Children confined to closed dark rooms are most likely to suffer from ?a)Goitreb)Bone deformationc)Pallagrad)AnaemiaCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

Class 1 Exam > Class 1 Questions > Children confined to closed dark rooms are mo...

Children confined to closed dark rooms are most likely to suffer from ?

a)
Goitre
b)
Bone deformation
c)
Pallagra
d)
Anaemia

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Children confined to closed dark rooms are most likely to suffer from ...

Children confined to closed dark rooms are most likely to suffer from bone deformation.
Reasoning:
When children are confined to closed dark rooms, they are deprived of sunlight and outdoor activities. Sunlight is a natural source of vitamin D, which is essential for healthy bone development. Therefore, the lack of sunlight and physical activity can lead to bone deformation in children.
Explanation:
The human body needs vitamin D to absorb calcium and promote bone health. Sunlight is the primary source of vitamin D, and it plays a crucial role in the development and maintenance of strong bones. When children are confined to closed dark rooms, they are not exposed to sunlight, leading to a deficiency of vitamin D. As a result, their bodies cannot properly absorb calcium, which can lead to weak and deformed bones.
Effects of Bone Deformation:
Bone deformation can have various negative effects on children's health and well-being, including:
1. Reduced bone strength and density: Lack of vitamin D and calcium can lead to weakened bones, making children more susceptible to fractures and injuries.
2. Skeletal deformities: Without proper bone development, children may experience skeletal deformities such as bowed legs, curvature of the spine, or abnormal growth patterns.
3. Delayed growth: Bone deformation can also affect overall growth and development in children, leading to stunted height and delayed milestones.
Prevention and Treatment:
To prevent and treat bone deformation in children confined to closed dark rooms, the following measures can be taken:
1. Increase exposure to sunlight: Encourage children to spend time outdoors and expose them to sunlight regularly, especially during the early morning or late afternoon when the sun is less intense.
2. Balanced diet: Provide a diet rich in calcium and vitamin D sources, such as dairy products, fish, eggs, and fortified foods.
3. Vitamin D supplements: Consult a healthcare professional to determine if vitamin D supplements are necessary to meet the child's daily requirements.
4. Physical activity: Encourage regular physical activity and exercise to promote bone health and development.
Conclusion:
Children confined to closed dark rooms are at risk of suffering from bone deformation due to the lack of sunlight and physical activity. It is essential to ensure that children receive sufficient exposure to sunlight, maintain a balanced diet, and engage in regular physical activity to promote healthy bone development and prevent skeletal deformities.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Children confined to closed dark rooms are most likely to suffer from ...

Effects of being confined to closed dark rooms on children:

Children who are confined to closed dark rooms are most likely to suffer from bone deformation. This is due to several factors that contribute to this condition:

Lack of sunlight:
- Sunlight is essential for the body to produce Vitamin D, which is crucial for the absorption of calcium and phosphorus - important minerals for bone health.
- Without exposure to sunlight, children may develop Vitamin D deficiency, leading to weakened bones and potential deformities.

Lack of physical activity:
- Being confined to a closed dark room limits a child's ability to move around and engage in physical activities.
- Physical activity is important for building strong bones and muscles, and lack of it can result in poor bone development and deformities.

Poor nutrition:
- Children who are confined in closed dark rooms may not have access to a balanced diet that is essential for proper growth and development.
- Poor nutrition, especially lack of calcium and other bone-strengthening nutrients, can contribute to bone deformities.

Psychological impact:
- Being confined to a closed dark room can also have psychological effects on children, leading to feelings of isolation, anxiety, and depression.
- Mental health issues can impact a child's overall well-being and may indirectly contribute to poor bone health.

In conclusion, children confined to closed dark rooms are at a higher risk of developing bone deformities due to a combination of factors such as lack of sunlight, physical inactivity, poor nutrition, and psychological distress. It is important to ensure that children have access to natural light, engage in regular physical activity, eat a balanced diet, and receive emotional support to prevent these negative health outcomes.

Answered by Yashina Kapoor · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for Class 1 exam

Similar Class 1 Doubts

Directions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.What good is vaccination? Obviously it is good for the person receiving the vaccine, if he is thus prevented from suffering from a nasty disease. More subtly, it can be good for an entire population since, if enough of its members are vaccinated, even those who are not will receive a measure of protection. That is because, with only a few susceptible individuals, the transmission of the infection cannot be maintained and the disease spread is checked. But in the case of many vaccines, there are non-medical benefits, too, in the form of costs avoided and the generation of income that would otherwise have been lost. These goods are economic. Quantifying these more general benefits is hard. But a pair of researchers from Harvard University has just tried. David Bloom and David Canning, together with Mark Weston, an independent policy consultant, have looked at two vaccination programmes and attempted to calculate the wider benefits. Their conclusions have just been published in the World Economics.Dr. Bloom and Dr. Canning believed that previous attempts to quantify the non-medical benefits of vaccination had been too narrow. These had looked at such data as the cost of a programme per life saved, but had failed to take account of recent work on the effects of health on incomes. For their study, they and Mr Weston identified how vaccination, in particular, might increase wealth.The first benefit was that healthy children are more likely to attend school and better able to learn. The second was that healthy workers are more productive. Both of these seem fairly obvious. Two other benefits, however, are less so. One being that good health promotes savings and investments. This is because healthy people both expect to live longer and actually do live longer. The other being that good health—and particularly, expectations about the good health of one’s offspring – promote the so-called demographic transition from large to small families that usually accompanies economic development. None of these factors, the researchers thought, had been properly taken account of in previous estimates of the cost-effectiveness of vaccination.To demonstrate that at least one of their ideas was correct, they turned to the Phillipines. Here, a study called the Cebu Longitudinal Health and Nutrition Survey has been going on since 1983. It follows the lives of Filipina mothers and those of their children born in 1983 and 1984. Among the data collected were the records of the vaccinations these children received as infants and also their scores in language, maths and IQ tests at the age of ten. The three researchers organized children whose social circumstances were similar into groups, depending on whether or not the children had been vaccinated against a range of diseases including measles, polio and tuberculosis. They then compared test scores between groups. They found a statistically significant difference in the language and IQ scores between otherwise comparable vaccinated and unvaccinated children. In both cases, those of the unvaccinated were lower. Since it is known for the other studies that these scores are good predictors of adult income, the researchers concluded that childhood vaccination would have significant economic benefits.In order to predict those benefits, they turned to vaccination campaign that is just beginning. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) is a collaboration of governments, international organizations, vaccine-makers and charities. It is embarking on a 15-year programme to vaccinate children in 75 of the world’s poorest countries against a range of childhood diseases. The programme is scheduled to cost 13 bn dollars. First, the researchers used data from previous vaccination programmes to estimate both the reduction in mortality and the improvement in the health of the living that might be expected to flow from the new GAVI programme. Then they combined these estimates with existing data about the economic effects of health improvement in these programmes in poor countries, in particular their effects on future income. Using standard accounting methodsthey calculate that the new GAVI programme can be expected to generate an immediate rate of return of 12.4%, rising to 18% by the end of the programme. And that does not include any benefits that might come from the demographic transition. The dispassionate economic case for vaccination, therefore, looks at least as strong as the compassionate medical one. If the figures produced by Dr Bloom, Dr Canning and Mr Weston are right, it truly is an investment for the future.Q. In the given sentence highlighted in the passage, pick the part that has an error in it.

View answer

Directions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.What good is vaccination? Obviously it is good for the person receiving the vaccine, if he is thus prevented from suffering from a nasty disease. More subtly, it can be good for an entire population since, if enough of its members are vaccinated, even those who are not will receive a measure of protection. That is because, with only a few susceptible individuals, the transmission of the infection cannot be maintained and the disease spread is checked. But in the case of many vaccines, there are non-medical benefits, too, in the form of costs avoided and the generation of income that would otherwise have been lost. These goods are economic. Quantifying these more general benefits is hard. But a pair of researchers from Harvard University has just tried. David Bloom and David Canning, together with Mark Weston, an independent policy consultant, have looked at two vaccination programmes and attempted to calculate the wider benefits. Their conclusions have just been published in the World Economics.Dr. Bloom and Dr. Canning believed that previous attempts to quantify the non-medical benefits of vaccination had been too narrow. These had looked at such data as the cost of a programme per life saved, but had failed to take account of recent work on the effects of health on incomes. For their study, they and Mr Weston identified how vaccination, in particular, might increase wealth.The first benefit was that healthy children are more likely to attend school and better able to learn. The second was that healthy workers are more productive. Both of these seem fairly obvious. Two other benefits, however, are less so. One being that good health promotes savings and investments. This is because healthy people both expect to live longer and actually do live longer. The other being that good health—and particularly, expectations about the good health of one’s offspring – promote the so-called demographic transition from large to small families that usually accompanies economic development. None of these factors, the researchers thought, had been properly taken account of in previous estimates of the cost-effectiveness of vaccination.To demonstrate that at least one of their ideas was correct, they turned to the Phillipines. Here, a study called the Cebu Longitudinal Health and Nutrition Survey has been going on since 1983. It follows the lives of Filipina mothers and those of their children born in 1983 and 1984. Among the data collected were the records of the vaccinations these children received as infants and also their scores in language, maths and IQ tests at the age of ten. The three researchers organized children whose social circumstances were similar into groups, depending on whether or not the children had been vaccinated against a range of diseases including measles, polio and tuberculosis. They then compared test scores between groups. They found a statistically significant difference in the language and IQ scores between otherwise comparable vaccinated and unvaccinated children. In both cases, those of the unvaccinated were lower. Since it is known for the other studies that these scores are good predictors of adult income, the researchers concluded that childhood vaccination would have significant economic benefits.In order to predict those benefits, they turned to vaccination campaign that is just beginning. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) is a collaboration of governments, international organizations, vaccine-makers and charities. It is embarking on a 15-year programme to vaccinate children in 75 of the world’s poorest countries against a range of childhood diseases. The programme is scheduled to cost 13 bn dollars. First, the researchers used data from previous vaccination programmes to estimate both the reduction in mortality and the improvement in the health of the living that might be expected to flow from the new GAVI programme. Then they combined these estimates with existing data about the economic effects of health improvement in these programmes in poor countries, in particular their effects on future income. Using standard accounting methodsthey calculate that the new GAVI programme can be expected to generate an immediate rate of return of 12.4%, rising to 18% by the end of the programme. And that does not include any benefits that might come from the demographic transition. The dispassionate economic case for vaccination, therefore, looks at least as strong as the compassionate medical one. If the figures produced by Dr Bloom, Dr Canning and Mr Weston are right, it truly is an investment for the future.Q. In the context of the passage, the concept of demographic transition as associated with economic development can be understood as ?

View answer

Directions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.What good is vaccination? Obviously it is good for the person receiving the vaccine, if he is thus prevented from suffering from a nasty disease. More subtly, it can be good for an entire population since, if enough of its members are vaccinated, even those who are not will receive a measure of protection. That is because, with only a few susceptible individuals, the transmission of the infection cannot be maintained and the disease spread is checked. But in the case of many vaccines, there are non-medical benefits, too, in the form of costs avoided and the generation of income that would otherwise have been lost. These goods are economic. Quantifying these more general benefits is hard. But a pair of researchers from Harvard University has just tried. David Bloom and David Canning, together with Mark Weston, an independent policy consultant, have looked at two vaccination programmes and attempted to calculate the wider benefits. Their conclusions have just been published in the World Economics.Dr. Bloom and Dr. Canning believed that previous attempts to quantify the non-medical benefits of vaccination had been too narrow. These had looked at such data as the cost of a programme per life saved, but had failed to take account of recent work on the effects of health on incomes. For their study, they and Mr Weston identified how vaccination, in particular, might increase wealth.The first benefit was that healthy children are more likely to attend school and better able to learn. The second was that healthy workers are more productive. Both of these seem fairly obvious. Two other benefits, however, are less so. One being that good health promotes savings and investments. This is because healthy people both expect to live longer and actually do live longer. The other being that good health—and particularly, expectations about the good health of one’s offspring – promote the so-called demographic transition from large to small families that usually accompanies economic development. None of these factors, the researchers thought, had been properly taken account of in previous estimates of the cost-effectiveness of vaccination.To demonstrate that at least one of their ideas was correct, they turned to the Phillipines. Here, a study called the Cebu Longitudinal Health and Nutrition Survey has been going on since 1983. It follows the lives of Filipina mothers and those of their children born in 1983 and 1984. Among the data collected were the records of the vaccinations these children received as infants and also their scores in language, maths and IQ tests at the age of ten. The three researchers organized children whose social circumstances were similar into groups, depending on whether or not the children had been vaccinated against a range of diseases including measles, polio and tuberculosis. They then compared test scores between groups. They found a statistically significant difference in the language and IQ scores between otherwise comparable vaccinated and unvaccinated children. In both cases, those of the unvaccinated were lower. Since it is known for the other studies that these scores are good predictors of adult income, the researchers concluded that childhood vaccination would have significant economic benefits.In order to predict those benefits, they turned to vaccination campaign that is just beginning. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) is a collaboration of governments, international organizations, vaccine-makers and charities. It is embarking on a 15-year programme to vaccinate children in 75 of the world’s poorest countries against a range of childhood diseases. The programme is scheduled to cost 13 bn dollars. First, the researchers used data from previous vaccination programmes to estimate both the reduction in mortality and the improvement in the health of the living that might be expected to flow from the new GAVI programme. Then they combined these estimates with existing data about the economic effects of health improvement in these programmes in poor countries, in particular their effects on future income. Using standard accounting methodsthey calculate that the new GAVI programme can be expected to generate an immediate rate of return of 12.4%, rising to 18% by the end of the programme. And that does not include any benefits that might come from the demographic transition. The dispassionate economic case for vaccination, therefore, looks at least as strong as the compassionate medical one. If the figures produced by Dr Bloom, Dr Canning and Mr Weston are right, it truly is an investment for the future.Q. What is the tone of the passage?

View answer

Directions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.What good is vaccination? Obviously it is good for the person receiving the vaccine, if he is thus prevented from suffering from a nasty disease. More subtly, it can be good for an entire population since, if enough of its members are vaccinated, even those who are not will receive a measure of protection. That is because, with only a few susceptible individuals, the transmission of the infection cannot be maintained and the disease spread is checked. But in the case of many vaccines, there are non-medical benefits, too, in the form of costs avoided and the generation of income that would otherwise have been lost. These goods are economic. Quantifying these more general benefits is hard. But a pair of researchers from Harvard University has just tried. David Bloom and David Canning, together with Mark Weston, an independent policy consultant, have looked at two vaccination programmes and attempted to calculate the wider benefits. Their conclusions have just been published in the World Economics.Dr. Bloom and Dr. Canning believed that previous attempts to quantify the non-medical benefits of vaccination had been too narrow. These had looked at such data as the cost of a programme per life saved, but had failed to take account of recent work on the effects of health on incomes. For their study, they and Mr Weston identified how vaccination, in particular, might increase wealth.The first benefit was that healthy children are more likely to attend school and better able to learn. The second was that healthy workers are more productive. Both of these seem fairly obvious. Two other benefits, however, are less so. One being that good health promotes savings and investments. This is because healthy people both expect to live longer and actually do live longer. The other being that good health—and particularly, expectations about the good health of one’s offspring – promote the so-called demographic transition from large to small families that usually accompanies economic development. None of these factors, the researchers thought, had been properly taken account of in previous estimates of the cost-effectiveness of vaccination.To demonstrate that at least one of their ideas was correct, they turned to the Phillipines. Here, a study called the Cebu Longitudinal Health and Nutrition Survey has been going on since 1983. It follows the lives of Filipina mothers and those of their children born in 1983 and 1984. Among the data collected were the records of the vaccinations these children received as infants and also their scores in language, maths and IQ tests at the age of ten. The three researchers organized children whose social circumstances were similar into groups, depending on whether or not the children had been vaccinated against a range of diseases including measles, polio and tuberculosis. They then compared test scores between groups. They found a statistically significant difference in the language and IQ scores between otherwise comparable vaccinated and unvaccinated children. In both cases, those of the unvaccinated were lower. Since it is known for the other studies that these scores are good predictors of adult income, the researchers concluded that childhood vaccination would have significant economic benefits.In order to predict those benefits, they turned to vaccination campaign that is just beginning. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) is a collaboration of governments, international organizations, vaccine-makers and charities. It is embarking on a 15-year programme to vaccinate children in 75 of the world’s poorest countries against a range of childhood diseases. The programme is scheduled to cost 13 bn dollars. First, the researchers used data from previous vaccination programmes to estimate both the reduction in mortality and the improvement in the health of the living that might be expected to flow from the new GAVI programme. Then they combined these estimates with existing data about the economic effects of health improvement in these programmes in poor countries, in particular their effects on future income. Using standard accounting methodsthey calculate that the new GAVI programme can be expected to generate an immediate rate of return of 12.4%, rising to 18% by the end of the programme. And that does not include any benefits that might come from the demographic transition. The dispassionate economic case for vaccination, therefore, looks at least as strong as the compassionate medical one. If the figures produced by Dr Bloom, Dr Canning and Mr Weston are right, it truly is an investment for the future.Q. What is the tone of the passage?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions by selecting the correct/most appropriate options:Increased time constraints and the need for convenience in raising children appear to offset parents concerns about the future when it comes to their carbon footprints, according to new research by University of Wyoming economists and a colleague in Sweden.UWs Jason Shogren and Linda Thunstrom, along with Jonas Nordstrom of the Lund University School of Economics and Management, have documented that two-adult households with children emit over 25 percent more carbon dioxide than two-adult households without children. Their research appears April 15 in PLOS One, a journal published by the Public Library of Science."While having children makes people focus more on the future and, presumably, care more about the environment, our study suggests that parenthood does not cause people to become greener," Shogren and Thunstrom say. "In fact, the difference in CO2 emissions between parents and non-parents is substantial, and thats primarily because of increased transportation and food consumption changes." The study involved an analysis of expenditures on goods and services by households in Sweden. The researchers found that parents with children at home consume goods and services that emit CO2 in the areas of food, such as meat, and transportation, such as gasoline, at higher rates than childless households.The economists note that time constraints become more binding, and convenience may become more important when people have children." Parents may need to be in more places in one day," resulting in people driving themselves instead of using public transportation or bicycling, the researchers wrote. "They also need to feed more people. Eating more pre-prepared, red meat carbon-intensive meals may add convenience and save time."The disparity in the carbon footprints of Swedish households with and without children is particularly striking, as concerns about climate change are more pronounced in Sweden than most other developed countries. Most Swedes believe climate change is real and have accepted sizable CO2 taxes, and households with children are subsidized, which helps to alleviate some of the time crunches for parents. Sweden has generous parental leave and subsidized daycare, and parents have a legal right to reduced work hours."If were finding these results in Sweden, its pretty safe to assume that the disparity in carbon footprints between parents and nonparents is even bigger in most other Western countries," Thunstrom says -- though she notes that Sweden also has one of the worlds highest female labour participation rates, which may add to the time constraints of household with children. "Becoming a parent can transform a person -- he or she thinks more about the future and worries about future risks imposed on their children and progeny," Shogren says. "But, while having children might be transformational, our results suggest that parents concerns about climate change do not cause them to be greener than non-parent adults."Q. Choose the word which is most nearly the OPPOSITE in meaning to the word Alleviate as highlighted in the passage.

View answer

Top Courses for Class 1View all

Spelling Bee

Mental Maths

General Knowledge for Young Learners

Mathematics Olympiad for Class 1

English Grammar for Junior Classes