Yikes! I imagine there must be a better way to solve this issue than by shutting down the entire company.

I would imagine that one might be able to continue selling these magnets via, say, a mail-order laboratory-supply store that caters to school science labs. Such stores carry lots of products that are dangerous in counterintuitive ways:

http://wardsci.com/product.asp?pn=IG0015551

Don't get the sodium metal wet or feed it after midnight!

But such products also aren't labeled like toys, or stocked in storefronts that also sell toys. They are labeled like industrial products and ship with MSDS sheets.

The problem is that killing the existing sales channels will likely kill the existing business, because the sales volume will drop by orders of magnitude.

Definitely agree.

Is it enough if you swallow one or do you have to ingest two or more?

Edit, found something:

>If more than one magnet was swallowed, it is highly unlikely that they will pass without surgical removal because of their tendency to bind together across membranes.

In my mind, it is PAINFULLY obvious that swallowing two of these will require surgical removal.

What I'm more interested in, actually, is what happens if you swallow just one? Are these magnets strong enough to influence / interfere with the iron in your blood?

Strong magnets are REALLY cool, and REALLY fun. The closest damn thing to magic, in my opinion. I think I'm going to go buy some of these balls before they get banned...

Iron in the blood is paramagnetic. It is not affected by magnets.

I was thinking maybe one inside you would react to outside metal like say keys or a belt or a metal chair/desk

The amount of iron in your blood is really minuscule, I don't think there's any risk there.

Good to know. My medical knowledge in this area extends in so far as my being able to say "there is iron in your blood".

Very interesting, thanks--did not know that. Based on that, the idea of a regulatory action does not seem unwarranted.

The issue, like all regulations, would be the balance between the problem and the remedy. Is it necessary to completely ban a product to keep it away from children? I'm thinking of things like cigarettes and alcohol, and wondering why they can be less restrictively regulated than little magnetic toys.

> I'm thinking of things like cigarettes and alcohol, and wondering why they can be less restrictively regulated than little magnetic toys.

Probably because Bucky Balls does not have anywhere near the lobbying money that Big Tobacco does.

That and that those products predate regulatory agencies and also sience had not caught up with the dangers (till relatively recently). In other words, they are kind of grandparented into the social fabric. Gasoline is kind of the same --extremely falmmable liquid which is sold without end-user regulation.

Exactly. Everyone knows the risks associated with stuff like cigarettes and alcohol, so we can get away with things that we wouldn't be able to get away with nowadays. There's a lot of stuff that's like this; for instance, paracetamol/Tylenol would probably not be approved if it was introduced now because it's really easy to accidentally overdose on.

Very true. I would even say those go hand-in-hand. I kind of doubt they would have been so easily grandfathered in if they had not spent insane amounts of money to get there. :)

I'm not sure how things would work out in the present; from a historical perspective, turning the screws on drink seems to have had ill-side effects (such as the rise of organized crime). How could they be less regulated yet not be susceptible to corruption by organized crime? The only way I can see added regulation is via higher taxes (which seem to be quite high already, but I suppose more is okay).

Drink and smoke have age, seller, purity, potency, health warnings, advert restrictions, etc. All deserved, but I'm wondering what else they could be madated to do before making the enterprise lucrative to circuvention (org crime).

If people are retarded, it's hardly the fault of that company, is it? You don't blame the gun company when somebody shoots himself ...

I would guess that almost every parent has had their child swallow a small object at some point. I know my mom has told stories of all of us kids doing it. Pennies, peach pits, etc.

The first time they freak out and go to the doctor, who tells them to look for it in their kid's poo. The second time they skip freaking out and the doctor step. Parents may not realize magnets are much more dangerous, because magnets, especially strong ones, are unusual objects that we don't have a lot of experience with, and for their size are unusually strong.

It's the old "reasonable man" test that the courts use. A reasonable man knows that guns are dangerous.

On the other hand, a reasonable man may not realize that swallowing magnets are far more dangerous than swallowing similar objects that aren't magnetic.

Which is why each package has five different warning labels on it. Sheesh.

From the comments I've seen in other discussions about this, people are entirely capable of reading all the warning labels and still failing to realise that swallowing these is actually far more dangerous than swallowing other metal objects.

They just seem to see the warning labels as an example of "health and safety gone mad" so to speak, of someone putting unnecessary warnings on about something that obviously can't be that dangerous. I can't see a good way of avoiding this problem.

Edit: Apparently there were similar comments in the previous HN discussion; at least one person[1] failed to grasp how much more dangerous they were if swallowed than other objects despite reading a 14-page complaint that described in graphic detail the exact mechanism by which they were more dangerous, the serious medical consequences, the long-term health risks even with prompt and successful surgery, and the history of kids being injured in this fashion by them. They're basically impossible to sell safely.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4294215

This not only seems true, but demonstrably is true. CPSC worked with the vendor of this toy for years getting labels and notifications out; the reports of children requiring debilitating surgical procedures to remove tiny little rare earth magnets from their GI tracts increased over time.

I like to think that a reasonable man would know swallowing magnets is extremely dangerous.

It's just that apparently there aren't all that many reasonable men. u_u

Given that many people initially thought this ban was silly until they researched the actual consequences of swallowing the balls, reality does not seem to bear out your hypothesis.

If you know anything about small children, they like to pick up stuff off the ground and eat it. I had these in my office and was constantly losing them on the floor. Now, if you do that at a house with kids...

Also, a stupid person eating them probably won't eat them in that pattern, finding one by accident, then another an hour later after the first has advanced through the system ahead of the second, which is how the flesh gets pinched eventually.

Well duh. Same as you make sure no sharp, pointy objects are lying around and electric outlets have child safeties.

Should we ban knifes now because children could cut themselves?

How about Teddy Bears with razor blades for stuffing? Ban or no?

The idea is that the product is more dangerous than appearances might let on.

Knives are necessary, not toys. Switchblades are useless, dangerous toys, and are often banned. So there you go. Anyway, I'm not advocating banning little magnets anyway--I do own some, you know--but pointing out that ordinary non-stupid use of them + a toddler could result in problems.

I love these things. But with a 2-year-old I would simply not want them in my house.

Then as a responsible parent you would choose not to buy them. Unfortunately many people are not responsible at all and that screws everybody else.

I own this toy and I have 2 kids, both younger than 5. I allow them to play with them a bit - and I put them up, out of reach , when I am not supervising them.

Nobody said guns were toys. Also, you can't swallow guns.

I guess you don't have kids?

I actually do - 4 & 1 3/4 years old. I also own these magnetic balls, and I haven't had any problems with them and my kids - except them losing some of them.

I allow them to play with it for a little, and then I put them in a safe place I know the kids can't get at them.

If I leave them on my desk, I know they will get it...so I don't leave them on the desk.

If a 12-year old is swallowing these things, there is something else going on in that household that needs to be addressed.

I guess it's a hard balance between protecting kids from poor parenting and freedom for good parents like yourself.

No it is not. The choice is freedom. Giving up freedom for perceived safety is never worth it.

What an impractical thing to say. We could have no laws at all if we followed that philosophy to its logical conclusion. We can't forbid theft, because that impinges on our natural freedom to obtain the things we want. We can't forbid public urination, because that means giving up our freedom to relieve ourselves wherever we like. And so on and so forth.

Living in civilization is all about giving up our freedom to do certain things in exchange for the protection and comfort that society offers.

I completely disagree.

Living in a civilization is about joining a social contract to not infringe on each others rights. (theft, rape, murder, etc infringe on the victims rights, where as buying Bucky Balls does not affect anyone but the purchaser)

When you sell tiny metal balls to teenagers on the auspices that those teenagers will scrupulously prevent them from being made available to toddlers, or else those toddlers might die, it's probably easy to argue that you're affecting people besides the immediate purchasers.

well.. the same thing could be said about allowing teenagers to drive a car on the auspices that they will not drive too fast, or text, or do any number of other stupid things... or else people might die. At some point you have to make people take responsibility for their actions.

Yes? Very yes? I say this not just as the terrified parent of a 13 year old: we are entirely too casual about letting teenagers get behind the wheels of motor vehicles.

So do we go after the car makers because irresponsible parents let irresponsible teens do stupid stuff while driving and some old lady got killed? Not so far.

Have to agree with this. Sacrificing liberty in chasing security achieves neither.

Groan. The debate isn't whether you should be free to own these things. The debate is whether companies should be free to market them as toys in the retail channel.

Or maybe the debate is whether an "adult's toy" is the same thing as a "kids toy"....and therefore deserves the same regulation.

Or rather, how does one treat the sale of adult toys.