Peanut Assassin?

[jmervyn]

Peanut Assassin?

While this falls into the 'wierd news' category, I find the underlying causes worth discussion: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/22/cookie.suspension.ap/

1. This is seen quite correctly seen as overreaction by the school, but it opens up a huge can of worms. I remember making cyanide gas after science class - I'd have been suspended for doing this, but now the assumption would have been that I would use it on my classmates or teachers.

Have we reached a point of paranoia in our schools, rather than simple caution? And isn't this going to simply teach the students to be sneaky?

2. Why is it that allergies to things like peanuts are so hyped, though apparently legitimate? ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2487769.stm ) There is some sort of explanation as to why allergies are so much more widespread than 30 years ago, or even 20. At the same time there are schools of thought that allergies are psychosomatic in nature; I'm not downplaying the illness, but there are many legitimate problems that have to do with mental state rather than purely physical reaction. ( http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030613.html )

I'll admit that some of what I've heard sounds like typical 'hate civilization' claptrap. So is this a case of actual genetic damage, or is it a cultural case of psychosomatic-enhanced disease?

 

[Crispyknight]

I really think most allergies are caused by hte excessive cleanliness of today's society. Let your kids get filthy, eat dirt, and let the dog lick them. You dont have to give them a flea dip in bleach when they're done.
Schools are going _way_ too far, peanut butter cookies? Whats next? One teacher claims to have a cotton allergy, and everyone has to wear polyester to school for ten years? Thats just silly. Along the lines of airline peanuts with a warning on the back; "Warning: May contain nuts"

 

[maccool]

I'd submit that the paranoia we see in our schools is simply a manifestation of the paranoia we see on the TV and in speeches by government type dudes. The line between caution and fear was crossed a long time ago and it's getting creepy. Like you said, Jmerv, this will not only teach sneakiness but most probably poor ethics. Which is good, because we need more lawyers and politicians.

As to the second point, it kinda goes back to your first point. As an example, back when you were a young 'un in the Neolithic (sorry, couldn't resist) did your folks rush you to the hospital and demand antibiotics every time you got a sniffle or an earache? Some time in the late 70's and 80's parents started crappy overparenting to make up for not being around their kids as much. Or worse, let the kids have a say in their upbringing.

I think that we're becoming an increasingly hypersensitive society where every problem has a pill as a solution and people are generally more scared and less happy. Of course, my solution is beer and wine, so what do I know?

 

[jmervyn]

As an example, back when you were a young 'un in the Neolithic (sorry, couldn't resist) did your folks rush you to the hospital and demand antibiotics every time you got a sniffle or an earache?

That's the Jurassic, you young whippersnapper! And I opened both my head & knee at least once without going to a doctor. Bactine was magic, and if it didn't hurt it wasn't working.

Steel monkeybars in concrete... dull hatchet whilst chopping firewood

I think that we're becoming an increasingly hypersensitive society where every problem has a pill as a solution and people are generally more scared and less happy. Of course, my solution is beer and wine, so what do I know?

I would obviously agree, but what I'm interested in is whether there really might be some sort of substance to the idea that the allergies are increasing, or if it simply constitutes over-attention to the subject. A similar issue is the use of antibacterial hand soap and the overperscription of antibiotics supposedly increasing the hardiness of germs. While true in the abstract, is this a reality, or just hand-wringing (abstains from saying liberal)?

I've always kind of liked the Michael Crichton opinion that nature will overcome, and that the only thing humans really have the power to obliterate is themselves. Particularly with the myopia that Westerners have, completely discounting the uncivilized world. So does this somehow contradict that idea? Is civilization really capable of instituting such widespread damage, even to ourselves?

BTW, whiskey works wonders. :drink:

 

[maccool]

Dang, forgot to put in my answer to your question in my first post, jmerv.

I say it's handwringing. I'm not sure that we really know what causes the chemical thingy that makes us allergic to stuff (I'm totally sciency this morning). If I had to invoke a conspiracy, I'd say it's the big pharmacutical companies more than anything that cause people to run the freak flag up the old mainmast.

Think about it from an evolutionary standpoint. Some humans have allergies. If having allergies was an undesirable or detrimental trait, then you'd expect all the carriers of the 'sneezy' gene to not be here. Problem solved, allergies gone. Granted this is a very simplistic example, but my point that dudes have always had allergies and always will. I imagine allergies as a cousin of being poisoned. Allow me to present Caveman Theater:

Thak: Mmmmm, berry good.
Og: Mmmm, berry good. Why you red, Thak?
Thak gags, froths at the mouth, keels over and dies.
Og: Throat tickly. Mmmm, berry good.

As for antibiotics, that's a kettle of fish of a different color. Antibiotic resistant staph and TB are showing up more and more nowadays. So we keep developing more powerful antibiotics. Humans are fast and smart, but Nature has had a 3 billion year head start.

 

[masterazn]

Peanut Butter Cookies are yummy.


I once knew a kid who was alergic to peanuts...poor kid really. He had to carry this needle pack around in case he got near peanuts. It's pretty serious really, but the assumption that it was intentional would be kinda lame.

 

[jmervyn]

It's pretty serious really, but the assumption that it was intentional would be kinda lame.

No, I'm trying to be very careful about my question. As a Gulf War vet, I've had a bellyfull of "You're not sick, you're crazy" crap from the VA regarding Gulf War Illness. Just because an illness has psychosomatic roots doesn't make it any less deadly. When listening to the Curtis & Kube show this AM, a paramedic described a peanut incident and it sounds like something on the order of bee sting allergies.

I think maccool's Og/Thak scenario is accurate though, and in some ways puts more fuel on the fire. Is the reason we're seeing more of this sort of infirmity because medical science is advancing, and natural selection isn't playing as much of a role? Are we seeing greater numbers of people with such infirmities because they're surviving longer, whereas in the past their deaths might have been labeled "consumption" and would have occurred in childhood?

Things that make ya go, 'Hmmm'...

 

[Geeno]

Maybe its because I have a peanut allergy, but when people threaten me with peanuts I dont hesitate to punch square in the throat.

edit: its caused by an enzyme irregularity.

 

[mouschi]

Thats just silly. Along the lines of airline peanuts with a warning on the back; "Warning: May contain nuts"

Peanuts aren't nuts. They are legumes.

 

[Geeno]

Peanuts aren't nuts. They are legumes.

Youve been waiting so long to share that nugget.

 

[tintrail]

Youve been waiting so long to share that nugget.

word. i second that, but also marvel at moschi's depth of knowledge. :lol: