The Glade 4.0

What exactly are these fatality rates? Ok, it's twice as high as the next food, but even if most choking fatalities do occur in younger children, it's still an insignificant number. The OP had to stretch the age range up to 14 just to get it into triple digits.

Yes, it is relevant. The rate of hot dog deaths compared to other foods doesn't by itself show meaningful levels of danger in hot dogs if the number of deaths in absolute terms isn't significant (and it isn't). IT's also relevant when you're tossing around vagaries like "small children" and "most".

When compared to causes of death in general and compared to the size of the populations in general, and no, they are not surprisingly dangerous. There's nothing surprising at all about it. Some food or other has to be at the top.

The bottom line is that they still cause no more than 100 choking deaths per year, and most likely significantly less. The issue is still insignificant. As for what it's insignificant to, it's insignificant in the scope of issues the nation faces.

Actually, it's totally related.

You're an ignorant or lazy prick who needs warned about food for you children, or, alternatively, you advocate people being ignorant/lazy pricks who need warned about food for their children. Instead of taking responsibility for ****, letting the pregancy go to term, and not giving the child away, you want to cost us all money and effort to take care of ignorance or laziness.

I mean, we could also ban sharp corners, linoleum floors, swimming pools, bathtubs, and staircases because ignorant or lazy pricks don't want their kids to be hurt on those either; in fact since they cause more problems each year by orders of magnitude you should be out railing against the lack of an anti-linoleum lobby.

This is just asinine.


What good would putting warning labels on hot dog do then?

You've pointed out nothing about people in this thread. You've stated that people don't know how surprisingly dangerous hot dogs are.There's nothing surprisingly dangerous about hot dogs. It's food. Cut it up. Nobody said they didn't know that. If you're going to say that hot dogs are surprisingly dangerous when cut up like other foods...

Oh and form Arathain's USA Today article:



Hot dogs are food; kids choke on food if the pieces are large enough. That's not surprising. Cut the **** things. There's your warning. If you can't be assed to cut up your kids food so they don't choke, don't be surprised when your kid dies.

So what? That's not my point. I was correct, then, you are mistakenly assuming that I'm suggesting hot dogs are too dangerous. They aren't. They are surprsingly dangerous when compared to other foods, which is what I've said many, many times.



So what? None of that is relevant. Choking deaths are rare. I've said this - it makes no difference to my point at all. You're the one that brought up total numbers of fatalities, like it matters at all. It doesn't relate to my point.



yes, they are surprisingly dangerous when compared to other foods. These are foods that parents regularly give children. They dont' realize they are the most common food for choking. Very surprising to parents. Surprisingly dangerous when compared to other foods. This has nothing to do with population sizes, please stick to the point.

I am sticking to the point. You're saying they're surprisingly dangerous. You're wrong. They aren't. There's nothing at all surprising. A parent may be surprised when their particular child chokes; that's because choking is rare, not because it's a hot dog.

I think it's good to let parents know about hot dogs and the skins presenting a heightened choking hazard. I disagree that it requires government intervention, especially since it seems the hot dog companies are already putting warning labels on their packages.

You are incorrect. Hot dogs are a suprisingly dangerous food for small children. They are thought by most parents to be a good food for children, and yet they account for most food-based choking events. That would be suprising for a lot of parents.

And yet, parents already do cut up hot dogs for small children regularly, and for precisely that reason. Have you ever seen anyone give a 4-year-old a full hotdog on a bun without cutting it? I haven't.

What would be surprising to most parents is that other foods are even safer than hot dogs.

Of course they cut them up. Very few cut them sideways, from what I've seen.

No, I'm sure its fairly obvious to parents that there are foods safer than hot dogs. They may not realize how bad hot dogs are, but there are many foods out there that are impossible to choke on. Liquids, for example....

There's also the fact that hot dogs are cheap, easy to prepare, suitable for a wide variety of venues such as lunch, dinner, grilling, parties, etc. and can also be chopped up in beans or macaroni and such. As a result, they are a very common food which will affect the frequency of people choking on them. Any assertion that they're "surprisingly dangerous" must take that into account.

Oh and from Arathain's USA Today article:

One of the issues, as I mentioned earlier, is that hot dogs require more chewing than most food, because of the skins on them. The skins bind the food together. It's not only about bite size, that's obvious. Foods with skins are particularly dangerous becasue they are difficult for a child to break apart. One way to prevent this is to cut them lengthwise instead of in rings, so they aren't bound all the way around.

Again, this is something many, many parents do not realize. It's worth noting to them.

This. Becareful though. They might start calling you a commie and implying you want to put warning labels on walls

I agree.

Assuming got dogs account for all choking-related deaths in the survey referenced by the article in the OP, that means hot dogs kill 0.0000333% of the population every year. Even multiplied by a factor of 100, it's still a totally insignificant percentage. Millions of parents are, according to some of this thread's leading authorities on hot dogs and hot dog related hazards, too stupid to cut up hot dogs, and yet their children grew up without any danger to their lives.

Hot dogs are only dangerous to complete retards who can't do math.

Not really. Saying they are more dangerous would require that, but what you say here leads me back to what I'm saying. They appear to be easy, and child friendly, and are therefore widely used.

Take peanuts for example. I would suspect that peanuts would be more dangerous, but that's not surprising is it? There are fewer choking deaths on peanuts precisely because it's unsurprising, and people don't give them to their little kids.

I'm mistaken when hot dogs are surprisingly dangerous when cut up as they should be, like other foods? Whatever.
I learned about choking hazards, including hot dogs, by using common sense. When I learned CPR and the Heimlich, I was told about choking hazards, including hot dogs, When my wife and I chose to educate ourselves and took child safety classes when we learned we were having a child it was stated there as well.

Then they should educate themselves.

This. Becareful though. They might start calling you a commie and implying you want to put warning labels on walls

It's also because many kids are allergic to peanuts and therefore they don't get given to kids at places like daycare because even if the allergic kid isn't served them, they can come in contact with them. That makes kids significantly less likely to choke ont hem simply because they eat them a lot less often.

Hot dogs are quite easy and child-friendly. If they weren't, choking would be much more common.

Well that's probably true.



And yet surprisingly dangerous.

I guess surprisingly dangerous means different things to different people. You think hot dogs are surprisingly dangerous, I, and others do not think so.

Great, you think warning labels would help the morons, who have no common sense, and can't be assed to read a pamphlet, but it shouldn't be mandated. Got it.

Much like the dangers of hot dogs.

I guess to someone who is surprised that the government certifies government certified instructors, they may be;

to the rest of us - they're not.

KANSAS CITY — Baseball fans who sit six rows behind the third-base dugout at Kansas City's Kauffman Stadium know there's a chance they might have to duck a few foul balls from time to time.

But a Kansas man says it was a flying hot dog, not a baseball, that almost put his eye out while watching a Royals game late last summer.

John Coomer filed a lawsuit against the Kansas City Royals earlier this month seeking more than $25,000 for injuries he sustained Sept. 8 when he was smacked in the eye with a hot dog chucked into the seats by the team's mascot, Sluggerrr.

Coomer said the wayward wiener caused a detached retina and the development of cataracts in his left eye, forcing him to undergo two eye surgeries. In his lawsuit, Coomer claims he suffered permanent impairment of his vision and is at a greater risk of future eye problems.

Royals director of media relations David Holtzman said the team does not comment on pending litigation.

In his petition, filed Feb. 8 in Jackson County Circuit Court, Coomer says he was attending a Royals game when Sluggerrr climbed on top of the third-base dugout and started shooting hot dogs into the stands with an air gun.

The mascot then put down the air gun and began heaving hot dogs into the stands, including one he threw behind his back, striking Coomer in the eye as he sat six rows from the dugout.

In addition to seeking restitution for medical expenses, Coomer is seeking damages for the team's failure to adequately train its mascot on the proper method of throwing hot dogs.