2010/5/29 Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com>: > > It's a good article, but let's take a look at it. Let's assume that we could > develop a system that would prevent every one of these deaths, and that it > could be implemented for $10 per car. Now let's say that there are 30 > million cars sold in the US each year (one car per decade per person), that > means it would cost $300,000,000 to prevent these deaths. The article says > that there are 30 of these deaths per year, so that's $100,000 per life saved. > > On the surface, that seems like it might be a reasonable cost benefit ratio. > I'm certain that the parents of the kids would certainly think so. > > On the other hand, how many more lives could be saved by applying that third > of a billion dollars to a problem that kills far more people every year?
The math of it may be fine but I remember how the mere thought of losing Mattis had me crying when he was in intensive care for the first few days after birth without even such a thing as a risk of death of any kind. No logic in the world can lessen the pain and grief of a parent. I could tell you some stories. IMHO the solution should be a low tech item that can be sold separately. One or more identically coded RFID dog tags / garment tags for the kid and a keychain device for the parents that will go off whenever none of the RFID items is in reach. Market it as a loss-stop device for everything and anything. If someone sues you over the death of a baby, tell them it was designed to protect your belongings and not your own flesh and blood. Take a side route. BTW the article is great and also the link to the Pulitzer winner one... oh and yes they both had my crying and checking if my son still breathed... Cheers Ecke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.