year1buick Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 I was knocked out of commission for about a day during 94 (and had to make a trip to the ER) while we were practicing at some ginormous school in Indiana. It had indoor swimming pools and an indoor track and field area that was unbelievable. This is where we slept and it had a very strong, chemical smell emanating from the rubber textured floor. (Like it was very new.) I had a pretty bad allergic reaction but I honestly don't know for sure if it was the floor or something I ate. However, considering how strong that chemical odor was, I just assumed it was the floor. No one else had a problem, thankfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 (edited) The Yale folks come across as a biased interest group. As does the industry representative, of course. Quotes like “When you’re exposed to more than one low level carcinogen then it becomes very toxic,” have that ring of crazy on them, since obviously different toxins have very different methods of doing damage and the idea that two low level toxins together are necessarily "very toxic" is absurd. Of course two or more toxins could be much more dangerous in combination, but then two non-toxins can become toxins in combination. The bottom line is that if you think something is dangerous, then you need to prove it. For example, the EHHI report that mingusmonk posted claims that zinc is one of the chemicals of concern. Zinc is an essential nutrient, but has an upper safely limit as well of 40mg/day for adults according to this article. It doesn't say what it is for children, but here we're talking about passing through skin. The burden of proof is on those wanting to change the rules, and these folks aren't doing that. Similarly, the industry rep points to bazillions of studies showing how safe they are, but not who conducted those studies, who paid for those studies (probably the various industries involved) and how many studies were kept hidden because the results weren't what the funders wanted to hear. That is why actually good news publications would have investigated both claims more thoroughly to find out if there is evidence that any of the chemicals found is likely to enter the body in sufficient concentrations to cause an unacceptable risk. You'd need to state a probability of getting cancer, basically, or at least that the number of molecules entering the body exceeds government limits. All this reporter did was state two extreme opinions and move on to the next crisis. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there are unacceptable levels of toxins when these turfs are new and off-gassing, as year1buick suggests. Edited September 7, 2015 by Pete Freedman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 (edited) Double post Edited September 7, 2015 by Pete Freedman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted November 6, 2015 Author Share Posted November 6, 2015 11/6/15 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rubber-turf-scrutinized-amid-unsubstantiated-talk-cancer-link/story?id=35020815 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Football concussion medical science findings is a FAR bigger threat to the future of competitive Drum Corps that any chemicals found on a football turf construction. Pop Warner football participation rates are already down in the US. Once Mothers say no to young kids playng football as a result of future cognitive impairments, that will be later be felt at the High School, College levels soon. Since DCI long ago decided to tie themselves at the hip to the School and University Marching Band programs, any diminuation of football offerings at the school levels, naturally kills off the scholastic Marching Band programs at these schools. Lets be frank,... without football played on a football field, there is no need for a school's Marching Band to play on that football field. All this won't happen overnight, of course, but it sure bears watching by the younger fans of Drum Corps over the coming years, imo. Edited November 6, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Good heavens, living life is a dangerous thing! Don't breathe the turf air but by all means, don't make us wear shirts during practice. This is AMERICA, I should be able to do what I want!! The concept of risk can be a funny thing. Skin cancer, meh......there are shredded up tires in the turf!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 don't make us wear shirts during practice. Don't forget ear plugs beginning in November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mingusmonk Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Football concussion medical science findings is a FAR bigger threat to the future of competitive Drum Corps that any chemicals found on a football turf construction. Pop Warner football participation rates are already down in the US. Once Mothers say no to young kids playng football as a result of future cognitive impairments, that will be seen at the High School, College levels soon. Since DCI long ago decided to tie themselves at the hip to the School and University Marching Band programs, any diminuation of football offerings at the school levels, naturally kills off the scholastic Marching Band programs at these schools. Lets be frank, without football played on a football field, there is no need for a Marching Band to play on a football field. All this won't happen overnight, of course, but it sure bears watching by the younger fans of Drum Corps over the coming years, thats for sure. This presumes that high school marching bands are gaining much from football game half times. The one thing they get (outside of performance rep opportunity) ... recognition from the school/non-music students, might not be worth as much as some think. Considering how little marching band budgets come from traditional school funding anymore, I'm not sure a big reduction in half time shows would hurt most programs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Holland Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) many of the school bands I've worked for stopped attending away games altogether, and some now send a pep band instead of a full band for football games. I guess it goes back to the lack of support from either the team, the district, or a combination of both. Edited November 6, 2015 by C.Holland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure a big reduction in half time shows would hurt most programs. I sure do however. If there is no more football, even if the Marching Band is totally self funded, why would they then perform exhibitions on their School's football field ? What would be the point of even being on that football field then ? And who would come out to the football field at that College or University to watch the Band march and down that field ? My guess, in that scenario, not enough people to fit in a bus. And if there is essentially noone there watching, why do the marching exhibition up and down on that empty football stadium on a Friday nite, or a Saturday afternoon to begin with ? Edited November 6, 2015 by BRASSO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.