byline

True, but he can make choices that mean he doesn't have to expose himself to dangers. When he goes to work -- which he has to do to support us -- he is then exposed to dangers which automatically come with the work that he does. If he chooses not to perform those tasks, or chooses not to wear the mandatory protections, he risks getting fired. When we are at home, we can choose when we want to go outside, if we protect ourselves from the sun, etc. I get all that, and don't feel that has to be codified into law. There's nothing in his professional obligations, or mine, which requires us to spend hours on end overexposed to UV rays. If we are overexposed, then it's a direct result of our own choice. That's our responsibility, and of course I get that. But if either of our jobs required us to be out in the sun for extended periods of time, then I expect that to be treated with the same workplace safety rules that govern everything else. On the flipside, if I had to work outside in subzero temperatures, then I would have to follow workplace safety rules that protect me from hypothermia, frostbite, etc. Just because those are more immediate dangers doesn't make them more "real" than the danger of sun overexposure; I firmly believe it's a matter of perception, and many people -- including those with decision-making power over others -- just don't take it as seriously as they should. But I can tell you, from the experiences I've been having for the past several years, that they should. I see this as being no different from any other activity in which being exposed to the sun is mandatory. Because sun overexposure is a known danger due to UV rays, I feel that should be handled in exactly the same way as mandatory workplace safeguards. And I don't think this should be restricted just to drum corps. It should be standard operating procedure for any entity that requires its employees, members, whatever, to be out in the sun for prolonged periods of time. We know what the dangers are, but I think that the powers that be are still ignoring them for the sake of "now" vs. what will inevitably happen for many people, due to the thinning of the ozone layer, years down the road. But I think that because people don't see it as an immediate threat, they don't treat it as the very real threat that it is.

OK, but here's the thing: smoking, soda, junk food, etc., are not mandatory to marching in drum corps. However, spending endless hours exposed to the sun is. That's why I think corps, and DCI, have to take a stand on this. If corps members got to choose whether to rehearse outside or in (just as they get to choose what they eat or drink, if they smoke and so on), then we would be having a completely different discussion, but that choice is out of their hands. Corps must rehearse outdoors, during the day, typically during peak UV levels. And since that is a requirement, just as my husband's job requires him to work with caustic chemicals and around dangerous equipment (and he is required to use certain safeguards to protect himself), I believe that mandatory safeguards must be put in place to protect corps members against a more insidious -- but still very real -- danger. The problem, I believe, is that people still insist on ignoring the dangers . . . including the people in decision-making positions with drum corps.

Well, the way I look at it is that a hat will actually keep a person from overheating because it protects the head from the sun. And I don't think that wearing a T-shirt will cause a person to overheat. After all, we wouldn't be asking corps members to wear wool sweaters on the field; it's a cotton-blend T-shirt. Combine a tight-weave T-shirt with sunscreen, and that person has, if not total protection against the sun, then at least much better than what many corps members are getting now.

It's early in the season. I have no inside knowledge, but I suspect that the closer is not completed yet (whose is?), and we will be seeing it later on in its more fully finished form.

UV-protected fabric is an additional layer of protection, but the reality is that a physical barrier to the sun is always better than a chemical one like sunscreen (because the chemical one always runs the risk of running off due to sweat, etc.). It's pretty simple, really. Wear a wide-brimmed hat, sunglasses and a T-shirt, and that person is getting far, far more protection from UV rays than if s/he were wearing a tube top (for women)/no shirt (for men), no hat and no sunglasses. There simply is no reasonable argument around that. The argument seems to have to do with cosmetics; what does a person want to look like? To me, that's the emotions controlling the rational mind. What we look like is fine for going to a meeting, going out on dates, going to a party, etc. But it should not be the determining factor if safety is an issue, whether that be in the workplace (which has rules in place to protect employees from known dangers) or a more voluntary "workplace" like a drum corps.

Love this photo! Another all-time favorite show of mine. Is this at the end of "Russian Christmas Music"?

Too bad, as that '87 Phantom show is one of my all-time favorites.

The "T-zone" area (face, shoulders and chest) seems to be the area most susceptible to UV damage, maybe because the upper part of the body is simply the most exposed. In an outdoor activity, you also have to strike a balance between what effectively protects a person from UV rays (and physical barriers are always going to be superior to chemical ones) and keeps that person's body cool enough to function in hot temperatures. The most rational balance is to have a hat to protect the top of the head and ears, sunglasses to protect the eyes, and a T-shirt to protect the shoulders and chest. It's fine to expect people to grow up, emotionally. Young people have been doing that for decades in drum corps. It is not fine, IMO, to use the attitude of "Young people always think they're invincible, and that will never happen to them" (because they do; I know I did) as an excuse to let them do whatever they want, thus endangering their future health. I believe it's the obligation of an organization which requires its members to rehearse outdoors, in the highest UV conditions possible, to protect those members from those conditions as much as possible. Because as long as our society prizes appearance over health (which, by and large, it does), there will always be peer pressure to conform to not looking the dreaded "pasty white" but tanned (or, at the very least, burnt). Which, as we know, is nothing more than UV damage to the skin, which carries serious health implications down the road. My husband works in a manufacturing environment. When working on the plant floor or handling caustic chemicals, he wears a uniform and other protective gear (safety glasses, etc., to protect him from chemical burns) and must remove his wedding ring, watch, etc. The reason? If those items were to get caught in a piece of equipment, he could lose that finger or hand. Those are the rules of the organization he works for, and he complies with them because they are in his own best interests. The same should be true, IMO, with regard to organizations that require their employees, members, whatever, to spend many hours per day, for weeks on end, in direct sunlight. UV damage is far more insidious than the more immediate threat of being hurt by machinery or chemicals, but it's no less real. I think the problem with UV damage is that it is so insidious. Our perception of its dangers is so far down the road that we ignore them for the sake of now, and also for the sake of achieving that "dark" look which society prizes. Someone mentioned that people who were fair-skinned and covered themselves with more clothing were not teased for it. And that's good. But peer pressure doesn't happen only through direct teasing. Peer pressure is another one of those insidious things that makes its way into our lives in countless forms, many of them subtle. There are probably people who should be taking more steps to protect themselves but don't, because they are caving to the more subtle -- but still powerful -- forms of peer pressure (media messages, etc.). It's not that these people lack intelligence. But often our rational minds know things which our emotional selves ignore. That's not just true for young people; it happens at all ages. Which is why sometimes it's better to have rules, such as those which exist in manufacturing, so that our emotional selves don't override the rational choices we should be making. If it's mandatory to wear a uniform in performance/competition, then why not make it mandatory to wear a uniform in rehearsal? If it's a requirement, and a person wants to march in that corps badly enough, then he or she will wear the uniform. IMO, they would lose nothing and gain years down the road, when they're not having to worry so much about getting skin cancer.

I love the show already! And maybe this is an idea that's already being considered; after all, it's early in the season. But I wish there were some way to incorporate the old, traditional Madison "hat bow" (used to be done by the guard in the closer) in "Empire State of Mind." For me, that would be such a "goosebump" moment.

Well, that's why there are generally blanket recommendations for young people. That which protects the minority, in the end, protects the majority. And in an activity which makes outdoor rehearsals mandatory, in the highest UV conditions possible, I think that's wise.

True. And I think it's also good to point out that, to get the necessary amount of vitamin D, all one has to do is go outside 20 minutes per week. Obviously this is not the equivalent of corps rehearsals, in which a person is outside for anywhere from eight to 12 hours a day, seven days a week, all summer long. Overexposure to UV rays is not the equivalent of a healthy dose of vitamin D from sunlight, and should not be mistaken as such.

Yup. If we used the more accurate term of "skin damage caused by ultraviolet radiation" (rather than calling it a tan), I think it would get through to a lot more people.

True, but I can guarantee you that in high school marching bands, that is one of the rules that applies; you must wear a shirt at rehearsals. Now, the reasons could be different, having to do with what is "appropriate" attire in a school setting, but it's still mandatory. I think the problem with young people is they think they are invincible, and this will never happen to them. I had that very same mindset when I was busy overexposing myself to UV rays. If it had been made mandatory by my corps, I would have followed those rules just as I followed all the other rules . . . and that would have protected me against myself. It's that pesky feeling of invincibility that's so hard to overcome, and I think that the organization overseeing these young people should be in the business of looking out for their best interests. After all, these organizations generally have people of a more mature age, who have the hindsight and perspective necessary to make those decisions on behalf of the people who don't.

As someone who burns easily and is one of the skin groups at higher risk for skin cancer (fair skin, freckles easily), I have some experience with this. I was never one to sunbathe; I hated it it, got bored easily, started sweating and getting bitten by bugs and so just couldn't tolerate it for more than 15 minutes. My primary overexposure to sun was in drum corps and marching band from 1974 to 1980, then teaching color guard from 1981 to 1992. I got many bad sunburns during that time, and that is key. Sun overexposure is cumulative, and that cumulative effect seems to be a factor in how susceptible a person is to skin cancer. That's why there's so much emphasis on protecting people from sun overexposure prior to the age of 18. It's the cumulative effect that doctors are concerned about. Starting a few years ago, I am now being treated for actinic keratosis, which is basically a precursor to skin cancer. When these small growths grow crusty or scaly, I either have them frozen off by my doctor or I treat them with Aldara, a topical cream. I will have to do this for the rest of my life and pray that I never get anything more serious, but the odds are not in my favor. Do I think it should be a rule to wear T-shirts during rehearsal? Personally, yes I do. Hats and sunglasses too, to protect eyes from UV radiation. Here's a "Health Focus" article I wrote a few years ago. It's long, but hopefully it will provide some useful information: When it comes to skin cancer, remember one word: change. “You're basically looking for any changes in the skin,” explains Bonnie Schnittker, public health nurse with the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit. Such changes include: smooth, shiny bump or crater solid-red raised bump sore that doesn't heal sore or bump that bleeds and develops a crust or scab pink, red or brown patches that often go rough and scaly, then become itchy or tender yellow-white or stretched change in the skin “It could start at the site of a burn, injury or scar, but then all of the sudden it starts changing after it's healed,” Schnittker adds. “Basically it's anything that's new or different, or wasn't there before.” People who have freckles, moles or age spots need to be on the lookout for the ABCDs of skin cancer: asymmetry, border irregularity, colour and diameter. In addition to doing regular skin checks on their own, people should enlist their spouses or partners, hairdressers and massage therapists to look for changes on those parts of the body they can't see easily, such as the scalp and back, as well as the back of the neck, shoulders and legs. These “lookouts” are not in a position to diagnose, but they can alert people to changes in skin appearance and texture. Often you can feel evidence of precancerous sun damage – called actinic or solar keratosis – even before you can see it. Tiny rough, raised patches may turn pink or red, accompanied by itching and peeling. Or you might feel some sensitivity when applying pressure to that area. Any changes in skin appearance and texture – whether that be a new growth or change to an existing freckle, mole or age spot – raise a red flag, especially if they do not heal. Such changes warrant a visit with your doctor. They may signal something other than cancer, but they still need to be followed up. The Canadian Dermatology Association describes the three types of skin cancer: Basal cell – most common, less dangerous although the cancer continues to grow, causing disfigurement; most commonly found on face and neck; can look red, scabby, like a sore that doesn’t heal. Squamous cell – second most common form, must be removed because lesions continue to grow and damage the surrounding tissue; they may grow quickly and look like a wart, scaly, open sore, crusted skin; appears on sun-exposed areas: neck, arm, back of hand and leg. Melanoma – less common, very dangerous if left untreated; it invades other skin, reaches the bloodstream or lymph system and spreads to other parts of the body. Skin cancer often takes a long time to develop, Schnittker notes, which is why it's highly treatable if caught early. The problem is that some people wait too long, and the consequences may be dire. The Canadian Cancer Society estimates the number of non-melanoma skin cancers in 2008 at 73,000 cases, with 260 deaths resulting from non-melanomas. For melanoma, the estimate is 4,600 cases … and 910 deaths. Skin cancer is easily preventable. People who protect themselves from overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation see their chances of developing skin cancer dramatically reduced. But because North Americans prize glowing, bronzed tans – with sunburn and other types of sun damage being an inevitable result – skin cancer is the price we pay. “Skin damage (from UV radiation) is cumulative,” Schnittker says. “For each sunburn before the age of 18, that doubles your risk of developing skin cancers.” The earlier in life one starts, the greater the risk. Even one severe, blistering sunburn as a child or teenager greatly increases the risk of developing skin cancer as an adult. That's why it is so important to protect children from sun overexposure. It's also why teens need to understand that getting a tan or sunburn – whether that be outdoors or using artificial UV sources like tanning booths or sun lamps – is not a wise choice. People with the greatest risk of developing skin cancer are fair-skinned individuals, those who sunburn easily or have moles, and those with a history of sunburn. Areas of the body that receive the most exposure to UV rays are where skin cancers most often develop: face (especially the nose), neck, shoulders, arms, hands and legs. Areas which are often overlooked, but are susceptible to UV damage, include the top of the head, top of the ears, back of the neck and back of the legs. The easiest way to protect yourself from skin cancer is to avoid overexposure to UV radiation. Prevent overexposure by avoiding peak UV periods. In eastern Ontario, this runs from late April or early May to late October, from about 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily. If you must go out during those periods, apply a chemical sunscreen or sunblock (don’t forget your lips and ears), and also wear physical barriers to the sun such as a wide-brimmed hat, sunglasses and clothing to cover the body. And seek shaded areas whenever possible. Sunburn isn't the only type of skin damage to worry about. Different types of UV radiation include UVA and UVB. UVA rays don't cause sunburn; they prematurely age and wrinkle the skin. They are also dangerous because they are more likely to damage the melanocytes, potentially leading to melanoma. UVB rays are the burning rays which can damage skin cell DNA. So check that your sunscreen product protects against both UV types. This past summer, Environment Canada predicted that UV radiation levels were about four per cent higher than pre-1980 levels, due to the thinning of the ozone layer. Environment Canada and the Weather Network issue UV forecasts as part of their daily weather forecasts. These UV forecasts show peak UV periods, as well as the UV reading for that day, so that people can plan accordingly. A reading of three or above means that people should take steps to protect their skin. The higher the reading, the greater the precautions needed. Finally, keep in mind that there is no such thing as a “safe” tan. Tanning is nothing more than sun damage caused by your skin's attempt to protect itself from further damage by adding colour. Melanin – increased skin pigment – produces this darkening of the skin. But it is still sun damage, and that damage is cumulative. And that old chestnut about getting a tan to protect yourself from sunburn doesn’t really work, as the sun protection factor (SPF) produced by the extra melanin in tanned skin is only about two to four, well below the minimum recommended SPF of 15. People often wonder why a tan, something that looks so healthy, can do so much damage. “We refer to it as ultraviolet radiation, which is exactly what it is,” Schnittker says. “And when you say it that way – 'What do you mean, radiation?' – then maybe the terminology will help people to see it for what it is.”

Doesn't look terribly attractive up close, but I suspect that from a distance, these will do a nice job visually. I'll be interested to see what they look like on the field.

I thought of that possibility . . . and sadly, it is a possibility. We can dismiss it as, "Well, it's just drum corps." But when that attitude extends to more important matters, it is indeed quite scary. Hear, hear!

I agree with this. As a journalist, I'm pretty careful about details. Even without a background in drum corps, I believe this is something that's easily understood (after all, a journalist's job is to cover a wide variety of topics that don't necessarily come from his/her own background). I'm sure that at some point, someone with the corps said to the reporter, "No, it's not a marching band; it's a bit different." At which point, I would've paused and said, "OK, explain the difference to me." Then I would have included a short paragraph along the lines of, "The Troopers are a drum corps, similar to a marching band except that the instrumentation consists of brass and percussion, no woodwinds, along with a color guard section of flags, rifles and sabers." (And then I would've referred to the corps traveling to a drum corps contest, etc.) It's just lazy reporting, and there's too much of that. But enough on that topic. I'm relieved that everyone is OK, and no one was seriously injured. That's the most important thing!

LOL!

He joins that celestial parade of those who never walk alone. Terrible loss for his family, friends and loved ones. And, as others have said, he was just much too young.

I can't add anything about the yet-to-be-announced tunes, but I did hear that they put 25 pages of drill on the field at their camp last weekend.

Yup. I sent them a fair bit of Oakland info from the years I marched, and they posted all of it. I'm sure they'll do the same for other years/other corps!

Woo, hoo! Great to see the home team recognized (and how I wish I could've marched that show)! Mike: Thanks for the nod to that bittersweet record held by the '77 drum line. Many of us wish there was a video to that show, but as far as I know, no one's been able to track one down yet. Thanks, also, for the nice tribute to Joel Alleyne. He was, and is, a good guy, and one of the all-time great "showman" drum majors. (Edit: Mike has since made those corrections. Thanks, Mike!)

It's nice to see that now, but that sure wasn't the case not so long ago.

I'm not sure that people making charitable donations to DCI automatically equates with DCI being a charity, in the most literal definition of the term. I think the poster's point that DCI is really a co-op, but one that operates under the rules of a charity, is valid. The way I see it, the governing structure is more akin to a co-op (since the member corps are the decision-makers), even if the formal structure falls within the confines of a charity. I think no one has figured out how to reinvent the wheel in such a way that the top corps know will guarantee greater financial security for themselves. DCI came about when there were far more corps competing. Those original top corps were cutting off a slice of a much bigger pie. Now, it seems to me there's not much point; the pie is so small that cutting off a sliver for themselves might actually endanger their own existence, if they can't improve upon and compete with the touring model already in place within DCI.

I would say even farther back, going back to the days when it was a much simpler format of prelims and finals (and there were a whole more corps competing then).