Here’s the setup: A man has a family with two young children, one an infant. His brother is a ne’er do well scofflaw who lived three houses down; he also has a family with an infant child. Unbeknownst to man, his brother is cooking meth in his house. Brother also has great grandmother’s baby crib which has been in his family for one hundred years.
Brother gets busted by the police and is arrested. The house is set for destruction. Not wanting grandma’s antique to be destroyed, man goes into the house and takes the crib out. He cleans it with household chemicals and puts it inside his own house and decides to use it for his own infant child.
The authorities find out that he is using the crib and decide to take action. What should be done?
The authorities. Yes, he gets a good lawyer. My question is what should happen. Pretend you are the king in an absolute monarchy and you get to decide.
I don’t really see the question here. If the crib is contaminated, it’s contaminated. If it’s not, then it’s not. If I were in charge of the world, I’d test the darn thing.
It is widely reported that any manufacture or use of meth “contaminates” the structure and furnishings of the space. Certainly there are detectable residues on just about everything.
It is harder to find actual data on,
What level of trace residue represents an actual, quantifiable hazard?
How effective is ordinary cleaning in reducing that residue and effect?
How does the ineradicable level of hazard compare with the hazards of other common household exposures, like bisphenol, plasticized vinyl, and cleaning products?
As yet, I see no reason to think that the kid in the cleaned meth-house crib is necessarily at all outside the range of what kids are routinely exposed to in many households.
Whatever the dangers of being in a crib with meth residue, I doubt they compare to the danger of being ripped out of your parent’s arms and put into the US foster care system.
This statement makes no sense to me; are you suggesting that our foster care system, however flawed it may be, is on average, worse than living inside a sloppy meth lab?
I’d buy a new mattress for the crib, if he hadn’t already. Meth lab residue is hard to get out of a mattress. Otherwise, it sounds like he cleaned the crib according to the recommended methods (detergent and water) so I don’t understand what the problem is. Why are the authorities “taking action”?
All assuming that the crib is otherwise safe for use, of course.
Not in a meth lab - in a normal house, but using a crib that was once near a meth lab. Which isn’t to suggest using the crib is harmless or a good idea, but taking the kids away seems like an extreme overreaction.