Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The guidelines said, “Camp staff should limit touching the camper as much as possible. Under no circumstances should campers assist each other in the application of sunscreen.” The policy also prohibited camps from supplying sunscreen to campers.

Health officials had argued that their motivation was strictly about safety. “Our intention is certainly not to discourage the use of sunblock,” (assistant health director for environmental health and food protection Clifford) Mitchell said. “It’s really to walk a fine line between protecting kids’ skin and making sure they feel personally safe.”

Mitchell said he did not know of any cases of inappropriate touching by counselors that might have led to the new regulations.

Col Hogan wrote:Maryland Health officials are backpeddling so fast they might just run over their own apron strings...

Last month, they issued new guidelines that severely restrict the application of sun screen at kids camps...

The guidelines said, “Camp staff should limit touching the camper as much as possible. Under no circumstances should campers assist each other in the application of sunscreen.” The policy also prohibited camps from supplying sunscreen to campers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md- ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ironically, this nannyism runs afoul of federal nannyism which is pushing more and more use of sunscreen...state officials say they are not trying to prevent the use of sunscreen, but to protect children from inappropriate touching

Health officials had argued that their motivation was strictly about safety. “Our intention is certainly not to discourage the use of sunblock,” (assistant health director for environmental health and food protection Clifford) Mitchell said. “It’s really to walk a fine line between protecting kids’ skin and making sure they feel personally safe.”

Mitchell said he did not know of any cases of inappropriate touching by counselors that might have led to the new regulations.

So, now if you send you kid to a camp in Maryland, must sign a form allowing their child to use sunscreen...one camp has taken it further, asking if the parent gives permission for anyone else to assist the child in applying the sun screen...

kalm wrote:
They had this policy at my kid's daycare 8 years ago so it's not necessarily anything new. It's unfortunate but they're just protecting covering their ass.

93henfan wrote:Quick! Ivy, Col, let's get together and patent a Maryland-approved sunscreen applicator. We'll never have to work another day in our lives.


I worked this up in my garage. Let me know what you think.

King Co. requires life vests for swimmers, floaters
By CHRIS GRYGIEL, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

People who hope to beat the summer heat by swimming, floating or boating on rivers in King County must wear a life vest or face an $86 fine.A divided County Council on Monday passed a personal flotation device ordinance by a five to four vote. Opponents said it was an intrusive move by "big government."

"This council sometimes thinks it's everybody's mom," said Councilwoman Kathy Lambert, who voted "no."
Supporters said the new rule will save lives.


Opponents who spoke before the Council said sheriff's deputies had better things to do than to write tickets for people on waterways and would be better off focusing on people engaging in dangerous behavior.


It applies to people tubing, rafting, using a surfboard, canoe or kayak. Swimmers or people wading more than 5 feet from shore or in water more than 4 feet deep would also have to wear life vests. The new ordinance does not apply to people at designated public beaches or for people who are skin diving.

"I think it's the beginning of the era of life jackets in King County," he said.

Councilwoman Julia Patterson, a "yes" vote, said the same arguments Dunn made against the life vest ordinance were also made against laws requiring child safety seats in automobiles and banning smoking in public places.

"We are improving the health for everyone because of these laws that we pass," she said.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/ ... z1Q3dMdyNO" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Col Hogan wrote:

kalm wrote:
They had this policy at my kid's daycare 8 years ago so it's not necessarily anything new. It's unfortunate but they're just protecting covering their ass.

Which rule...the asinine one they issued and are now backing away from...or the less nanny one asking a parent if the kid can use sunscreen???

kalm wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Which rule...the asinine one they issued and are now backing away from...or the less nanny one asking a parent if the kid can use sunscreen???

The permission slip. And fwit the daycare was owned by hardcore conks who suggested I read James Dobson for good parenting advice. So evidently nannyish transcends ideology.

Col Hogan wrote:

kalm wrote:
The permission slip. And fwit the daycare was owned by hardcore conks who suggested I read James Dobson for good parenting advice. So evidently nannyish transcends ideology.

I don't know who James Dobson is, and won't waste my time Googling him...

If a privately owned company makes a decision, like asking for permission slips for kids to use sun screen...that's not nannyism...

Its when the state "knows" better than parents and mandates crap like that...

Like anti-smoking laws...I hate second hand smoke...if a company makes a decision to ban smoking from their bar, or bowling alley, I vote with my money and support that...I don't want the government deciding what is good for me...