Guide to Safe Scouting Question

[dsteele]

I'll take Bob White's word on the Carbon Tet thing -- I have no idea what that's about and don't have time to check in this my busiest month.

 

As to changing the Guide to Safe Scouting title to Safe and Politically correct Scouting as Twocubdad (whom I really like) I don't think so. Safety comes in physical, spiritual, and political, and philosophical terms. Guide to Safe Scouting is enough for me.

 

DS

[evmori]

"That's Okay Ed, I didn't think you would answer the question, I just wanted to point out your contradictory statements."

 

What didn't I answer, Bob?

 

"It's a very simple policy, I am confident that the majority of the forum readers understand it and will abide by it. What you choose to do with what you think it means is of course up to you."

 

And I said I don't understand it where?

 

You read between the lines better than anyone!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[packsaddle]

Bob, The last time I saw a Carbon tet fire extinguisher was over 30 years ago (and my lab has extinguishers all over the country). But you're right, I suppose that 50 years after their production stopped some could still be lurking in closets. I think another reason for singling it out is that using carbon tet to extinguish a fire can produce HCl and phosgene gas, a really toxic compound (G2SS mentions this in 'fire extinguishers'). I can understand all this. But why is it listed in section IX, "Sports and Activities"? In that section is a list of actual activities (skating, judo, caving, cycling, ...and then 'carbon tetrachloride'?) It seems oddly placed.

But boys are likely to experiment with anything they can get their hands on (I sure did back then) and the other carbon-chlorine compounds are available and do many of the same things. (one of the reasons, incidentally, I don't allow anyone to put plastic in a campfire)

 

I suggest that G2SS should address hazardous materials in a generic manner as well as for specific materials, perhaps in its own section. Do a search for 'hazardous material' in G2SS and see what you find. I was surprised.

 

But I stumbled onto another thing that was also puzzling. G2SS states that "...public school transportation vehicles are not subject to CDL rules when transporting students...". This was news to me. Do I have an obsolete version of G2SS? I am looking at the one at www.scouting.org. I went back and read my CDL manual to learn where I went wrong. However, in this state at least, CDL rules most certainly do apply.

[FScouter]

Carbon tetrachloride can be used to detect watermarks on stamps. A small amount is squirted on the stamp. It wets the stamp making it easier to see the watermark. It completely evaporates leaving no residue and does not damage the stamp. Other safer methods are available to detect watermarks.

[packsaddle]

safer watermark methods, what are they?

[FScouter]

Less dangerous watermark detection methods:

Naptha, lighter fluid, Freon, commericially available "safe" detection fluids, electronic detector (expensive), strong back lighting (limited effectiveness).

[Twocubdad]

Sorry Dave, I should have put a little smilie face after my sarcastic remark.

 

But I did have a serious point, although I didn't treat it as such. One of the great advantages of the G2SS is that it is a short, concise statement of BSA policies regarding the health and safety of the Scouts. It's, what -- 50-60 pages and includes dang-near everything you need to know. I can keep a copy in my Scout briefcase and take it everywhere I go. I would not want them to start watering that down with a lot of warm-fuzzies about how squirt gun battles and capture the flag games promote violence, or some such nonsense.

 

Obviously I agree with you that "Safe Scouting" should include all the other elements you mention, but a "Guide to Physically, Spiritually, Politically, and Philosophically Safe Scouting" will run 1,200 pages, cover the entire program and be useless for leaders who need quick answers to important questions.

 

I also agree with NJ that this is an area where the language needs to be fairly lawyerly (although I'm sure someone will point out that a concise, lawerly document is an impossibility). There shouldn't be much wiggle room here. If I have a health- or safety-related question, I should be able to read the G2SS and get a pretty clear, yes or no answer. The permitted/not permitted spreadsheet in the middle of the new edition is a great improvement toward doing that.

 

I'm not sure I have the right chemical, but I believe carbon tet is used by plant hybridizers to alter the genetics of plants. It breaks down the chromosomes of plants into mutiple pieces which allows more variation in the resulting plant. It works on daylilies, but has a really nasty effect on people. Thinking about it, that could explain some of the posters on the board!

 

(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[packsaddle]

Uuuuuggghh! You got me, twocub.

[Bob White]

sorry dual post.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Bob White]

If you write G2SS in lawyer-speak only lawyers would be able to understand it, and the same info would take an additional 1200 pages.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[NJCubScouter]

TwoCubDad says:

 

I also agree with NJ that this is an area where the language needs to be fairly lawyerly (although I'm sure someone will point out that a concise, lawerly document is an impossibility).

 

I don't think the G2SS necessarily needs to be any longer than it is now. I have not read the whole thing with an eye toward whether I think the language is sufficiently precise, I am just looking at this particular sentence. (And if "sufficiently precise" seems like an oxymoron, it isn't. Covering every possible situation and conceivable "what if," and defining every single term in great detail, would indeed make it a document that is too long, and useless to most people. There is a balance between precision and simplicity that can be reached. Two words that pretty clearly don't match each other -- like in this case, "laser firearm," don't make it.)

[Bob White]

Interestingly enough the term "laser firearm" seems, according to a basic internet search, to be a fairly common phrase in law enforcement, military weaponry research, video games and entertainment. So I do not understand why it not acceptable in the G2SS?

Bob White

[Twocubdad]

My point, Bob is that I would not want to see the G2SS filled up with a lot of non-health and safety fluff.

 

I think my post was fairly clear that I'm not in favor of expanding the current G2SS to 1200 pages of "lawyer-speak" -- your words, not mine. I said the language needs to be fairly lawyerly, then took three more sentences not only explaining what I meant by that, but noting that the current edition does a pretty good job of it.

 

 

[Twocubdad]

Exactly, NJ, precision is what I'm getting at.

[Fat Old Guy]

Gee Bob, I did a Google search on "laser firearm" and most of what I turned up was for laser aiming devices, there was one site that came up as "laser weapon" with "Firearm" elsewhere in the reference. I only looked at the first 30 or so hits, maybe you have the time to look at the other 11,000.