NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/misc/consumer/house/17388

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-26 | 4.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!bcstec!bcsaic!tanner
From: [e-mail] (Jim Tanner)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: No Hot Water!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:44:05 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle
Lines: 70

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John De Armond) writes:
>[e-mail] (Jonathan E. Quist) writes:
>
>>>If the parent is responsible enough to worry about water temperature,
>>>s/he is responsible enough to keep the kid out of boiling water.
>
>>My 20-month-old figured out how to turn on the hot water faucet about
>>a week after she figured out how to climb on the toilet to reach it,
>>and that was over 8 months ago.  We can't watch her every single second,
>>and I'd much rather she learned a lesson from uncomfortably hot water
>>than lost use of a hand from scalding water.
>
>You've pretty much defined irresponsible, haven't you?  Letting
>a kid run unsupervised in such an environment meets that definition
>for me.

Far from it.  He is demonstrating resposibility by providing a safe
environment.  Letting a kid run unsupervised in an _unsafe_ environment
would be irresponsible.

FYI, John, there is a period between, say, at _least_ 1 year and
2 years old, during which a child has much more physical ability (to
climb, to open doors, to open drawers, etc.) than s/he has ability
to understand and follow instructions, no matter how draconian the
disciplinary methods might be.  Until perhaps 18 months most kids are
simply developmentally _incapable_ of understanding the concept of "no"
in any meaningful way.

So, the only two strategies available are: 1) follow the kids around
all the time to keep them out of trouble (theoretically, though not
practically, possible with one kid, quickly produces adult insanity,
and is simply impossible for two kids), or 2) make the environment
"safe" for them.  Of course people will have differing standards of
safety, and differing techniques for providing a safe environment.

Let's restate the problem as: avoid kids coming into contact with a
hazardous material, in this case scalding water.  Solutions then range
between the extremes of 1) having the hazardous material generally
available to suit the convenience of the adults and finding ways to
physically secure the hazardous material, and 2) not allowing the
hazardous material to be present in the first place.

There is no perfect answer anywhere in this range - it's always a
matter of tradeoffs.  The solution adopted will depend on the the
situation - the nature of the hazard and its utility to the adults
(there must be some utility, or you wouldn't have the stuff in the
first place), the difficulty of physically securing the hazard, the
physical characteristics of the house, the characteristics of the
kids and the adults involved, etc.

For many people the solution for a scalding water hazard includes
ensuring hot water supply temperatures are not scalding.  It is such
a good solution (best set of tradeoffs over the largest set of
situations) that it is now the recommended one.

You might well choose a different solution, but consider that society
sometimes determines that certain hazard solutions are standard, and
failure to conform to such a standard becomes negligence, with all the
attendant legal liability exposure (for example failing to secure an
outdoor pool with a fence).  I don't know that water temperature has
yet reached that point, but IMO it may well get there.  And, in general,
there is no deterministic way to know _when_ it reaches that point -
negligence involves tests of "reasonableness", which are determined by
a jury (human, with emotions).  So, you pays your money and you takes
your chances when you buck the tide.  Whether that is proper or not is
left to another, philosophical discussion.

Of course, for _real_ parents (there are always some, probably too many,
idiots who manage to reproduce) liability concerns are irrelevant - they
are just worried about their kids getting hurt.