CEO Fights Feds: Save Our Balls | Hacker News Reader

CEO Fights Feds: Save Our Balls

radio.foxnews.com

43 pointssbjustin74 comments

This came up a few weeks ago on HN. Not to express any opinion about the regulatory action happening here, but you might be surprised to learn that you could be better off swallowing a nail than you would be if you swallowed a pair of these tiny magnets.

Swallowing the magnets is a big deal. As they transit your system, they can easily find themselves on either side of a fold of tissue, whereupon they lock together, gradually kill the tissue, leak gut bacteria into the bloodstream and create sepsis.

On the other hand, if you swallow a nail, there is apparently a very good chance that your doctor will just tell you to go home and look for it in your poop. This according to a journal article I found last time the story came up.

Worse still, the risks are deceptive. As a parent, you would no doubt freak out completely if you discovered your toddler ate a nail. I know I'd be at the emergency room minutes later. On the other hand, parents are routinely told by their doctors to wait and watch the poop when other innocuous round objects are swallowed. It is very easy to see how parents could make the wrong call about the magnets and wind up with gravely ill children as a result.

---

More things you might want to know about the CPSC complaint:

* Despite warnings, there've been numerous continuous incidents of kids needing surgery after ingesting the magnets.

* The magnets are marketed to kids 14 years and up; there are apparently lots of reports of teenagers using the magnets to hold jewelry for e.g. fake lip piercings.

* When you sell tiny rare earth magnets to teenagers, it is awfully hard to ensure that those magnets don't end up in the GI tracts of little kids that share a house with those teenagers.

* Warning labels for this suck because the product practically demands to be taken out of packaging; once you assemble a structure with them, it's not like you break them back up and put them in a box.

* Little kids love these things, because they're shiny, they click, and they move in unexpected ways.

The CPSC wants the death penalty for this product. I'm not there with them, but I see where they're coming from.

Yikes! I imagine there must be a better way to solve this issue than by shutting down the entire company.

Definitely agree.

I would imagine that one might be able to continue selling these magnets via, say, a mail-order laboratory-supply store that caters to school science labs. Such stores carry lots of products that are dangerous in counterintuitive ways:

http://wardsci.com/product.asp?pn=IG0015551

Don't get the sodium metal wet or feed it after midnight!

But such products also aren't labeled like toys, or stocked in storefronts that also sell toys. They are labeled like industrial products and ship with MSDS sheets.

The problem is that killing the existing sales channels will likely kill the existing business, because the sales volume will drop by orders of magnitude.

If people are retarded, it's hardly the fault of that company, is it? You don't blame the gun company when somebody shoots himself ...

If you know anything about small children, they like to pick up stuff off the ground and eat it. I had these in my office and was constantly losing them on the floor. Now, if you do that at a house with kids...

Also, a stupid person eating them probably won't eat them in that pattern, finding one by accident, then another an hour later after the first has advanced through the system ahead of the second, which is how the flesh gets pinched eventually.

Well duh. Same as you make sure no sharp, pointy objects are lying around and electric outlets have child safeties.

Should we ban knifes now because children could cut themselves?

How about Teddy Bears with razor blades for stuffing? Ban or no?

The idea is that the product is more dangerous than appearances might let on.

Knives are necessary, not toys. Switchblades are useless, dangerous toys, and are often banned. So there you go. Anyway, I'm not advocating banning little magnets anyway--I do own some, you know--but pointing out that ordinary non-stupid use of them + a toddler could result in problems.

It's the old "reasonable man" test that the courts use. A reasonable man knows that guns are dangerous.

On the other hand, a reasonable man may not realize that swallowing magnets are far more dangerous than swallowing similar objects that aren't magnetic.

Which is why each package has five different warning labels on it. Sheesh.

From the comments I've seen in other discussions about this, people are entirely capable of reading all the warning labels and still failing to realise that swallowing these is actually far more dangerous than swallowing other metal objects.

They just seem to see the warning labels as an example of "health and safety gone mad" so to speak, of someone putting unnecessary warnings on about something that obviously can't be that dangerous. I can't see a good way of avoiding this problem.

Edit: Apparently there were similar comments in the previous HN discussion; at least one person[1] failed to grasp how much more dangerous they were if swallowed than other objects despite reading a 14-page complaint that described in graphic detail the exact mechanism by which they were more dangerous, the serious medical consequences, the long-term health risks even with prompt and successful surgery, and the history of kids being injured in this fashion by them. They're basically impossible to sell safely.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4294215

This not only seems true, but demonstrably is true. CPSC worked with the vendor of this toy for years getting labels and notifications out; the reports of children requiring debilitating surgical procedures to remove tiny little rare earth magnets from their GI tracts increased over time.

I like to think that a reasonable man would know swallowing magnets is extremely dangerous.

It's just that apparently there aren't all that many reasonable men. u_u

Given that many people initially thought this ban was silly until they researched the actual consequences of swallowing the balls, reality does not seem to bear out your hypothesis.

Nobody said guns were toys. Also, you can't swallow guns.

I love these things. But with a 2-year-old I would simply not want them in my house.

Then as a responsible parent you would choose not to buy them. Unfortunately many people are not responsible at all and that screws everybody else.

I own this toy and I have 2 kids, both younger than 5. I allow them to play with them a bit - and I put them up, out of reach , when I am not supervising them.

I guess you don't have kids?

I actually do - 4 & 1 3/4 years old. I also own these magnetic balls, and I haven't had any problems with them and my kids - except them losing some of them.

I allow them to play with it for a little, and then I put them in a safe place I know the kids can't get at them.

If I leave them on my desk, I know they will get it...so I don't leave them on the desk.

If a 12-year old is swallowing these things, there is something else going on in that household that needs to be addressed.

I guess it's a hard balance between protecting kids from poor parenting and freedom for good parents like yourself.

No it is not. The choice is freedom. Giving up freedom for perceived safety is never worth it.

Have to agree with this. Sacrificing liberty in chasing security achieves neither.

Groan. The debate isn't whether you should be free to own these things. The debate is whether companies should be free to market them as toys in the retail channel.

Or maybe the debate is whether an "adult's toy" is the same thing as a "kids toy"....and therefore deserves the same regulation.

Or rather, how does one treat the sale of adult toys.

What an impractical thing to say. We could have no laws at all if we followed that philosophy to its logical conclusion. We can't forbid theft, because that impinges on our natural freedom to obtain the things we want. We can't forbid public urination, because that means giving up our freedom to relieve ourselves wherever we like. And so on and so forth.

Living in civilization is all about giving up our freedom to do certain things in exchange for the protection and comfort that society offers.

I completely disagree.

Living in a civilization is about joining a social contract to not infringe on each others rights. (theft, rape, murder, etc infringe on the victims rights, where as buying Bucky Balls does not affect anyone but the purchaser)

When you sell tiny metal balls to teenagers on the auspices that those teenagers will scrupulously prevent them from being made available to toddlers, or else those toddlers might die, it's probably easy to argue that you're affecting people besides the immediate purchasers.

well.. the same thing could be said about allowing teenagers to drive a car on the auspices that they will not drive too fast, or text, or do any number of other stupid things... or else people might die. At some point you have to make people take responsibility for their actions.

Yes? Very yes? I say this not just as the terrified parent of a 13 year old: we are entirely too casual about letting teenagers get behind the wheels of motor vehicles.

So do we go after the car makers because irresponsible parents let irresponsible teens do stupid stuff while driving and some old lady got killed? Not so far.

I would guess that almost every parent has had their child swallow a small object at some point. I know my mom has told stories of all of us kids doing it. Pennies, peach pits, etc.

The first time they freak out and go to the doctor, who tells them to look for it in their kid's poo. The second time they skip freaking out and the doctor step. Parents may not realize magnets are much more dangerous, because magnets, especially strong ones, are unusual objects that we don't have a lot of experience with, and for their size are unusually strong.

Is it enough if you swallow one or do you have to ingest two or more?

Edit, found something:

>If more than one magnet was swallowed, it is highly unlikely that they will pass without surgical removal because of their tendency to bind together across membranes.

In my mind, it is PAINFULLY obvious that swallowing two of these will require surgical removal.

What I'm more interested in, actually, is what happens if you swallow just one? Are these magnets strong enough to influence / interfere with the iron in your blood?

Strong magnets are REALLY cool, and REALLY fun. The closest damn thing to magic, in my opinion. I think I'm going to go buy some of these balls before they get banned...

The amount of iron in your blood is really minuscule, I don't think there's any risk there.

Good to know. My medical knowledge in this area extends in so far as my being able to say "there is iron in your blood".

I was thinking maybe one inside you would react to outside metal like say keys or a belt or a metal chair/desk

Iron in the blood is paramagnetic. It is not affected by magnets.

Very interesting, thanks--did not know that. Based on that, the idea of a regulatory action does not seem unwarranted.

The issue, like all regulations, would be the balance between the problem and the remedy. Is it necessary to completely ban a product to keep it away from children? I'm thinking of things like cigarettes and alcohol, and wondering why they can be less restrictively regulated than little magnetic toys.

> I'm thinking of things like cigarettes and alcohol, and wondering why they can be less restrictively regulated than little magnetic toys.

Probably because Bucky Balls does not have anywhere near the lobbying money that Big Tobacco does.

That and that those products predate regulatory agencies and also sience had not caught up with the dangers (till relatively recently). In other words, they are kind of grandparented into the social fabric. Gasoline is kind of the same --extremely falmmable liquid which is sold without end-user regulation.

Very true. I would even say those go hand-in-hand. I kind of doubt they would have been so easily grandfathered in if they had not spent insane amounts of money to get there. :)

I'm not sure how things would work out in the present; from a historical perspective, turning the screws on drink seems to have had ill-side effects (such as the rise of organized crime). How could they be less regulated yet not be susceptible to corruption by organized crime? The only way I can see added regulation is via higher taxes (which seem to be quite high already, but I suppose more is okay).

Drink and smoke have age, seller, purity, potency, health warnings, advert restrictions, etc. All deserved, but I'm wondering what else they could be madated to do before making the enterprise lucrative to circuvention (org crime).

Exactly. Everyone knows the risks associated with stuff like cigarettes and alcohol, so we can get away with things that we wouldn't be able to get away with nowadays. There's a lot of stuff that's like this; for instance, paracetamol/Tylenol would probably not be approved if it was introduced now because it's really easy to accidentally overdose on.

It is symptomatic of a larger problem, the inability to characterize risk coupled with the demand for action. Some characterize it as a tragedy of the commons, personally I agree with Schneir that its simply bad parenting and bad luck.

http://www.getbuckyballs.com/buckyballs-only-marketed-to-adu...

This article contradicts itself, or is overtly intending to mislead its audience; the article itself points out that the product is marketed 14+.

The problem isn't that 14 year olds will swallow magnets --- although they might, since CPSC tracks reports of them being used to hold fake piercings. The problem is that 14 year olds often cohabitate with 2 year olds, and 14 year olds aren't renowned for judgement and organizational skills.

from the CPSC press release:

Since 2009, CPSC staff has learned of more than two dozen ingestion incidents, with at least one dozen involving Buckyballs. Surgery was required in many of incidents. The Commission staff alleges in its complaint that it has concluded that despite the attempts to warn purchasers, warnings and education are ineffective and cannot prevent injuries and incidents with these rare earth magnets.

TL;DR - Americans are too stupid to handle magnets safely. Therefore we have to ban this product.

I can see both sides of the argument. The case for personal responsibility is strong, but I can also see the case that this product is deceptively dangerous, i.e.- it resembles many other non-dangerous products, leading to easy consumer confusion, when in fact it is particularly dangerous. Not many other toys carry a risk of _surgery_.

But all of that aside, my issue is that the CEO doesn't seem to be particularly sympathetic to a product which has hurt his customers. I'm sure I don't have the whole story, but the impression is that the CEO's attitude is one of "well, we warned you, what more do you want?" rather concern for safety and taking creative action to protect customers.

You know, I really have to question the author's credibility. The blurb at the bottom says:

Todd is the author of “Dispatches From Bitter America.” The book is endorsed by Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Sean Hannity. Click here to get your copy.

...which leads me to believe this is more political than a case of really wanting to save Bucky Balls. For example, notice how the article is almost exclusively dedicated to the CEO, while the "victim" only gets half a sentence?

You don't share his politics, so therefore you disregard everything he has to say?

I'm pretty sure this article is about the CEO. You know, since it starts off talking about his letter?

I envy your ability to instantly and accurately decide every controversy merely by learning the political affiliations of the parties.

How exactly does "question the author's credibility" translate into "disregard everything he has to say"? Regardless of the author's political affiliations, I seriously doubt that his writing appealed to the likes of the people like Sarah Palin by being sane, rational, and thoughtful.

I mean, sure, there's a good chance he's really an intelligent and respectable guy, but I think the simplest answer is that he's a political shill and has no credibility. And that's the answer I'll stick to until I see evidence that I'm wrong.

Why would it matter if he is intelligent, respectable, or shilling? If he told you it was raining, would you look him up on Open Secrets before you grabbed your umbrella?

No, but I would definitely look up at the sky to see if it was raining before believing him. I only believe weather conditions that are given to me by people who are intelligent, respectable non-shills.

I was in the gift shop at the Pacific Science Center (Seattle) two months ago. The Buckyball demo video was playing on the corner of the sales counter, surrounded by the other science toys and kits that the museum sells. So I feel this claim of "marketing to adults" is somewhat disingenuous.

When I was in high school there was a gas station on the edge of town that was very relaxed about the legal age for purchasing cigarettes. But I never blamed Camel for that. ;)

Camel's marketing of cigarettes to children is a huge issue.

I happened to smoke Camel's back then so that is the brand I stated in my tale. But my friend smoked some nasty unknown clove crap he also purchased at this gas station. My point was that you can't always blame the manufacturer for how the product is placed/sold/controlled once it reaches the retailer. When I worked at a convenient store in college, we set up the displays and put up the window posters... not some company rep or anything. I would never expect all the different suppliers to come by every time we switched stuff around to make sure their product was not too close to the candy aisle. So I would not expect the Bucky Balls people to go to every retailer to make sure they are not selling them to kids. That is just not a reasonable expectation to have.

I don't think this is about "blaming the manufacturer" for the behavior of retailers. My anecdata is that they distributed their product to the gift shop of what is, overall, a kid and preteen museum. For adults, there is a King Tut exhibit and an IMAX theater, segregated from the rest. The main flow has animatronic dinosaurs, a bug house, a tide pool, a bunch of touchable exhibits. Kids come through on field trips. So this product is wrong for that retailer. There was probably no location in the store that would have kept it from being seen and wanted by kids.

Maybe the Buckyballs guys will say, "hey my hands were tied, I couldn't do that level of due diligence with every store I sell my product to." And the regulator will respond, "hey my hands were tied, I couldn't allow the product to be sold without that level of diligence."

That doesn't mean that regulator is somehow being unfair to Buckyballs. It means the laws of physics are being unfair to Buckyballs for not allowing them to create a cool sticky product without health risks to children.

Yes, there's a certain amount of proportion that needs to be taken. Yes, more kids die from drowning in backyard pools. But it's not unreasonable to ask that these products (like cigarettes, like prescription drugs) are more difficult for children to acquire at retail.

So then the answer is to more strictly enforce the stated age warning. The gift shop should be fined. Bucky Balls doesn't need to be shut down. Stores disregard age ratings on so many things because I don't believe they ever get punished for it. Parents also disregard age warnings but that is their call to make since it is their child. But if they do, there really shouldn't be much they can do about it. That is my opinion. You think whatever you wish.

It was alluded to in the comments, but how is this worse than steak knives, time locking doors, things with exposed wires or any other dangerous objects?

A kid can't swallow a steak knife.

Discussion on the ban 2 weeks ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4294041

Would these be vastly less fun if they were bigger, and thus a lot less likely to be swallowed? 1" diameter rare earth magnets would be pretty fun I think, although maybe more dangerous (due to being stronger)?

There are about 10000 things that are toxic if swallowed. Household cleaning supplies, toothpicks, you name it. Warnings do nothing, the kinds of people or children who swallow them aren't going to be reading warnings.

The paradoxical thing is that the complete abandonment of personal responsibility (no parent is responsible for watching their child) is coupled with a requirement that the business owner assume superhuman levels of responsibility (devising his product in such a way that it is bad-parent-proof).

One would imagine that the Obama team would want this story to die ASAP. Pick up the phone! Let my buckies go!

what does obama have to do w/ this?

I think he's there because this is a Fox News link.

The CEO put out full page ad calling for Obama to do something. That has nothing to do with Fox News. The ABC News article also referenced that fact.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/buckyballs-make...

http://www.getbuckyballs.com/blog/2012/08/open-letter-to-pre...

[Edited to remove the snark and just stick to the facts. Sorry for angering the HN gods.]

Not a lot, though as the head of the executive branch he could likely intervene to prevent the ban.

No, he can't. The CPSC is an independent agency, run by five commissioners. The president nominates the commissioners, but he can't give them orders or fire them without cause.

The CPSC is part of the executive branch. The president is in charge of the executive branch, and the only elected member of the executive branch. Who else should he be petitioning?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com