Search

Sir .—In the March 1991 issue of AJDC , 1 Dr Stiehm described his experience with strict curtailment of his three daughters' TV viewing so that they would devote more time to schoolwork, reading, music, and exercise. This worked out well for his family, but it might not for others who have different interests and/or lack entertainment and learning alternatives. Television has been stigmatized as the "boob tube," yet it also provides fine educational, news, public affairs, sports, music, and general entertainment programs. One must be selective to find good books in a library and good music on the radio; this also applies to TV programs. Thus, rather than proscribe TV, parents might be better advised to review the coming weeks' TV fare, go over it with their children, and help them decide which programs of value to watch. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with children viewing "Sesame Street"; "Mister

Sir .—I have several comments on the discussion of polio immunization policy for children presented by Marcuse 1 and Katz 2 in the September 1989 issue of AJDC . In the past, the real risk of oral polio virus vaccine (OPV)–related polio has probably been closer to 1 case per 100000 persons immunized. The state of Washington had about 1 case annually for many years. The rate may be lower nationally, but that is most likely a problem of lack of recognition and/or reporting. Additionally, OPV can cause nonparalytic illness, which usually goes unrecognized unless the vaccine virus is picked up inadvertently when spinal fluid is cultured and the patient is then asked about possible OPV exposures (Bruce G. Weniger, MD, MPH; David Remis, MD; Mark Heerema, MD; et al, unpublished case, October 1982). Perhaps the type III component in vaccine is now less apt to revert to neurotoxicity, but can

Sir. —Dr Fulginiti 1 made some good points in his editorial in the May issue of AJDC on standards. Having sat on several committees that grappled with establishing standards, I feel that it also is important to recognize some of the inherent biases of such committees. First, they tend to agree there is a problem requiring the establishment of a standard. Second, they are biased toward a "safe rather than sorry" viewpoint. Third, they do not reflect the universe of those who deal with the problem. Rather, they tend to reflect those who see the worst aspects of the problem and omit those who see the other end of the spectrum

Sir .—I appreciate that medical researchers, other scientists, and some medical specialists will find conversion to SI units useful. 1 Certain of these units might even be adopted with little complaint from the average physician. However, it seems arbitrary to foist all these units off on the general public when 99.9% of the people will obtain no benefit and merely become confused. Calorie is a term that has become a part of our everyday language. Why substitute joule? The general public thinks that a joule is a gem. To avoid confusion, let the scientists adapt rather than vice versa. The same applies to gram and milligram , which the public has finally begun to understand and use to a limited extent. To introduce mole for mass measurement will cause confusion. The public thinks a mole is a nuisance that makes a mess of front lawns. There is no public benefit from

Sir .—In the May 1988 issue of AJDC , Cochi et al 1 described the problem of mumps resurgence in the United States, due to a relatively underimmunized cohort of children born between 1967 and 1977. This cohort has been developing mumps at an older median age than children in the prevaccine days. It is regrettable that this problem was allowed to develop, because it was predictable and could have been attacked at less expense when the children were much younger and easily identifiable as being susceptible. 2,3 Mumps is a disease subject to eradication. It is not highly contagious and has no animal reservoir. Mumps vaccine should have been provided by Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, through its vaccine assistance program for low-income children in the early 1970s when it became apparent that the vaccine was being used widely by private health care providers for their patients and that this