I came across this article a few days ago. The comments are hilarious, including several links to medical articles stating exactly what M'Sharak said.
I knew a child who takes regular medication because simply being around oak trees at certain times of the year could trigger anaphylactic shock (this was several years ago and I can't remember exactly what triggers the allergy, only that she was "allergic to oak trees"). The child's mother, a nurse, made sure the child always took her medication, always had an epi-pen on her, and sent the child on her merry way outside to play with the other children. No way in hell did she expect a single tree that wasn't on her own property to be cut down, even though in this rare case being around an oak tree really could kill her child. The child was four years old when the allergy suddenly developed, and from that age she could recognise an oak tree and knew to stay away from it.
My understanding is that a rather simple explanation is a heightened response to non-threatening environmental substances due to less frequently encountered environmental pathogens in this age of hygeine and cleanliness.I doubt very much whether the council involved will start cutting down park trees because one woman is over-protective.
I don't understand why nut allergies are on the increase.
I don't understand why nut allergies are on the increase.
^^ From what I understand the increase in nut allergies in children corresponds to the beginning of genetically modifying nuts, specifically peanuts in the early 1980s. I think this is more circumstantial evidence than anything else but I've never gone looking for studies on it. Either way, I think GMO foods are kind of scary.
That seems a far more plausible explanation. Blaming everything on genetically modified foods is this decade's equivalent of blaming everything on atomic bomb tests back in the 1950s.My understanding is that a rather simple explanation is a heightened response to non-threatening environmental substances due to less frequently encountered environmental pathogens in this age of hygeine and cleanliness.
So instead of being tuned to bacteria and that, the immune response becomes overactive to other allergens.
That's what comes of having idiotic "zero tolerance" policies. Zero tolerance is for authorities who don't want to be bothered with having to make judgments based on common sense.Seems a tad draconian.There was a local story here a few months ago where a kid brought a sandwich to school and it was confiscated. They thought it was peanut butter when it really was a peanut butter replacement. Apparently it's part of a policy to ban anything that they can't be sure about, so rather than take a risk, they confiscated his sandwich.
That's what comes of having idiotic "zero tolerance" policies. Zero tolerance is for authorities who don't want to be bothered with having to make judgments based on common sense.Seems a tad draconian.There was a local story here a few months ago where a kid brought a sandwich to school and it was confiscated. They thought it was peanut butter when it really was a peanut butter replacement. Apparently it's part of a policy to ban anything that they can't be sure about, so rather than take a risk, they confiscated his sandwich.
I came across this article a few days ago. The comments are hilarious, including several links to medical articles stating exactly what M'Sharak said.
I knew a child who takes regular medication because simply being around oak trees at certain times of the year could trigger anaphylactic shock (this was several years ago and I can't remember exactly what triggers the allergy, only that she was "allergic to oak trees"). The child's mother, a nurse, made sure the child always took her medication, always had an epi-pen on her, and sent the child on her merry way outside to play with the other children. No way in hell did she expect a single tree that wasn't on her own property to be cut down, even though in this rare case being around an oak tree really could kill her child. The child was four years old when the allergy suddenly developed, and from that age she could recognise an oak tree and knew to stay away from it.
That's pretty interesting, what were her symptoms when she was around the trees? I'd be looking at moving somewhere where these trees were uncommon, though that might be counterproductive if slight exposure over the years build up the body's resistance to them. And I suppose there are whole countries where you'd be stuffed as far as no oaks went.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.