quinta-feira, 23 de julho de 2020
quinta-feira, 23 de abril de 2020
terça-feira, 12 de abril de 2016
sexta-feira, 16 de maio de 2014
quinta-feira, 22 de março de 2012
quinta-feira, 7 de julho de 2011
domingo, 2 de janeiro de 2011
Feliz Ano Novo - De Grávida a Mãe
terça-feira, 7 de setembro de 2010
The Normal Newborn and Why Breastmilk is Not Just Food
quinta-feira, 29 de julho de 2010
How to apply sunscreen
How much do I need?
At least six full teaspoons for an average adult. Anything less reduces protection.
How do you apply it?
Put it on 15 to 30 minutes before you go out in the sun, then 15 to 30 minutes afterwards – and every two hours after that. If you get sweaty or swim you need to reapply it even if it is water repellent. Don't rub it in too much – it should still look a bit white on your skin. Don't re-use last year's bottles – sunscreens can get damaged by heat and bacteria.
What SPF do I need?
Dermatologists recommend SPF 30. Children under six months should not be out in direct sun, but they need an SPF of 50. Sunscreen will also protect you from UV-A rays, which are also linked to skin cancer. Their protection is measured relative to the UVB protection given by a sunscreen and shown in stars – five gives 90% of the UVB protection.
Are clothes better protection?
Yes, if they are tightly woven and not light-coloured.
Dr. Luisa Dillner's How To... guides from The Guardian
quarta-feira, 21 de abril de 2010
Claro que é um Pastor Alemão / Of course it's a German shepherd
sexta-feira, 2 de abril de 2010
quarta-feira, 24 de março de 2010
quinta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2009
Communicating with children using smells
segunda-feira, 19 de outubro de 2009
4 por 6 - Refeições para 4 Pessoas por 6 euros - que desafio!
Participantes:;
Caos na Cozinha
Three Fat Ladies
Gourmets Amadores
Tachos de Ensaio (cujo subtítulo é Ensaios sobre a lucidez de cozinhar e a cegueira de saborear ;)
Cinco Quartos de Laranja
Is sleeping with your baby dangerous?
Far from seeking to demonise parents, advice to always put sleeping infants in their cots is a lifesaver
domingo, 13 de setembro de 2009
Why won't feminists admit the pleasure of infants?
(...)
People often compare having a new baby to the early days of a love affair, which is true as far as it goes, but one’s physical fixation on, and craving for, a newborn is much stronger and more intense that that. How often in a love affair can you literally find yourself in tears because you were away from a man for three hours?
Read all at Double X
segunda-feira, 23 de março de 2009
segunda-feira, 9 de março de 2009
Ora isto é que interessa :)
HONG KONG (Reuters) - Children of older fathers appear to perform less well in intelligence tests during infancy and childhood, a study by researchers in Australia shows.
In contrast, the study found that children with older mothers tended to gain higher scores in the same tests designed to measure the ability to think and reason, including concentration, learning, memory, speaking and reading skills.
Men and women are having children later particularly in developed countries. But while the effects of having children later for women are widely discussed, consequences of increased paternal age are not as well known.
Recent studies have drawn links between older fathers and specific health problems in their children, including birth deformities and cancer, as well as neuropsychiatric conditions such as autism and schizophrenia.
In the study, the researchers analyzed data from intelligence tests taken by 33,437 children who were born between 1959 and 1965 in the United States.
The children were tested at 8 months, 4 years and 7 years and were assessed for their sensory discrimination, hand-eye coordination, reading, spelling and arithmetic ability.
They found that the older the father, the more likely the child would have lower scores on the various tests.
In contrast, the older the mother, the higher the scores of the child in the cognitive tests.
"Previous researchers have suggested that the children of older mothers may perform better because they experience a more nurturing home environment; if this is the case, this study suggests that children of older fathers do not necessarily experience the same benefit," the researchers wrote in a statement.
The researchers said the lower scores obtained by offspring of older men may have to do with mutation.
"Unlike a woman's eggs which are formed when she herself is in the womb, a man's sperm accumulates over his lifetime, which previous studies have suggested can mean increased incidence of mutations in the sperm at an older age," they wrote.
sexta-feira, 6 de março de 2009
Warning! Eating books could seriously damage your health
You think I'm joking. But apparently the US government believes that these old publications might give children brain damage. You see, prior to 1985, many books were printed with inks and paints that used lead pigments. Last year, following the Chinese "killer toy" scandal, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, imposing strict limits on the amount of lead permitted in anything intended for use by children aged 12 and under, from toys to bikes to books. The law was retroactive and came into force on 10 February, and now – according to Walter Olson, an expert in American legal lunacy – anyone who tries to peddle old books for kids containing lead may be in serious trouble: "Penalties … can include $100,000 fines and prison time, regardless of whether any child is harmed."
Now, you might object that a child would have to eat a great many copies of the Partridge Family Special 1972 before enough lead was in his or her bloodstream to do any damage. And you'd be right, as there has never been a case of a child killed, wounded or mentally impaired by exposure to a browning reproduction of David Cassidy's face. However, mere facts rarely have much force against the juggernaut of ill-thought-out laws rushed through in a blur of media hype. And although the American Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has stated that it will hold off on enforcing the law until February 2010, Olson reveals that it has nevertheless issued guidelines instructing thrift stores and anyone selling second-hand children's goods – including books – manufactured in the Age of Lead that they may only sell them after they have paid for expensive tests proving the items are lead free. As a result, many charity shops and second-hand bookstores have started removing all old children's books from their shelves while refusing new donations, from fear that this stay of execution is only temporary. For, living as they do in the land of puppy-eating, baby-disemboweling litigators, they know full well that they will lose their homes, cars and underpants if subsequently found guilty of selling an illegal copy of Cat in the Hat to a minor.
Of course, this pencils-up-the-nose, forehead-slapping "I'm mad, me" stupidity has many negative consequences: traders' livelihoods are threatened; poor people lose access to a source of cheap literature for their kids; libraries may be forced to undertake expensive restocking, while out-of-print books will be lost forever (although an exception has been made for rarities, so long as they are sold for adult use only). The American Library Association actually warned Congress that the law was a bit shoddy but were ignored. Now according to Olson the ALA:
"… apparently intends to take the position that the law does not apply to libraries unless it hears otherwise."
However he goes on to explain that they may not prevail as:
"… the law bans the 'distribution' of forbidden items, whether or not for profit. In addition, most libraries regularly raise money through book sales, and will now need to consider excluding older children's titles from those sales. One CPSC commissioner, Thomas Moore, has already called for libraries to 'sequester' some undefinedly large fraction of pre-1985 books until more is known about their risks."
Quite a card, that Thomas Moore, eh? Thus a great many books could very soon become inaccessible. Even when they survive on private shelves, it is technically illegal to pass them on for free. And on top of all that, the law is incoherent: what's to stop a child from being exposed to books for adults published prior to 1985? Why not ban them all? Though I probably shouldn't even say that. The idea of banning books as a health hazard would be all too popular with those politicians who are opposed to freedom of speech, but too mealy-mouthed to come out and say it.
The mass destruction of books is another step on from Book TV, so that's a job well done for the members of the US Congress, busy as they are with a $787bn stimulus package that's going to prevent economic apocalypse. Not that any of them read that all the way through, either.
The Guardian
terça-feira, 24 de fevereiro de 2009
Disability
New presenters Alex Winters and Cerrie Burnell. Photograph: BBC
Nine official complaints have so far been lodged with the BBC – plus many more blog postings – about 29-year-old children's television presenter Cerrie Burnell, who was born with only one hand. Parents have complained that they cannot let their children watch her because the sight will "possibly cause sleep problems", that she is scaring toddlers, and that they are being forced to discuss the issue of disability with their offspring before they are ready.
Altogether, it makes you glad that the medieval witch-hunters weren't internet-enabled. The comments of course reveal nothing about the children's true feelings and everything about those of the adults involved. Young, CBeebies-age children do not have profound concerns about disability. I worked for several years, on and off, at a school for physically disabled children and it was never their able-bodied peers who were the problem when our paths crossed on school outings, but their parents, who kept them pinioned to their sides and made sure they turned their faces away. If a curious child ever did slip out of his mother's vice-like grip and come over, he or she would ask a few unabashed questions about what the problem was, want to press buttons on a few wheelchairs, and accept quite happily the explanations offered. To a young child, it is just another element of a large and confusing world that they want to inquire about, no more fearsome or embarrassing than any other.
No, Burnell's arm is likely only to give parents nightmares. It is they who do not want to confront disabilities, not now, not at teatime, not ever. To let your toddler be scared every day that Burnell has hurt herself rather than explain the truth is a failure of parenting, not an imposition by the BBC. And toddlers are frightened of lots of things. My two-year-old godson is currently terrified by trees ("Too scary! Too scary!"). His mother isn't out felling all nearby arboreal horrors – she's taking him on extra visits to the park.
So it should be here, though increasing exposure to presenters with disabilities is going to be tricky. I can only think of performer Mat Fraser, who appears occasionally on television, often presenting programmes about living with the shortened limbs caused by Thalidomide, and even more occasional screen appearances by the actor and standup comedian Francesca Martinez, who has cerebral palsy. Perhaps the most frequently seen is BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner , who has used a wheelchair since being shot while reporting from Riyadh five years ago.
The Guardian








