[LMB] OT: 'Vulnerable' babies (was Men and Women - Direction Finding)

kerry weisselberg kerilli at gmail.com
Fri Mar 6 09:55:02 GMT 2009


Howard wrote:
Strength, and all like that, would be irrelevant in the consideration
of  smelly, noisy, vulnerable babies and whether you want them to live

and "paal" (sorry, i don't know who that is!) wrote:

"Smelly, noise, vulnerable babies--but note that "smelly, noisy,
vulnerable babies" have not infrequently been the sole survivor of
airplane crashes (one in Japan some years ago, a Boeing jumbo jet hit
the side of a mountain; the sole survivor of the very large number of
passengers and the crew, was a very young child) and car crashes and
other fatal-tor-everyone-else-present scenes of devastation."

Umm... yes, but that is because a small baby is usually very well protected
(bundled up in a cot, strapped tightly into a car carrier etc), takes up a
much smaller area than an adult (so less likely to be crushed, injured by
flying debris, etc), and, being so small and compact, and recumbent, won't
suffer the enormous whiplash injuries that are often fatal. The baby-cots on
the Emirates flight I was on last year attached side-on to the
front-of-cabin walls, in front of the first row of seats, so that the baby
was effectively attached in a backwards-facing way (unlike every other
passenger) - much safer, since airplanes tend not to fly backwards into
anything! I am pretty sure I read somewhere that British Army transport
planes all have rear-facing seats for safety (in event of a crash, you are
pushed against the seat and whole spine is supported, not thrown forwards
then back), and that the likelihood of surviving a crash is much greater.
I don't really think you can compared a baby being taken into a battle
situation - where at the very least the mother would be very preoccupied
with trying to protect it, or hampered by it, wherever it was attached (!)
- with babies surviving modern-day accidents! They are still extremely
vulnerable, in that they obviously can't protect themselves at all (and that
they hamper those closest to them), but I think there's a big
distinction here between 'vulnerable' and 'more/less likely to be injured
than an adult in the same accident situation.'

kerry



More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list