Fundayeveryday

I was wondering if someone will have some insight on radiation emissions from laptops, cell phones, wifi, etc. With my kids playing games on our laptop, I wanted to know if people have info. About this.
Kristen

Sandra Dodd

-=-I was wondering if someone will have some insight on radiation emissions from laptops, cell phones, wifi, etc. With my kids playing games on our laptop, I wanted to know if people have info. About this. 

If there's dangerous radiation, it will be the same for unschoolers as for anyone else, so I think that info will be out and about.

I know for absolute sure that for the past 50 years aprents have been tellling kids not to sit too close to the TV, but the real reason was that their happy little heads were in the way of other people in the room, so the parents told them (sometimes believing it without proof) that the radiation would hurt them.  

When I was little and parents were telling us that, there was also an abiding and flame-fed fear of nuclear war, and families had "radiation-proof" shelters in their houses. 

I suspect there's much more boogey-man than reality, and that it's part of an array of  justifications for adults to control children.

I could be wrong.  I've never heard of a case, nor of any evidence, of any radiation sickness or ill effects in anyone.  

Sandra

Katie Oxford

-=-I was wondering if someone will have some insight on radiation emissions from laptops, cell phones, wifi, etc. With my kids playing games on our laptop, I wanted to know if people have info. About this. 

 

If laptops and cell phones and wifi are dangerous than I think we adults are in much more danger than our kids could possibly be. Most jobs available in any field will use some sort of electronic gadget even if the person doesn’t happen to be sitting at or near a computer all day, and it is a rare adult that doesn’t have a cell phone/tablet with them at all hours, talking or playing, at least out here where I live. And if wifi is dangerous, than we’re all really in trouble because there isn’t a block in town where you can escape that in a major city, even if the wifi isn’t open to you, it’s there. It’s everywhere.

 

And I can just about guarantee that there’s no way most of your children, under any circumstances, could rival the amount of time my husband and other adults like him spend on a computer. He’s a computer programmer for his job, for charity, and for hobby, and has been sitting in front of a computer, more or less non-stop, since he was about 12. I’m pretty sure the guy must see a computer screen when he shuts his eyes at night.

 

And there’s been many, many people just like him for almost 40 years now.

 

 

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sandra Dodd
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Emf radiation from tech...safety?

 



-=-I was wondering if someone will have some insight on radiation emissions from laptops, cell phones, wifi, etc. With my kids playing games on our laptop, I wanted to know if people have info. About this. 

 

If there's dangerous radiation, it will be the same for unschoolers as for anyone else, so I think that info will be out and about.

 

I know for absolute sure that for the past 50 years aprents have been tellling kids not to sit too close to the TV, but the real reason was that their happy little heads were in the way of other people in the room, so the parents told them (sometimes believing it without proof) that the radiation would hurt them.  

 

When I was little and parents were telling us that, there was also an abiding and flame-fed fear of nuclear war, and families had "radiation-proof" shelters in their houses. 

 

I suspect there's much more boogey-man than reality, and that it's part of an array of  justifications for adults to control children.

 

I could be wrong.  I've never heard of a case, nor of any evidence, of any radiation sickness or ill effects in anyone.  

 

Sandra




<alohabun@...>

Because I have some concerns about electromagnetic radiation, we hard wired all the computers, hard wired the xbox/wii, and kept our analog meter for electricity (instead of allowing a smart meter to be put in).  We use two switches to connect multiple devices to the internet.  We do have wifi capability for those times when one of us would like to use it or for when guests visit.  I like having the option of putting on wifi when we want to, and I like having hard wires (which I hear are better for speed and connectivity). While electromagnetic radiation is encountered all over now (for the most part), it makes me feel better to take those few steps in my living space, even if it only makes a little bit of a difference. Laurie  



---In [email protected], <kristenssrr@...> wrote:

I was wondering if someone will have some insight on radiation emissions from laptops, cell phones, wifi, etc. With my kids playing games on our laptop, I wanted to know if people have info. About this.
Kristen

Sandra Dodd

-=-Because I have some concerns about electromagnetic radiation-=-

If you're willing to tell us, what concerns, and where did they come from?

If you're not willing to tell us, that's fine, too.

Sandra

Marina Moses

I think a greater concern is preschoolers with cell phones. A very good friend of mine is an optometrist.  She says that with the awesome apps for little kids an epidemic rate of nearsightedness in preschoolers has occurred. She recommends using a tablet more ofter and teaching little ones to hold the cell phones further from their faces.
Love and prayers,
Marina

Sandra Dodd

-=-I think a greater concern is preschoolers with cell phones. A very good friend of mine is an optometrist.  She says that with the awesome apps for little kids an epidemic rate of nearsightedness in preschoolers has occurred. She recommends using a tablet more ofter and teaching little ones to hold the cell phones further from their faces. -=-

I let this through, but I had deleted another one that was about the evil scary danger of everyday things.  

We live in an everyday-thing world.  People always have.  
The only way to avoid the everyday world is to limit and control our children, to be separate from the world in ways that will keep our children from learning naturally about the things around them.

Trees can be dangerous, and if a family kept a child away from any trees, it wouldn't seem healthy.

Insects can be horribly dangerous, but a parent who never let a child touch or look closely wouldn't be seen as really helpful.

I cut my finger on a Bible stories book my aunt gave me when I was little.  Paper cut.

How, if they are playing with toys, would nearsightedness even be seen, in "preschoolers"?  If nobody is testing them or trying to teach them to read, why would they even be going to optometrists?

Looking at things closely doesn't cause nearsightedness, does it, really?  Do lacemakers and jewelers become nearsighted?  There are lots of hobbies that involve looking closely at very small details.

I think there are probably very few things that won't be attributed to the evils of electronics, in the desperate attempt of people to slow progress and to revile those who are more accepting of new  ways and means.   The assurance that the new thing will kill/maim/damage is not new.  It has been attributed to various things over the years, and as thouse dire curses prove untrue, the cursers move on to something else to say "This is BAD and will HARM YOUR CHILDREN and if you don't STOP them you are a BAD MOM.

That's been going on for a long, long time, and probably always will.

So in THIS discussion, at Always Learning, the question is whether unschoolers will choose control over partnering with a child to explore the real world they live in.

There is a whole world (even on the internet, which is always ironic) of anti-technology propaganda and fear-mongering.   People don't need to come here to read it.  One or two clicks or taps  from the window where you're reading this will get you to more negativity than you could ever read.  I don't think it would make you nearsighted to read it, just very frustrated and overwhelmed.

The more time parents spend with their children, doing interesting things together, the less they will worry about other things.

Sandra

Janel Equizi

"The assurance that the new thing will kill/maim/damage is not new. It has been attributed to various things over the years, and as thouse dire curses prove untrue, the cursers move on to something else to say "This is BAD and will HARM YOUR CHILDREN and if you don't STOP them you are a BAD MOM.

That's been going on for a long, long time, and probably always will."
 
Just watched the Croods on DVD.  This idea of new = bad is a central theme.


Patricia Platt

>>A very good friend of mine is an optometrist. She says that with the awesome apps for
little kids an epidemic rate of nearsightedness in preschoolers has occurred.<<

You can do all kinds of things with a handheld device or computer, some of which have been shown actually to improve vision.

The optometrist has drawn a conclusion from an anecdotal (i.e., not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research) association. And, as they say in statistical research, association does not imply causation. On the other hand, as this review article documents:

 http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=420394

 there is a well documented link between educational pressures and increasing myopia rates. HOWEVER, the JAMA article also points out that it is not schooling in itself that cause nearsightedness -- that's just an association, too -- instead, limiting peripheral vision too early HAS been shown to contribute to nearsightedness. So, based on the existing research, pushing children to read or to do any other task that limits their peripheral vision is a bad idea. But I don't personally know any preschoolers who like to read on their iPads or other devices. I have seen them playing games, though. I would be interested to see any research showing that playing computer games limits peripheral vision, or has any bad effect on vision. All I have seen are studies showing that computer gaming improves eyesight in various ways.

Finally, here's a bit of anecdotal evidence that contradicts the optometrist's: my husband and I were pushed to read from a very young age and are both very nearsighted and have worn glasses from the time we were young children. We didn't grow up playing computer games. Our 11 year old son was NOT pushed to read early but has played computer games from a young age, and he appears to have excellent vision.

BRIAN POLIKOWSKY

<<<< I would be interested to see any research showing that playing computer games limits peripheral vision, or has any bad effect on vision. All I have seen are studies showing that computer gaming improves eyesight in various ways. >>>>>>>


I have seen studies that playing video games Improve peripheral vision. I cannot post the video I saw because it is from Coursera but here is the link to the person that does the studies and  it talks about it:

http://vision.psych.umn.edu/users/csgreen/


Alex Polikowsky

Marina Moses

My friend wasn't only drawing on personal experience. She is not against gaming either. She told me that the information was from a European study that she trusted and she believes the problem is focusing on very small objects for too much time at a very young age just like children reading young.. My eldest son read the most at a very young age and he is very near sighted. My other two also read young (it just happened) but didn't spend so many hours a day focused on books (my youngest just wanted to read to play video games) and they both have great vision. I am sorry if this started controversy. I was sharing something I learned from someone I trust because I thought it was relevant.  I never even suggested taking phones away from toddlers (which is when the apps seem to start attracting). I thought the idea of a bigger screen or a little distance was worth looking at.

Sandra Dodd

-=- She told me that the information was from a European study that she trusted-=-

The link to a study would've been better than "my friend said," no matter what your friend's formal education.  

The problem with most studies is that they are done on school kids, or by people trying to defend, bolster, tweak school.  Schools have been at the forefront of saying comic books were evil, tv was evil... they paint over or paper over windows, in classrooms, so kids can't see outside.  For most teachers to be interesting, anything MORE interesting is banned, confiscated.  

Many studies of or about school children (and you specifically mentioned "preschoolers" by which I don't know whether you meant people too young for school, or people in "pre-school"—a name for the very-real schools very young children go to) are designed to benefit schools, not children.

Many studies are of questionable value, if they're looked at with an eye to who funded or approved them, what the researcher intended to prove or affect.

My question was about why "a preschooler" would have been sent for an eye check in the first place.  It is something schools will do, if a child seems not to be "learning" on their schedule, because they want to be successful as teachers, as schools, and if they can show flaws in the students, then it's "not their fault."  Sometiems it's ADHD drugs.  Sometimes other things.  But those things can be forgotten, disregarded, when children have lots of choices, and no schedule for tests and proofs.

Sandra

Joyce Fetteroll

I am sorry if this started controversy.

Many of the most informative discussions are sparked by pulling ideas from posts apart for analysis.

Part of the new "warning label" for the list is:

"Everyone who posts -- whether a question or a reply -- should want to see their ideas analyzed under an unschooling light."

Describing what's essentially "Did you look at the ideas from this direction?" as controversy suggests the essential nature of this list might make you uncomfortable.

(For anyone joined the list before the recent change, the email Yahoo sends out to everyone requesting to join is below.)

I was sharing something I learned from someone I trust because I thought it was relevant.

A good question of respected resources is "Is their primary goal to help children explore their interests?" 

If it's not -- which it usually isn't if it isn't an unschooling resource! ;-) -- then what *is* their primary goal?

Most all research about kids is to help them function in school. *If* there's an increase in kids having difficulties seeing up close, is it an "epidemic", or is there a big increase in parents being pressured to have very young kids' eyes tested? Or a big increase in little kids doing up close activities (like playing games on phones) that would cause them to *notice* blurry vision? Maybe a lack of clarity in the up-close vision of 3 and 4 yos is normal but never noticed because kids that age don't normally focus on things up close.

The apps might not be causing the vision problems but causing kids to notice problems that were there already. Usually vision problems aren't noticed until a child starts school and needs to do close school work.

I don't know the answers to those questions but they're questions that need answered for the information your friend passed on to have any meaning.

=============== The Always Learning email sent out by Yahoo =============
Unlike most unschooling lists, the Always Learning list digs into the inner workings of parenting practices. List discussion focuses on what helps and hinders learning and relationships. 

Everyone who posts -- whether a question or a reply -- should want to see their ideas analyzed under an unschooling light. 

The list thrives on unschooling questions and discussion! :-) But it's also perfectly okay to sit back and follow the discussion. (All new members are encouraged to do just that for awhile to get a feel for the list.)

Many find the analysis helps them clear out hidden baggage, think more clearly and become the radical unschooling parents they want to be. Some find it uncomfortable.

If Always Learning sounds like a list you'd like to try reply "Yes". If not, reply "No," and best wishes in your unschooling and finding a list that fits your unschooling needs.
================

Joyce

Marina Moses

Thank you Sandra and Joyce. I do are what both of you are saying.  I can't answer all of the questions that my contribution raises.  Once again I am reminded to think things through more thoroughly.

chris ester




On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote

How, if they are playing with toys, would nearsightedness even be seen, in "preschoolers"?  If nobody is testing them or trying to teach them to read, why would they even be going to optometrists?

It is now recommended that children have a well child eye checkup by something like age 3.  I didn't do this, but many do. 

Looking at things closely doesn't cause nearsightedness, does it, really?  Do lacemakers and jewelers become nearsighted?  There are lots of hobbies that involve looking closely at very small details.

Apparently, science is beginning to think that close work or visual stress contributes to near sightedness.  Of course, so does age and heredity.  


I think there are probably very few things that won't be attributed to the evils of electronics, in the desperate attempt of people to slow progress and to revile those who are more accepting of new  ways and means.   The assurance that the new thing will kill/maim/damage is not new.  It has been attributed to various things over the years, and as thouse dire curses prove untrue, the cursers move on to something else to say "This is BAD and will HARM YOUR CHILDREN and if you don't STOP them you are a BAD MOM.

That's been going on for a long, long time, and probably always will.

 Several years ago, I saw an interview with the director of some group or other, he was reminiscing about the start of the group and the changes through the years....  The part that stuck out to me is that when they first brought PC's into the office, no one would use them for fear of radiation--a few people conceded to use them IF they were provided with lead aprons!  Some people embrace new things without question, some people fear new things without inquiry.  This sounds like a psych research paper topic....  

So in THIS discussion, at Always Learning, the question is whether unschoolers will choose control over partnering with a child to explore the real world they live in.

Sandra

If we partner with our children and learn with them, then won't our children notice any ill effects of something that they are doing?  My kids, who love their electronics will regularly put them down and go do something that they feel like doing that isn't electronics.  They have never been frightened by tales of evil about any of the common activities that they like and they choose as life presents/how they feel.   

Chris
Chris 

<alohabun@...>

 My basic concern with electromagnetic radiation is to do with health.  


Electromagnetic radiation is classified as a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization.  The FCC guidelines are based on thermal radiation (heating) and do not address possible health effects.  Though more studies need to be done, what I've read so far (from sources I trust - like Dr. David Carpenter, Blake Levitt, Olle Johansson, PhD, Magda Havas, PhD, and Sam Milham, MD - not ones funded by those who have ties to the industry or the manufacturers themselves), there are adverse health effects from exposure to high levels of radiofrequency radiation for long periods of time. 

The Bioinitiative Report, a report about possible health risks from electromagnetic frequencies and other wireless technologies by independent scientists and health experts,  was updated in 2012. http://www.bioinitiative.org/

I know one person (in real life) who has sensitivities to electromagnetic radiation and others (in real life and via the internet) who collect data from people with health problems that occurred after their smart meters were installed and who are involved in a case in our state to do with smart meters. 

While I am aware that some of the people may be attributing their problems to smart meters or it could be coincidence in timing, it is (to me) something to consider.  For if some people are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation, even if the rest of us don't notice it, it may be affecting us on some level too (though there is the possibility that it may not be and may only affect sensitive individuals).  I also wonder if perhaps the cumulative exposure of electromagnetic radiation may affect us later in life as well.  

I guess it boils down to this: Though I strongly think that there is, I am not absolutely sure that there is a problem posed by electromagnetic radiation and I agree that more studies need to be done. However, I feel better erring (for now) on the side of caution.  

Laurie 



---In [email protected], <Sandra@...> wrote:

-=-Because I have some concerns about electromagnetic radiation-=-

If you're willing to tell us, what concerns, and where did they come from?

If you're not willing to tell us, that's fine, too.

Sandra

Sandra Dodd

-=-I guess it boils down to this: Though I strongly think that there is, I am not absolutely sure that there is a problem posed by electromagnetic radiation and I agree that more studies need to be done. However, I feel better erring (for now) on the side of caution. -=-

Vaccinations (and polio vaccine from the 1960's) are looking increasingly dangerous, and people who avoided them are relieved. Still, it's never been a great discussion to have in light of unschooling, because it's the same (whatever it is) for unschoolers or not. There's not something different for unschoolers, about vaccinations, or electromagnetics, or flouride, or too much sunshine or too much water or whatever all else is being looked at askance.

I know someone who had a house built with one inside switch she could turn off every night, so that she wasn't sleeping within electronic fields. In her case it was part of a large set of extremely paranoid behaviors. She's probaby not wrong about everything she was afraid of.

I think that for unschooling, the main thing is not to limit or shame or frighten children about things that aren't proven.

There's something to be said for living fully in one's own time and place. What if time travel delivered you someone from ancient Rome who said he had never been to a temple, never been to the colliseum... (Partly I'm joking, and mostly I'm not.) I have a friend my age (we met in our early 20's) who lived through the 1960's in New Mexico (though Los Alamos, a hive of geeks) never owning a pair of denim jeans and never listening to rock'n'roll At All. He married someone who bought him jeans for camping, and he came to appreciate them.

Cigarettes were in fashion; now they're not.
When coal fires (and the mining that went with them) were more common, there was a lot of air pollution, damage to buildings, soot all over things. It wasn't healthy.

Dentistry hasn't been moving along as quickly as some other sciences, it seems. Amalgam fillings aren't great. Full dentures weren't great.

Being careful without being irrational, being protective without being controlling... those can apply to lots of things.

Sandra

Schuyler

Quickly googling the list of folks whose opinion you trust all of them seem to be finding issue with electromagnetic radiation. Dr. Havas did a study with 4 diabetics whose insulin levels she attributed to their electromagnetic radiation exposure. From what I've read, it was purely anecdotal. With such a small sample size experimental design with case control would be the only way I could see getting meaningful results. If her other studies are similar, I wouldn't rely on her findings to inform your fears. I would look for a more measured body of research. Dr. David Carpenter led me to this interesting Front line transcript:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1319.html Olle Johansson attributes cancer to FM radios and coil spring mattresses moving EMFs around in a significant frequency. More things to be afraid of? Or, possibly, some kind of bias in how he looks at data?

Looking at the IARC's 2b carcinogen list, where EMF's live, there are inclusions like carpentry and joinery, aloe very extract, coconut oil, for example.
http://www.emfandhealth.com/WHO%20Bulletin.html has a commentary on the finding with a link to the list of carcinogens scaling from 1 to 3.

The Bioinitiative report has also come under serious criticism for its lack of balance and very selective inclusion of studies that conformed to the committee's beliefs. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinitiative_Report has a series of criticisms.

I understand how such fear mongering can work to make you afraid. It helps not to look for things to be afraid of, particularly if those things are things your children enjoy. Don't work to be afraid of carpentry if your child loves to build with wood, don't find massive danger in charcoal if your child enjoys drawing with charcoal, don't make computers and the internet the bogeyman when they love playing WoW. Your fears aren't going to keep them safe, or happy. When you start wanting to protect them from something they love, go do something else with your brain. Help them to enjoy their joys.

Schuyler
------------------------------
>
>

Karen

>>>>> I guess it boils down to this: Though I strongly think that there is, I am not absolutely sure that there is a problem posed by electromagnetic radiation and I agree that more studies need to be done. However, I feel better erring (for now) on the side of caution. <<<<<

I never fully understood the saying "a little information is a dangerous thing" until I had Ethan. Once he was born I began to fear so many things. Electronics seemed scary to me. Certain foods seemed scary to me. Television seemed scary to me. Old houses were scary due to lead and other contaminants. The soil was scary to me. We lived in Pittsburgh for the first four years of Ethan's life. Dig a couple inches into the earth there, and you find layers upon layers of coal dust. And so it went, until I finally realized that the atmosphere of fear I was generating for myself, and as a byproduct for my son, was so much more detrimental to our wellbeing than any of the issues I had touched on in readings and in conversations with other parents. So, I began to let go of the fear, learn to make mindful choices, and live fully in the real world I found myself in - not in the protected bubble I wanted to make for Ethan. And, life became so much easier. So much richer. So much more real and meaningful for all three of us.

Some parents will limit food to the point of nutritional deficit, afraid of all the additives, allergies, and other dangers written about to caution us. Some parents will limit access to information and the world at large, creating a learning deficit, fearing perceived dangerous influences over young developing minds. Some parents limit the variety of people they allow their children to interact with, afraid their children will stray from family policies on how to live in the world. Different reactions to different fears, sometimes overlapping, all starting with a little bit of information.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think the point of the discussions on Always Learning is not to highlight and learn to live with potential dangers, but to help parents fear less and learn to live with their children in a more whole and enriching way. The sky has been falling for a long time now in many different stories, in many different ways. And yet, when we raise our chins and look around, it's still there, sometimes grey, sometimes the most wonderful shade of blue. There have always been things to fear in our world, from wooly mammoths, to the plague, to cancer. They are all real. In different times, in different places, they have all threatened individual lives. No one can predict when and if we'll face such a challenge. What we can hope to influence as unschoolers is *how* we face real challenges, how we move forward if we've successfully overcome such a challenge, how we live in a world full of challenges, but also full of potential wonders.

By giving our children real information when their questions arise, by encouraging them to make real choices, by helping them live fully in the real world we find ourselves in today, and by surrounding them with as many reasonable opportunities as we can afford and as they desire, we, as parents, facilitators and partners, can give them a clearer picture from which they can draw more meaningful conclusions today and tomorrow.

chris ester

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:

I think that for unschooling, the main thing is not to limit or shame or frighten children about things that aren't proven. 

>>>>>My family has had a lot of interesting, expansive discussions about this sort of thing--EMFs, vaccinations, additives, etc.

One of my children used to have a pretty severe reaction to a food coloring.  We eliminated it when he was very young. Now that he is nearly an adult, he chooses to limit his exposure to all food colorings.  Not because he has been warned, but because he doesn't like how they taste and the fact that he will notice some reaction sometimes.   

As an unschooling (striving to be at least) family, we have always looked, discussed, and examined ideas and theories like we are just as smart as 'experts', because we are experts in our own lives and bodies and how we feel when we use things.  <<<<<<<


Being careful without being irrational, being protective without being controlling... those can apply to lots of things.

Sandra

>>>>>I think that this can be one of the biggest challenges of parenting because you want to do the "right" (I put this in quotes because it can be so subjective as to what is the most right for a child) thing and can bring up all of your own fears about not being a "good" (again, how good is good?) parent and as an unschooling parent we often face pressures to conform to more mainstream ideas about parenting.<<<<<<<<<<<
chris
 

Meredith Novak

>>I know one person (in real life) who has sensitivities to electromagnetic radiation <<
 
My Ex is sensitive to fluorescent lights. Something about them causes her to have heart palpitations. For years she thought she had a panic disorder because she'd get heart palpitations while shopping, until I read an article about "environmental allergies" (or something like that, this was back in the 90s) and fluorescent lights were mentioned. With a little experimentation we were able to confirm that lights were the issue, found grocery stores that used different lights - suddenly she was able to shop independently after years of needing to go with a buddy, in case she had a "panic attack".
 
People can be sensitive to the darnedest things - but what's going on, what a person is reacting to - isn't always immediately obvious. Research can be good... but don't scare yourself. Experimenting with alternatives can be good, but be skeptical. Sometimes what's "wrong" with a child is that parental expectations aren't lining up with the reality of that child.
 
---Meredith

Sandra Dodd

-=-Sometimes what's "wrong" with a child is that parental expectations aren't lining up with the reality of that child.-=-

In the 1970's some of the automatically-opening doors in stores (the K-Mart nearest the university was the first one I found to be that way) had a VERY HIGH sound, and I couldn't stand it. To get into the K-Mart (and another couple of stores later), a friend would go ahead of me, and when the door opened, I would get through that fifteen feet or so of painful sharp unhearable sound, and then two calming breaths and I was okay.  The exit didn't do it; I don't know why.  Maybe it was more open, or more often open, or who knows what.  It was awful.

That same high sound is what bothers me about the dentist.  I can't have my cleeth cleaned by ultrasonic means.  I need the old fashioned tools.  There's an occasional high ting from the probe, but it's occasional and it ends.  The other is constant,a nd has overtones, and I can't escape it.  I scoot down in the chair and cry tears into my ears.

My problem is rare. :-)  It happens with nail clippers, too, and some people clip their nails in public places.  If I can get out of the room and beyond a wall or two (in a frame and drywall house, two rooms away).  

Lots of people's painful frequency is the sqeak of chalk on a chalkboard (rare in this decade, nearly inescapable for 1960's school kids, but that sound didn't bother me; when I was a teacher I learned not to squeak and apologized sincerely if I did it).  For some people it's scratching on a sink, or fingers on a balloon.

Here's the deal, if your child is bothered painfully by one of those things:  Avoid that thing.  
It's not a conspiracy.  
It's not worldwide pollution.
It's something about that one person's nervous system that doesn't like that one stimulus or frequency.  

It can happen with sounds, or textures, or colors, or flickering lights.  

If a whole family happens to be sensitive to cathode-ray-tube TVs and flourescent lights, it could be a genetic similarity.  It doesn't mean they're a representative sample of all humankind, or that those things bother all people similarly.

If one person in a family happens to be sensitive to a thing, or several things, there's no need to label them "sensitive."  Just don't give them wool caps and sweaters and a fuschia room full of strobe lights.

The BEST THING about unschooling is that no parents are forcing any child to play gameboy or iPhone games.  They're not forcing kids to make lace or to carve grains of rice.  People who do those things do them for fun, out of choice.

Schools need to know what's harmful because they don't want to be held liable for having kept children in a harmful atmosphere for hours a day for years, or to make all children do something that's harmful to enough that they can be sued.

Unschooling parents don't have those problems, because kids can get up and sit elsewhere, leave the room, say "That light bothers me, so I'm turning it off."


Sandra


Joyce Fetteroll


On Nov 11, 2013, at 11:23 PM, Sandra Dodd wrote:

There's not something different for unschoolers, about vaccinations,
or electromagnetics, or flouride, or too much sunshine or too much
water or whatever all else is being looked at askance.

What is different for unschooling parents, though, is how to respond to fears.

The conventional way is for parents to say no and throw up protective barriers between their child and the danger. For fear-filled parents, it doesn't make a difference whether it's speeding-Mack truck dangerous or potentially-50-years-of-accumulation-from-now dangerous. The priority is to preserve and protect the children's lives. Everything else is confined within those protective boundaries.

For unschooling parents, the priority should be joyful living and learning.

When some people hear that their reaction is, "So you don't care? You let your kids play in traffic because the only thing you care about is learning??"

As if we were all limited to only one scoop of one flavor of ice cream. ;-)

In reality the number of scoops and flavors is limited only by your willingness to explore options! ;-)

The unschooling question isn't learning or safety. It's how can kids explore freely AND safely? How can parents build safety into living so that kids barely notice it being there? How can safety be so easy that choosing it is a natural part of doing something? 

Part of creating easy safety is avoiding "Do it this way or die!" for fears that aren't speeding Mack trucks. That kind of thinking can make kids of organic-eating families feel like they've taken a mouthful of Drano if they inadvertently bite into a conventional apple. Or make them dread seeing "Free WiFi" signs in their favorite shop windows.

A big part is not treating speeding-Mack truck dangerous and potentially-50-years-of-accumulation-from-now dangerous as the same. (The problem is that those who fear tend to focus on the reports that support their fears, ignoring the reports that don't. So maybes can *seem* like baring-down-on-you Mack trucks.)

Life is for living, not preserving. What will make life more joyful is being able to choose fearlessly each time. Choosing one maybe-safer option when it's easy and not worrying when it would get in the way with what you want to do.

Joyce