http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/14410411.Dad_inflicted_severe_chemical_burns_to_newborn_son_in__appalling__act_of_child_cruelty/
"A DAD who inflicted severe chemical burns on his newborn baby son by putting hot chilli sauce on his bottom has been jailed."
"He told police he put “Hot Diggidy Dog Hot Original Pepper Sauce” on the 27-day-old infant in an attempt to relieve the child’s constipation. It caused a severe chemical burn but the father failed to seek medical help."
"It is highly irritant and can cause a “significant blistering burn” if left in contact with the skin for any length of time."
"A nursing assistant noticed the wound and reported it. By this time the injury was so severe doctors had to perform a colostomy and reconstructive surgery to repair the damage."
Let's examine this, shall we? It's 22% "chillis", which from what I can tell are just some annuum. That's an annuum (lets say 200,000) SHU diluted down to 22%, that's something like 44,000 SHU.
http://www.chilefoundry.com/2011/02/10/hot-diggidy-dog-hot-original-pepper-sauce/
HONESTLY, to anyone here, does 44,000 SHU sounds like it would cause severe chemical burns that require "reconstructive surgery"?
This smacks of bullshit somewhere to me. Notice the GBH sentence was dropped. And these two sentences give a vagueness.
"The court heard the medical outcome for the child in later life was still uncertain."
"Forensic burns consultant and plastic surgeon Colin Rayner said he had never seen anything like the injury in more than 3,000 burns cases."
Stupidity? Yes. Severe cruelty requiring prison? Sounds more like nanny state over reaction to me.
"A DAD who inflicted severe chemical burns on his newborn baby son by putting hot chilli sauce on his bottom has been jailed."
"He told police he put “Hot Diggidy Dog Hot Original Pepper Sauce” on the 27-day-old infant in an attempt to relieve the child’s constipation. It caused a severe chemical burn but the father failed to seek medical help."
"It is highly irritant and can cause a “significant blistering burn” if left in contact with the skin for any length of time."
"A nursing assistant noticed the wound and reported it. By this time the injury was so severe doctors had to perform a colostomy and reconstructive surgery to repair the damage."
Let's examine this, shall we? It's 22% "chillis", which from what I can tell are just some annuum. That's an annuum (lets say 200,000) SHU diluted down to 22%, that's something like 44,000 SHU.
http://www.chilefoundry.com/2011/02/10/hot-diggidy-dog-hot-original-pepper-sauce/
HONESTLY, to anyone here, does 44,000 SHU sounds like it would cause severe chemical burns that require "reconstructive surgery"?
This smacks of bullshit somewhere to me. Notice the GBH sentence was dropped. And these two sentences give a vagueness.
"The court heard the medical outcome for the child in later life was still uncertain."
"Forensic burns consultant and plastic surgeon Colin Rayner said he had never seen anything like the injury in more than 3,000 burns cases."
Stupidity? Yes. Severe cruelty requiring prison? Sounds more like nanny state over reaction to me.
