "this is the highest number of cases that we have had since 1992, when vaccines became widely used," Lynfield said.

In 1987, the national rate of Hib meningitis was 41 cases per 100,000 children under the age of 5. After the Hib vaccine was introduced, the rate had fallen to 0.11 per 100,000 in 2007, according to the CDC.

List of countries warning of cellphone risks for children grows

Some international authorities are recommending that parents restrict the amount of time their children spend on cellphones as a precaution.

Finland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority encourages parents to err on the side of caution, saying radiation from cellphones could pose a health risk but the research into possible effects of prolonged cellphone use is unclear.

The authority's advice is the latest in a growing number of warnings about prolonged use of the devices.

A survey conducted of more than 1,000 Canadian children found almost half of tweens now have a cellphone.

"The brains of adults and children differ when it comes to how they absorb the radiation that cellphones emit," said Devra Davis, a professor of epidemiology and the director of the Centre for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute.

Children more susceptible

"The brain of a child literally is less dense, it's more porous, it's more susceptible to everything," said Davis.

"The adult brain is thicker and denser, so the radio frequency signal is absorbed less deeply," she said.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a United Nations watchdog, has been investigating whether radiation from cellphones could lead to cancer in children and adults in a study known as Interphone.

The agency was supposed to release a report three years ago, but it hasn't yet been published because the scientists are divided over parts of the study — particularly over research that suggests long-term users of cellphones are more likely to develop brain cancer.

Interphone author and epidemiologist Elisabeth Cardis of the University of Ottawa would like another study to be done specifically on children.

"If there's a risk, it's likely going to be higher because of the usage and because of the innate sensitivity of children," said Cardis. "So I think it's very, very important that we study this so urgently."

Precautionary approach

Other countries are not waiting for more studies, and are instead taking a precautionary approach.

France is about to make it illegal to market cellphones to children under 12. The United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, Israel, Russia and India are also advising children limit their use of cellphones.

Health Canada's only note of caution to children is to avoid using a cellphone while riding a bicycle. The department's website says "there is currently no convincing evidence" that cellphones cause serious health effects such as cancer.

The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Authority, an industry group, follows Health Canada's recommendations.

"These countries for the most part have come up with precautionary measures without stating that there is any evidence in their view that links this to any significant danger," said Bernard Lord, the former premier of New Brunswick who now heads the authority.

Even 'smart TV' harms baby brains, doctor says

Programs for infants overstimulate and raise risk of Attention Deficit Disorder
It took just a few hours of watching CNN while cradling his colicky son to make Dr. Dimitri Christakis suspect parents should severely limit the time infants watch TV.

Now he hopes 25 years worth of research will finally prove it.

In one of the most extensive reviews of its kind, the Seattle pediatrician says infant-aimed DVDs such as Baby Einstein, and even award-winning kids' shows like Sesame Street, can do more harm than good to children under the age of 2.

In fact, the sensory overload of all those colours, sounds and sights – be it Big Bird or Baby Mozart – may be at least partly to blame for the tenfold increase in cases of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the past 20 years. It now affects between 5 and 20 per cent of American children.

He even accepts some of the blame. He believes scientists such as him have helped create the trend.

"There is now an obsession with having smart kids," Christakis said in a telephone interview yesterday.

"I think we scientists have managed to convince people, rightly, that these early years are really important. But the problem is we've created a neurosis around optimizing them and that's spawned industries that essentially now prey on people's obsession and fear."

Nine out of 10 children under the age of two watch TV regularly – some spend up to 40 per cent of the daytime in front of the tube – "despite ongoing warnings" from the American Academy of Pediatrics that they shouldn't, he says in his review of 78 studies done over 25 years – including his own survey of 1,000 U.S. families – in the January issue of Acta Paediatrica, a monthly pediatrics journal. In his survey, published in 2007, he found 29 per cent of families let infants watch TV because "it's good for their brain," while 24 per cent use it as a "babysitter."

In 1971, the average age that children started watching TV was 4 years old. Today, it's four to five months, he says. Now that there's so much scientific evidence that too much, too early, is "rewiring" infants' tiny brains he's calling for tough regulation. France, for instance, recently moved to curtail the broadcasting of shows aimed at children under 3, which has affected 24-hour channels such as Baby TV.

The sale of "baby DVDs" in the U.S. alone is now a $500 million industry. Millions of dollars in marketing by such giants as Disney-owned Baby Einstein and Georgia-based Brainy Baby, whose officials couldn't be reached for comment, have helped persuade too many parents – with no proof – that they're doing a good thing for their children, says Christakis. Studies have shown the opposite is true, that baby programs can actually delay language development (infants learn better from "live presentations") and harm attention spans.

The "flashing lights, scene changes, quick edits and auditory cuts" may be "overstimulating to developing brains," says Christakis, who suspected this 11 years ago when he was homebound with his colicky son and looked to CNN for relief. He noticed the baby was mesmerized by the light and sound show, and wondered why, since "he obviously didn't understand what was being conveyed."

"The truth is that we're in the midst of a large, uncontrolled experiment on the next generation of children. We're not going to know for years what the effects of all this exposure to TV will mean, in a scientific sense. But I'm concerned that we're not going to be pleased with the results."

This is, of course, an endless debate amongst parents, such as Toronto mother Naomi Lieberman, whose now two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Julie, tried the Baby Einstein DVDs and wasn't wowed, and Whitby mother Lesley Kelz, a graphic designer who works at home with two young children and considers TV "my friend."

"If there were deadlines, I've had to say, `Go watch TV.' I was in the same (family) room. But there's such guilt. That drove me crazy for so long," Kelz says.

Lieberman and her husband, on the other hand, try to stick to books, games and puzzles and are grateful for a toddler and a four-month-old baby who don't seem to care about the big screen.

"But I know they're going to watch TV eventually. It's just a question of time."

Pediatricians : Avoid applying Vicks Vapo Rub to babies

Parents should not misuse Vicks VapoRub, the salve used to relieve symptoms of cough and congestion, by applying it to children under the age of two, doctors warn.

Dr. Bruce Rubin, the study's lead author from the department of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, in Winston Salem, NC, and his colleagues became interested in the effects of VVR on young children when they cared for an 18-month-old girl who developed severe respiratory distress after the salve was put directly under her nose.

Procter & Gamble's product label warns it is not indicated for children under two. But Rubin said some parents may still choose to use it for a sick child, usually by rubbing the salve on the feet or chest.

"The ingredients in Vicks can be irritants, causing the body to produce more mucus to protect the airway," said Rubin.

"Infants and young children have airways that are much narrower than those of adults, so any increase in mucus or inflammation can narrow them more severely."

In the January issue of the journal Chest, Rubin and his colleagues tested the effects of Vicks Vapo Rub on the respiratory system of ferrets, laboratory animals with a similar airway anatomy and cellular makeup as humans.

Test tube results showed Vicks VapoRub exposure increased mucus secretion in the animals' airways, whether the tracheas were normal or inflamed to simulate a person with a chest infection.

"Some of the ingredients in Vicks, notably the menthol, trick the brain into thinking that it is easier to breathe by triggering a cold sensation, which is processed as indicating more airflow," he said. "Vicks may make you feel better but it can't help you breathe better."

"This may be of little physiologic consequence in older children and adults, but in infants and small children this potentially can lead to respiratory distress," the study's authors concluded.

Rubin said he recommends never putting Vicks in, or under, the nose of anyone, regardless of their age.
Parents should also follow the directions and not use Vicks or similar generic products on children under two, he advised.

On Dec. 18, 2008, Health Canada said children under six year old shouldn't be treated with cough and cold medication, citing reports of misuse, overdose and rare side-effects.

The best treatments for congestion are saline (salt water), gentle suction with a rubber bulb, warm drinks or chicken soup, and time, the researchers said, noting if a child is struggling to breathe, then it's a medical emergency.

Online children's game helps build real homes for the unfortunate

If children are playing video games, why not do some good while they're at it right?

Elf Island, a virtual world created by Atlanta-based Good Egg Studios, ties online games to charity construction in the real world. The more "virtual" homes the children build by completing mini-mazes, the more real homes that are built by Habitat for Humanity.

Liz Kronenberger, who founded the company with her husband, Craig, said they started the site to promote positive social values online.

"We're really giving kids the proper motivation and the right tools to empower them to make a difference in the real world," she said.

The couple recently unveiled Elf Island's first GoodQuest, challenging gamers to build 10,000 virtual homes in a month. If they do, the couple will pay for four new homes to be built in a dilapidated community in Honduras.

The quest is harder than it might sound. It took an Associated Press reporter about 30 minutes — and several heart-pounding attempts — to lead a lumbering giant through a series of timed mazes and around bad guys to build a virtual home.

More quests will follow in the months to come, aiding charities that build playgrounds, preserve endangered species, promote green initiatives and boost music education. Kronenberger said much of the site's direction will depend on what the gamers decide.

"Elf Island's vision will be run by the kids," she said.

Elf Island includes chat rooms and scores of games in addition to the GoodQuests. Membership is now free. But the developers hope to raise revenue in 2009 to help pay for the good deeds with a monthly fee that will likely be about $6 US.

I think it's a great idea, doing something worthwhile, helping others, at the same time having fun... I recommend checking this game out, If any of my readers have any children, I suggest you have this game turned on for them, let them play as long as they like... The membership cost right now? free? can't beat that!! the proposed monthly fee of $6US a month? we spend more then that on our lunch (just A lunch) right? give this game a try....

Film like ratings for websites?

Film ratings needed for websites: British minister

Britain's culture minister says that websites should be rated in the same way that films are, to protect children from offensive material.

Andy Burnham says his government has plans to discuss the idea of international rules for English-language websites with the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama.

"We have got a real opportunity to make common cause [and] this is an area that is really now coming into full focus," Burnham told Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper in an article published Saturday.

The minister, who called the internet a "dangerous place," said age-appropriate ratings may be the way to go.

He would also like to see internet-service providers (ISPs) offer parents "child-safe" web services where the only websites accessible are those stamped suitable for children.


Burnham also suggested the internet follow television's example, which often doesn't broadcast violent or sexually charged material prior to 9 p.m. There should also be a set time in which sites such as YouTube or Facebook would have to remove offensive or harmful content, he said.

Burnham has denied that he's attacking free speech.

"The internet has been empowering and democratizing in many ways but we haven't yet got the stakes in the ground to help people navigate their way safely around," Burnham said.

"There is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it."

I really don't see how Mr. Burnham propose we do this? Almost all ideas seem great on paper, but when it comes to practically don't it, it just isn't possibly or do-able (think back to before the Wright brothers finally invented the plane, before that we had people strapping boards to there arms, take a running start, flapping there arms and jumping off cliffs...sure on paper that might sound like a good idea, I mean, the boards are like wings, and if birds, who have wings, can fly like that, why can't people?) How does Mr. Burnham propose we "shut off" internet website content prior to say 9pm so that children and minors are protected from things like that? I'm sure Mr. Burnham must have some sort of idea written out on how he thinks it can be done, I don't think he'd just propose it without a plan? or could he?..hmmm...

Isn't there already something in place for parents to protect there children (I may be wrong, correct me if I am) for offensive, inappropriate content and websites they do not approve of?
Off the top of my head I can name:

- CyberSitter
- NetNanny
- SafeEyes
- Cyber Patrol

And I do know that there are several other quality programs for parents, With these programs already in existance, do we really need to go with rating systems?

What do you guys think about this?

Chinese company at the root of tainted milk scandal declared bankrupt

A Chinese court has declared the company at the center of a tainted milk scandal bankrupt.


The milk is blamed for killing six children and sickening nearly 300,000 more.

New Zealand's Fronterra Group said that a court in Shijiazhuang, in China's Hebei province, issued a bankruptcy order against Sanlu Group Co. in response to a petition from a creditor.

"Sanlu will now be managed by a court-appointed receiver who will assume responsibility for an orderly sale of the company's assets and payment of creditors," Fonterra chief executive Andrew Ferrier said in a statement.

Sanlu was one of 22 Chinese dairy companies whose products were found to contain high levels of the industrial chemical melamine, leading to the deaths of six babies and causing 294,000 others to suffer from urinary problems.

Fronterra, a New Zealand farmer-owned co-operative, owns 43 per cent of Sanlu.

At least a dozen individual lawsuits have been filed against state-owned Sanlu, but they're caught in legal limbo as courts have neither accepted nor refused the cases - a sign of the scandal's political sensitivity.

China's government has promised to provide free medical treatment to the children who fell ill due to the milk, along with unspecified compensation to them and families of the deceased.

The Health Ministry had said earlier this month that some Chinese dairy companies would likely have to pay for a compensation plan, the details of which have not been released.

Fronterra was responsible for alerting Chinese authorities to the tainted milk scandal in August.