Do what we do and cellotape them to the carpet !! Its much cheaper and they are always where you left them and no danger of them touching anything flammable or hot...

We also have velcro bedsheets which are pretty usefull too :wink:

Note to NSPCC

I WAS JOKING!!!!

 

Cheaper to just say NO NO NO NO NO NO firmly and positively with a straight face no coochee coo comments and no pulling faces at her cos you feel guilty after telling her NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

If you have an open fire the best guard is a big flat freestanding one that covers the whole opening with a significant overlap. You can then attach a couple of hooks to the guard and eyelets to the fireplace (or similar) to prevent it being pulled out of place. If Kirsten falls on it, it cant fall in. If the fire stands proud of the surround you have to go for one of those big cage guards.

I would turn the hot water temp down at your boiler/tank control so the radiators are hot but not hot enough to burn straight away. My kids learned not to touch them as soon as they were mobile. This is good practice anyway as it avoids them scalding themselves later on when they put their hand under the hot tap. :roll:

L

 

Once he was mobile we child proofed the living room with guards etc, put all the cds in draws. removed all breakable objects.

The fireguards are not pretty but the are adjustable. Our is slightly short but the clips at the rear of the guard once on the hook of the wall give the extra 4cm or so. There is a gap at the rear say 4cm but not big enough to get through or put arms through any where near the fire so it works well.

With regards to radiator guards. I'm sure places build them to size at what ever spec. Or have a go your self. Its just a box with a wood styled mesh on the front.

Regards

 

I agree with Lou on the Radiator Guards - they quickly learn, and make sure your tank thermostat is at say 50 so they don't get really hot.

B&Q do quite a good selection of Radiator covers.

I can't help on the Fireguard but would suggest not made from Chocolate

 

Pavlov's Conditional Learning model should be applied.

 

Pavlov's Conditional Learning model should be applied.

I've always wondered what would happen if you locked Pavlov's dog in the same box as Schroedinger's Cat...

 

Would that be Pandora's box?

Pavlov's Conditional Learning model should be applied.

I've always wondered what would happen if you locked Pavlov's dog in the same box as Schroedinger's Cat...

 

Would that be Pandora's box?

Pavlov's Conditional Learning model should be applied.

I've always wondered what would happen if you locked Pavlov's dog in the same box as Schroedinger's Cat...

Ummm.... no it wouldn't. Pandora's box was the source of all misfortune, but also hope. My box just contains a dog, a cat and some radioactive isotope

 

Should that be isotopes...

 

One of our suppliers do very good nursery guards for fireplaces http://www.stovax.com they do various different versions. Might be worth finding out who your local stockist is. Hope that is of some help.

Euan

 

Would that be Pandora's box?

Pavlov's Conditional Learning model should be applied.

I've always wondered what would happen if you locked Pavlov's dog in the same box as Schroedinger's Cat...

Ummm.... no it wouldn't. Pandora's box was the source of all misfortune, but also hope. My box just contains a dog, a cat and some radioactive isotope

"Pavlov meets Schroedinger up Pandora's box with hilarious results". Probably a new Living TV sitcom.

Hilarity depends of course if the dog has 'conditioned' to deal withfission/fusion. :wink:

 

Should that be isotopes...

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Some words are used in their singular if the plural of them would cause confusion.

For example, "some metal(s)" - the singular "metal", even when used with the plural "some" is still valid when there is only 1 metal, but a quantity of it. Ditto "some wool", "some cotton", some flour", "some sugar"...

"Some isotope" conveys a plural "quantity" of a singular isotope, but "Some isotopes" would suggest multiple isotopes of various elements, and would be ambiguous to say the least - and potentially inaccurate - as different isotopes would have different half lives (?) and would completely bugger up the experiment...

 

Agree with the comments on here about radiators - we have the added complication of an AGA in the kitchen. The wee man touched it experimentally once and hasn't again. Same with the radiators, not been an issue.

The fire guard we have is of the "hooked to the wall" variety. Only problem is that the wee man loves giving it a good rattling. Has ended up marking the granite flagstone!

 

Not convincing enough... not up to your usual standard.

Should that be isotopes...

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Some words are used in their singular if the plural of them would cause confusion.

For example, "some metal(s)" - the singular "metal", even when used with the plural "some" is still valid when there is only 1 metal, but a quantity of it. Ditto "some wool", "some cotton", some flour", "some sugar"...

"Some isotope" conveys a plural "quantity" of a singular isotope, but "Some isotopes" would suggest multiple isotopes of various elements, and would be ambiguous to say the least - and potentially inaccurate - as different isotopes would have different half lives (?) and would completely bugger up the experiment...

 

Not convincing enough... not up to your usual standard.

Should that be isotopes...

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Some words are used in their singular if the plural of them would cause confusion.

For example, "some metal(s)" - the singular "metal", even when used with the plural "some" is still valid when there is only 1 metal, but a quantity of it. Ditto "some wool", "some cotton", some flour", "some sugar"...

"Some isotope" conveys a plural "quantity" of a singular isotope, but "Some isotopes" would suggest multiple isotopes of various elements, and would be ambiguous to say the least - and potentially inaccurate - as different isotopes would have different half lives (?) and would completely bugger up the experiment...

Still, a perfectly valid and acceptable argument - and one for which you can't fault the logic...

(I could have just retorted that you were incorrect, as there is no reason whatsoever to spell a plural word with a "bold" last letter - but chose the 15 minute argument instead of the quick-win)

:lol:

 

Not convincing enough... not up to your usual standard.

Should that be isotopes...

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Some words are used in their singular if the plural of them would cause confusion.

For example, "some metal(s)" - the singular "metal", even when used with the plural "some" is still valid when there is only 1 metal, but a quantity of it. Ditto "some wool", "some cotton", some flour", "some sugar"...

"Some isotope" conveys a plural "quantity" of a singular isotope, but "Some isotopes" would suggest multiple isotopes of various elements, and would be ambiguous to say the least - and potentially inaccurate - as different isotopes would have different half lives (?) and would completely bugger up the experiment...

Still, a perfectly valid and acceptable argument - and one for which you can't fault the logic...

(I could have just retorted that you were incorrect, as there is no reason whatsoever to spell a plural word with a "bold" last letter - but chose the 15 minute argument instead of the quick-win)

:lol:

If you were smart enough (or could be arsed) you could have done both. But your quotes are in the wrong place for Mark anyway.

 

I used the "bold last letter" method to emphasise a corrected spelling. The spelling of the word is correct... the formatting of the letters is non-uniform...

Anyway, I believe your reasoning behind your incorrect spelling doesn't hold water... I understand why you have used the argument, but in this case it is flawed.

Isotope in this case is not similar to "metal"... rather it is more similar to "brick". For example, "bricks" can imply a number of a similar type of brick. Isotope would fall into this type of plural, i.e. isotopes can imply a number of similar types of isotope

And in order to keep this on-topic, we always used the flat metal screen across the fireplace and even if the hearth exists, then you can always hook it to the wall at each corner, but a few inches off the floor. If marking the hearth is an issue, then add a rubber (type) strip to the bottom of the fireguard

 

I used the "bold last letter" method to emphasise a corrected spelling. The spelling of the word is correct... the formatting of the letters is non-uniform...

Anyway, I believe your reasoning behind your incorrect spelling doesn't hold water... I understand why you have used the argument, but in this case it is flawed.

Isotope in this case is not similar to "metal"... rather it is more similar to "brick". For example, "bricks" can imply a number of a similar type of brick. Isotope would fall into this type of plural, i.e. isotopes can imply a number of similar types of isotope

And in order to keep this on-topic, we always used the flat metal screen across the fireplace and even if the hearth exists, then you can always hook it to the wall at each corner, but a few inches off the floor. If marking the hearth is an issue, then add a rubber (type) strip to the bottom of the fireguard

Bricks is a strange case, as it appears to be used randomly.

"Brick-wall" for instance. Not Bricks-wall. "Brick-built", not Bricks-built.

"What's this wall made of?" "Its made of brick"

Or to describe me... "built like a brick sh*t house"

Ergo the word "brick" is used as both a plural and singular.

Ditto "glass".

"What have you got there?" "Some glasses..." (this implies a pair of specs or some Champagne flutes)

"What have you got there?" "Some glass..." (this implies "some glass" in the literal sense)

And I believe the same goes for isotope.

"What have you got there?" "Some isotopes..." (this implies isotopes of more than 1 element)

"What have you got there?" "Some isotope..." (this implies isotopes of just 1 element)

*****

To remain on-topic, I'd recommend switching entirely to underfloor heating which leaves no "hot" elements to touch...

 

Kirsten's trick is to wait until dadda turns his back then race to the fireplace and stuff a lump of coal in her mouth to gum and suck. She did it today just after I'd dressed her up in a white shirt and white cardigan. :?

Thanks for all the advice, sorry if my original question was a bit off topic compared to the rest of the thread :roll:

 

Kirsten's trick is to wait until dadda turns his back then race to the fireplace and stuff a lump of coal in her mouth to gum and suck. She did it today just after I'd dressed her up in a white shirt and white cardigan. :?

Thanks for all the advice, sorry if my original question was a bit off topic compared to the rest of the thread :roll:

You could try replacing the coal in the fireplace with lumps of bread instead?

 

I used the "bold last letter" method to emphasise a corrected spelling. The spelling of the word is correct... the formatting of the letters is non-uniform...

Anyway, I believe your reasoning behind your incorrect spelling doesn't hold water... I understand why you have used the argument, but in this case it is flawed.

Isotope in this case is not similar to "metal"... rather it is more similar to "brick". For example, "bricks" can imply a number of a similar type of brick. Isotope would fall into this type of plural, i.e. isotopes can imply a number of similar types of isotope

And in order to keep this on-topic, we always used the flat metal screen across the fireplace and even if the hearth exists, then you can always hook it to the wall at each corner, but a few inches off the floor. If marking the hearth is an issue, then add a rubber (type) strip to the bottom of the fireguard

Bricks is a strange case, as it appears to be used randomly.

"Brick-wall" for instance. Not Bricks-wall. "Brick-built", not Bricks-built.

"What's this wall made of?" "Its made of brick"

Or to describe me... "built like a brick sh*t house"

Ergo the word "brick" is used as both a plural and singular.

Ditto "glass".

"What have you got there?" "Some glasses..." (this implies a pair of specs or some Champagne flutes)

"What have you got there?" "Some glass..." (this implies "some glass" in the literal sense)

And I believe the same goes for isotope.

"What have you got there?" "Some isotopes..." (this implies isotopes of more than 1 element)

"What have you got there?" "Some isotope..." (this implies isotopes of just 1 element)

Incorrect.

isotopes
def: Atomic species differing in mass number but having the same atomic number.

(12 Dec 1998)

ie 'isotopes' is used to refer to ONE element.

 

So explain "metal" and its plural usage...

 

So explain "metal" and its plural usage...

Metal is seen to be a 'continuous' substance (Einstein) like water, hence 'some metal' and 'some water' does not need to be pluralised. 'Non-continuous' substances such as isotopes (due to to the fact we're obviously talking on an atomic scale) need the plural.

Consider yourself educated. (Cue the comment 'I do' :wink: .)

 

Kirsten's trick is to wait until dadda turns his back then race to the fireplace and stuff a lump of coal in her mouth to gum and suck. She did it today just after I'd dressed her up in a white shirt and white cardigan. :?

Thanks for all the advice, sorry if my original question was a bit off topic compared to the rest of the thread :roll:

Dress her in Black instead then