Should DCI have rules to protect kids from themselves?

[byline]

I agree for the most part except I'm not sure about the what I look like thing for 1 the over heating of a body while in a long summer rehearsal can be brutal let alone clothed but the other thing I teach a WC corps and believe me it aint pretty looking at some of these people shirtless and 1/2 naked...lol

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.

[GUARDLING]

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.

i totally agree but disagee maybe with mandating..where does ot stop then..smoking? soda...junk food...I totally get it but feel people need to make their own educated choices. Not big brother watching over...we have to much of that in this country to begin with JMO

[byline]

i totally agree but disagee maybe with mandating..where does ot stop then..smoking? soda...junk food...I totally get it but feel people need to make their own educated choices. Not big brother watching over...we have to much of that in this country to begin with JMO

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.

[FHNSAB34]

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.

I really think you're very misinformed about what you're talking about. Simply wearing a T-shirt will not prevent UV rays from coming in contact with your skin. It's physics. Maybe if they wore sweaters? Yeah...

Aside from your pointless suggestion, I'm pretty sure tan lines were a big deal when you marched. One of the perks of marching is that you get a kick ### tan. Wearing a shirt would give me the appeal of a chess club president.

Telling kids to wear shirts cause it will keep them from getting cancer is like saying if people didn't drive there would be fewer car wrecks.

[FHNSAB34]

Aside from your pointless suggestion, I'm pretty sure tan lines were a big deal when you marched. One of the perks of marching is that you get a kick ### tan. Wearing a shirt would give me the appeal of a chess club president.

....They'd all have one hell of a farmers tan...but yes, to people like us who aren't ugly, this is a very big deal...

[actucker]

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.

And yet, there aren't any concrete rules from DCI about water drinking either. A far bigger danger that applies to every single person on the field is dehydration. But you don't see DCI mandating a certain amount of water that each member is required to drink. They trust their member corps, and the marching members to handle that themselves.

Again, yes, skin cancer is a potential risk, however, it is a manageable risk that members are capable of handling themselves. Just because you would handle it differently does not mean that you (or DCI) should be allowed to make that decision for them.

Skin cancer is bad. Yes, however, only 5% of skin cancer cases are the potentially fatal Melanoma, and there is a lot of debate within the medical community as to the correlation between UV rays and Melanoma. The one thing that they all agree on is that there are a ton of factors that have nothing to do with the sun that contribute to an individuals risk level.

In your husbands work place, every single worker is at equal risk. In drum corps, every member has a completely different risk level. They are not the same situation. Not even remotely.

Edited June 27, 2011 by actucker

[CuriousMe]

<snip> 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.

But at it's heart, it's a personal choice. I know folks in their 40's who fully understand what occurs to them and yet chose to get tan in the summer. That's their choice. Young adults also need to be given the opportunity to manage the risks in their life according to the priorities in their life.

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. <snip>

Right but that is a manufacturing environment. It's a unique environment. By that I mean, I'm guessing your husband doesn't have the same set-up at home or that your neighbors don't have the set up at their home?

Being safe in the sun is not a drum corps specific activity. These members need to know what their individual risks are and what they specifically need to do to keep themselves safe in the sun for the rest of their life. This is why I think this much more similar to the member's eating choices (are they eating their fruits & veggies every day? Are they living on PB&J?) than it is to a manufacturing environment.

Could we micro-manage corps members summer? Enforce that they eat all their servings of fruits & veggies, put limits on how much soda they drink, have DCI outlaw smoking, and enforce that they brush and floss twice a day? Because after all, research has shown us that not these things can have serious consequences later in their life.

Of course we could, but how does making all of their choices for them support these members becoming responsible and successful adults?

Edited June 27, 2011 by CuriousMe

[DrillmanSop06]

With everything I said in my post...that's the ONE sentence you chose to reply to?

Doesn't seem like you want to discuss the issue, seems like you're looking for folks to agree with you.

Nope, just stated a fact. I didn't say YOU were arrogant, I said that empirically saying that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong is arrogant. I stand by this, who left that decision to you? Is it an international elected position?

I don't know you from a hole in the wall, I have no idea if YOU are arrogant.

Sorry if that hurt your feelings, that wasn't the intent.

They don't. They want to validate their parenting.

[byline]

Right but that is a manufacturing environment. It's a unique environment. By that I mean, I'm guessing your husband doesn't have the same set-up at home or that your neighbors don't have the set up at their home?

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.

Edited June 27, 2011 by byline

[byline]

I really think you're very misinformed about what you're talking about. Simply wearing a T-shirt will not prevent UV rays from coming in contact with your skin. It's physics. Maybe if they wore sweaters? Yeah...

Very little offers complete protection, other than staying out of the sun. I never said that wearing a T-shirt will prevent UV rays from coming in contact with your skin; I said that a T-shirt, hat and sunglasses combined with sunscreen offer far more protection against UV rays than tube tops or going shirtless, no hats and no sunglasses.

Your comments about tan lines (yes, they were a big deal back when I marched corps, but that was before we knew as much as we do now about sun overexposure and its links to skin cancer) and having all the appeal of a chess club president only reinforce my opinion that this gets back to cosmetic concerns, not health-related ones. And that's the fundamental problem, which is why I believe this decision needs to be by the powers that be. If folks don't want to wear the rehearsal uniform, they don't have to participate in the activity. But if they want it badly enough, I think they will.

When I taught guard for a high school band, the band members were required to wear T-shirts during every rehearsal. Students who wanted to be in that band followed the rules, or else they were kicked out. No exceptions. So they suffered the "indignity" of a farmer's tan, but I believe that in the end, they will be thanking their lucky stars that they did. A temporary farmer's tan is no match for the scars of actinic keratoses which have to be cut or frozen off. And here we are back to those cosmetic concerns . . . which, frankly, I hope are the least of my concerns. But knowing the statistics, I also know that the odds are not in my favor.

Edited June 27, 2011 by byline