Let's look at the article:
"Each year, approximately 70 children ages 14 and under die from injuries occurring on a farm."
Clearly a horrible thing. But stats don't exist in a vacuum. For instance, how does this compare to SIDS, child abuse, bathtub drownings, swimming pool drownings, bicycle or skateboard deaths. None of this is intended to give license to unsafe behavior. 'Being safe' is always a good idea. Outside of that though, conclusions need to be drawn extremely carefully when considering appropriate preventive action, particularly when legislation is involved. The family farm is nearly extinct in this once proud agricultural nation. Just a tad more legislation here and a tad more oversight there and the family farm will be lost forever. And that would be a tragedy greater than all the stats we've seen so far.
"In 2002, more than 13,400 ages 14 and under were treated in emergency rooms for equestrian-related injuries. Nearly 40 percent of equestrian injuries result in hospitalization. Head injury is the most common cause of equestrian-related death and serious injury."
Horses scare me. And I own 2 of them. All the advice given later in this article seems useless except for the helmet part. Even the most docile horse in the world can spook and bolt. And there is such a huge philosophical difference when it comes to safety between the 'western' and 'English' worlds of riding. My duaghter does both. When she rides English it is always required and expected that a helmet will be worn. When she rides western on the farm, it is expected that a helmet will not be worn. I'm torn on this one.
"Nearly 40 percent of farm deaths among children are due to machinery, and another 23 percent are due to drowning."
Unexpected. I would have thought machinery deaths would be higher. This indicates that 28 of the yearly 'rural' deaths are from machinery (of any sort, could be trucks, tractors, pickups, atvs, golf carts, etc). And it means that 16 of the yearly deaths are drownings. There aren't many farm ponds, or creeks in Brooklyn.
"Only about 5 percent of farms in the United States are covered by safety regulations specified in the Occupational Safety and Health Act."
That's 5% too many. The use of the word 'only' in this statement betrays the author's intent, which is more regulation. The intention to help save children is noble, the method is not. OSHA has got no more business on the family farm than they have do in my house when the kids are employed by me vacuuming the den or in my yard when they are mowing.
"Youths of any age may work at any time in any job on a farm owned or operated by their parents."
May it always be so.
"Do not allow children to perform farm work without supervision or when the tasks are inappropriate for the child痴 age, size, strength, cognitive ability or prior experience."
Excellent advice. Now, who will or should make that determination? The parents or a salaried bureaucrat?
The surface message we should all take home, is, of course, to be safe. But I think the article is a bit misleading and a tad incomplete. A child in India is more likely to be eaten by a Bengal tiger than a child living in Watts or East LA. But that doesn't mean the kids living next to a crack house are safer than the kid living in the Bengali jungle.
But what the article really seems to miss is that the very things that make rural living so 'dangerous' are the things which benefit the 'survivors'. And granted, that was probably not the intent of the article but it frequently compared rural ot urban injury and death rates. In my mind the work, the cows, the creeks, the horses, the ponds, the risks, the responsibilites, the freedom, etc etc are what make farm kids less likely (I suppose) to die or be injured by drugs, sexually transmitted diseases, gun crimes, pyshiatric problems, etc etc.
There is a price for everything. And given the stats cited in this article, I'd prefer my kids taking their chances with horses, tractors, pickups and farm ponds than crack houses, street crime and urban angst.