Amber in SJ Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Was this already discussed? Just when I think regulations can't get more silly. Aren't most libraries cost cutting? How can they afford to get rid of so many books? Who would let their child gnaw a library book anyway? Who knows where it has been? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29741214/ What are your thoughts? Amber in SJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tess in the Burbs Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Well what's next? come inspect books in the home? I have stuff from my mother's childhood!!! Slippery slope is what I think. However, the local news had a clip last night and the local librarian made the point that children's books in the libraries are abused and if they had any from the 1980's she would be surprised. I agree....we tape a lot of books we get from the library b/c so often they are trashed by kids not taught to treat books with care! I think it's wrong to rid of books for the chance of having lead.....who is to say in 30 years the ink used now won't have some chemical linked to cancer and all books will be gone forever? :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuntieM Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Well, I can't say this surprises me. Stupid, yes; surprising, not really. So... head on over to the barn-swap book list thread and add your titles.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KristenS Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Actually, the pre-80s ones are probably the classics no one reads anymore so they are in decent condition. :/ I know I find plenty of 80s discards at our library sales. On the other hand, our library regularly purges things that haven't been checked out in X length of time, so I guess some of them end up getting discarded anyway. Yeah, this is part of that stupid CPSIA law. Join the underground ... collect old books! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katilac Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 That did sound ridiculous at first glance - - throwing away perfectly good books!! - - but then I realized that I am getting very, very old. The 1980s may not seem far back in time, but books published before this will be 30+ years old. In between the heavy use that goes hand-in-hand with library books, and the type of paper that is used in modern publishing, it is very unlikely that huge stacks of books in good condition are being tossed. Children's books are the most likely to get put in the mouth (one would hope), and the most likely to have truly heavy duty use (even kids who don't abuse books are not likely to have quite as light a hand as an adult, and children often read books over and over again). So, this is probably not the aspect that I would jump on as being totally unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 In the average public library, yes, any book that's in pristine condition after 30 years is just gathering dust instead of being eagerly read by a young child, but there are certainly much older books in many research libraries, including library systems such as Los Angeles, that have very large children's departments containing old volumes that still have merit. I have observed that my local library has some very old copies of classics in library bound editions that are in decent condition -- those thick spines really do hold up much better than the paperbacks! I rather wonder if whose who are so nervous should be using libraries at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tess in the Burbs Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I rather wonder if whose who are so nervous should be using libraries at all. exactly. those that are freaked out about the possibility of lead in an old book shouldn't go to the library. let us crazy people enjoy the poison, lol!:lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian (a lady) Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 In the average public library, yes, any book that's in pristine condition after 30 years is just gathering dust instead of being eagerly read by a young child, but there are certainly much older books in many research libraries, including library systems such as Los Angeles, that have very large children's departments containing old volumes that still have merit. I have observed that my local library has some very old copies of classics in library bound editions that are in decent condition -- those thick spines really do hold up much better than the paperbacks! I rather wonder if whose who are so nervous should be using libraries at all. There is a world of variation between pristine and needing to be disposed of. There are plenty of servicable reading copies of very good stories that fall into the range that the CPSC has declared suspect. Do please note that not one medical authority has said that the potential danger from lead exposure that might happen from reading books warrants removing the books. They were declared untested and not-proven-harmless. To understand the full absurdity of this law, you have to read about all the products that fall under it. Up to and including ball point pens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangermom Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Our children's room has many pre-1986 books, and happily they have no plans to throw any of them out. Board books and paperbacks only last a couple of years, but a good hardbound book will last quite a while. Of course, you'd have to start eating the books to be harmed by the ink, and in that case you'd have bowel trouble long before you got lead poisoning... So stupid. This law is so mind-blowingly stupid...I've been writing a few letters, but I need to write some more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plimsoll Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I hope that many of the classics we currently check out will appear in our library's upcoming book sale. Soon any emphasis on academic excellence, let alone the classics, will be dismissed as a symptom of lead poisoning caused by excessive exposure to great, old books. Mad Hatter, make room for me at the tea table! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian (a lady) Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I hope that many of the classics we currently check out will appear in our library's upcoming book sale. Soon any emphasis on academic excellence, let alone the classics, will be dismissed as a symptom of lead poisoning caused by excessive exposure to great, old books. Mad Hatter, make room for me at the tea table! Well, if they pull them from circulation for not being proven harmless, then the last place they'll end up is in the library sale. I've already heard of some libraries that have pulled children's books from their book sale nook or not had older children's books available at recent book sales. About your best hope is that they will be put out in an easily accessible bin when they are discarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Well, if they pull them from circulation for not being proven harmless, then the last place they'll end up is in the library sale. I've already heard of some libraries that have pulled children's books from their book sale nook or not had older children's books available at recent book sales. About your best hope is that they will be put out in an easily accessible bin when they are discarded. It was my understanding that this law will force removal of all such books from libraries, schools, book stores, used book sales, internet sales, ebay sales, thrift stores, etc. And if allowed to stand would probably open anyone who sold such books at curriculum exchanges, garage sales and the like to a law suit. I think the idea is to have no legal means of obtaining items that have not been tested for contaminants. Thereby ensuring the safety of our children. The difficulties, expense, and ridiculous nature of the details is to be set aside for the greater good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Virginia Dawn Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I'm starting to buy as many used children's classics as I can find resale. For years, I stopped buying books because I could easily get them at the library. Even without the lead law, it has been getting harder for me to find the books I want in the last two years. I have literally seen books vanish from the library catalog. I'm not saying it is anything sinister, but that is the way it is and I'm dealing with it buy going on a buying spree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soph the vet Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Have we lost all common sense? Donning my aluminum chapot to say: "It is all part of the dumbing down of our children":lol: Maybe they think piling the classics in the library parking lot and starting a bonfire will be too reminiscent of Germany in the 30's.:glare: How many actual cases of lead poisoning due to book ingestion are there anyway?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abreakfromlife Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The CPSC is interpreting the law to include books. When the initial outrage over this broke, didn't the CPSC come out and say 'oh, no, we don't intend for books to be covered, that would be silly'......that and the year stay helped to get rid of the outrage. So now, they're just going to go back to the original and hope ppl don't notice? Who are these ppl? And are there still only 2 of them on that board? This is just insane. I hope every library says no and refuse to go along with it. Someone at some point needs to yell stop and just do the right thing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian (a lady) Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 When the initial outrage over this broke, didn't the CPSC come out and say 'oh, no, we don't intend for books to be covered, that would be silly'......that and the year stay helped to get rid of the outrage. So now, they're just going to go back to the original and hope ppl don't notice? Who are these ppl? And are there still only 2 of them on that board? This is just insane. I hope every library says no and refuse to go along with it. Someone at some point needs to yell stop and just do the right thing! Actually the CPSC has been saying that books are covered from the beginning. There was a stay for retailers on testing requirements, but they are still liable if they sell something that violates the law. (And there is a wrinkle that the law allows state AGs to prosecute and they are affected by the stay anyway.) The CPSC guidelines for small businesses is eye opening. Some people in congressional offices have said that they didn't intend the law to cover the spectrum that it is being applied to. But when the law says things like "all" and "any" there isn't much wiggle room for the regulatory agency if they are going to comply with the requirements of the law. And while I love my books desperately, if I were a bookseller, it would be gut clenching to decide if I should give up a significant part of my market or risk a huge fine and the total loss of the business. If I were a librarian, I'm not which would be less career enhancing, removing a big chunk of the children's section or entangling the library (and the local government it is part of) in a government fine or a lawsuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian (a lady) Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Was this already discussed? Just when I think regulations can't get more silly. Aren't most libraries cost cutting? How can they afford to get rid of so many books? Who would let their child gnaw a library book anyway? Who knows where it has been? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29741214/ What are your thoughts? Amber in SJ One of the CPSC Commissioners recently released a lengthy letter about the new law. http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/dingell032009.pdf This letter is in response to a series of questions posed by a congressman. The section about libraries and used book stores begins on page 20 of the pdf file. I general I think the letter is well thought out and helps to convey much of the frustration over the enactment of the new law. One thing that did leap out at me was the statement that most children's books in libraries are recycled ever 18 lending cycles or three years. This might apply to paperback books or picture books that are being read to and by very young children. But it doesn't really reflect the reality that I see on library shelves. There are much older books there. Many are still quite servicable reading copies (which is why I love library book sales so much). And many are stories that are not readily available in print anymore or that are not commonly available in sturdy hardback or library bindings. But the letter is also clear that as the law stands now, it does in fact apply to books for children 12 and under, even if the risk posed in normal use of the book is minimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.