Washington, DC (PRWEB) June 18, 2012
A pilot study conducted by the Center for Pet Safety has shown that pet safety restraints used in cars may be unsafe, leaving the animals to become projectiles, possibly causing severe injury or death to the animal and potential injury to human family members if an accident occurs. The Center for Pet Safety is located in Haymarket, Virginia, just outside Washington, DC.
The Center for Pet Safety is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization which is undertaking a study to define safe travel for companion animals and their owners in a moving vehicle. Currently, animal restraints are not held to specific safety standards and testing by the manufacturer is not a requirement.
Through scientific testing, data collection, and analysis, the Center for Pet Safety plans to author studies of specific types of pet travel safety devices and from those studies to develop criteria and test protocols to support safe performance. The Center for Pet Safety is an independent organization, not associated with any pet product manufacturer. The Center is currently seeking grant funding to continue its independent research.
“With tens of millions of dogs traveling with their families every year, the use of pet travel safety restraints is at an all-time high,” says Lindsey Wolko, founder and chairman of the Center for Pet Safety. “Safety advocates, travel associations and now law enforcement agencies are recommending or mandating the use of pet safety restraints. But how does the consumer know that the pet harnesses and crates actually protect their pet in the case of an accident? There are currently no official standards to measure performance success, nor are manufacturers required to test their products for this category of pet product. So who says ‘safe’ is safe?”
While Wolko agrees that tethering or containing your pet may help reduce incidents of distracted driving, any other safety claims must be proven through the development of performance criteria and test methodologies. “Saying that these products prevent your pet from becoming a projectile in an accident is a potentially misleading statement. In our pilot study, the harnesses tested failed to keep the dog from becoming a projectile in a standardized crash simulation.”
The pilot study conducted by the Center for Pet Safety in 2011 indicated a 100% failure rate of a set of four popular animal travel harnesses crash tested according to the conditions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 for child safety seats. FMVSS 213 was selected as it is commonly referenced by some pet product manufacturers and pet safety advocates as a general standard.
The harness size selection for the CPS pilot study was based on the American Kennel Clubs Most Popular Dog Breed List from 2010, where six of the top ten dog breeds were within the large harness category. A realistic crash test dog was specially designed, weighted and instrumented for data collection.
Boston, MA (PRWEB) September 17, 2013
The National Pediculosis Association (NPA) celebrates 30 years of service this month. To extend its CombFirst! Campaign and National Head Lice Prevention Month, the NPA team put together some important warnings to assist parents seeking reliable information on lice treatment and prevention.
The NPA warns parents that too many head lice articles are actually marketing tools for products. The inaccurate or missing safety information can put children and entire families in jeopardy. Each child brings unique vulnerabilities to the treatment decision.
NPAs message is clear. The reliance on risky pesticides, inaccurate information and ineffective community control methods may keep kids in the classroom but it fails to protect children. The NPAs campaign supports a public health standard that is proactive rather than reactive one that is truly precautionary.
By identifying some of the most common red flags in advance, parents will be better equipped to spot unreliable information shared on the internet.
Claims that head lice are a nuisance and not a health hazard for children.
The pesticidal treatment is the hazard. Both the person applying the treatment and the person being treated are at risk. Avoid directives that omit warnings of lice resistance and treatment health risks. Pesticides are never truly safe for children.
Head lice dont carry disease.
Pediculosis, the medical term for an infestation of lice, is itself a communicable disease. You can read more about the organisms these human parasites can carry here: http://www.headlice.org/news/research/index.htm.
Assurances that head lice are not a hygiene issue.
Parasitic blood sucking lice that infest, reproduce in ones hair and lay eggs next to ones scalp is a compelling hygiene issue for the people who have them.
Product marketing language often emphasizes a product’s ability to kill lice and nits while downplaying the necessity for lice and nit removal. This is done to convey a sense of convenience to make the product appear less time-consuming, more user-friendly and superior to other methods. Look for entire absence of information on combing or instead discouraging words on nit removal such as “tedious” or “challenging.” Fact is, if you don’t get them out, you’ve still got them.
Promotions for “natural” or “non-toxic” products stated to be 100% safe and effective.