A conclusion

[eisely]

Ore. Scout Group Fined in Cannon Death

Sat Dec 20,12:32 PM ET Add U.S. National - AP

 

PORTLAND, Ore. - A Boy Scout group has been fined $11,500 for safety violations after a teenage camp counselor died from injuries he suffered when a ceremonial cannon exploded.

 

 

Christopher Kroker, 16, was trying to fire the cannon when part of it flew back and hit him in the head, said Peter DeLuca, administrator of the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division. Kroker died four days later.

 

Investigators concluded that Kroker overloaded the English-made cannon, violating standards set by the National Black Powder Association, DeLuca said Friday.

 

The Portland-based Cascade Pacific Council was fined for unsafe handling and storage of explosives, failure to fully train employees, failure to establish a safety committee and failure to properly assess workplace hazards.

 

Don Cornell, the council's director of field operations, said the group will examine activities at each of its seven Oregon camps.

 

The Cascade Pacific Council represents 53,200 young people in 18 counties in Oregon and southern Washington.

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

When something like this could most likely have been avoided and appears so unnecessary, there is no explanation. For the family and those that loved him, there are no words. The hurt goes so deep that nothing will remove the agony that remains.

FB

 

[Fat Old Guy]

The Safety monitors will soon have flag raisers wearing hard hats.

[Bob White]

Now you know why I hate to go to OA workdays. We do a great job of sfety training for using camp tools, water safety, fire and fuel safety, but when it comes to non-camping activities, scout camps are some of the most dangerous places I have ever seen. Crowds of scouts re-shingling a cabin roof without fall protection. Adult leaders using chain saws without safety glasses and chaps, while in tennis shoes. Scouts in close proximity swinging golf club-like weed wackers. The OA pouring kerosene on a fire lay. After several attempts to counsel the camp ranger and others, it took a letter to the council's Loss Prevention committee to get things corrected to the point where it is almost bearable.

 

I am so sorry that that young man lost his life. I'm thankful we have not seen more of that happen.

 

Bob White

 

 

[NWScouter]

FOG,

I glad you're not running any scout camp. That attitude gets people hurt, maimed and killed every day. Work place rules are there to keep people safe. If the young man was properly trained and supervised he would most likely be alive today.

 

[Eamonn]

I shudder to even think about the loss of a son. My heart and my prayers go out to the family of this Lad.

We would all do well to check what insurance cover the council has before we set out on some of the more dangerous jobs at camp. We had a fellow who wasn't following the rules fall off a tractor and break his arm. He was off work for several weeks. Our coverage paid all of his medical bills but did not pay for the time that he missed from work. I carry an AFLAG policy which does cover this sort of thing.

Eamonn

[Fat Old Guy]

" That attitude gets people hurt, maimed and killed every day."

 

So you are in favor of the flag raisers wearing hard hats?

[LauraT7]

you didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway -

 

I'm in favor of ANYTHING that gets leaders and boys effective training, safety checks and safety gear.

 

If there is something in flag raising that could cause injury, then yes, they should be properly trained and supplied with safety equipment.

 

There was a boy killed two summers ago by a downed tree limb while sleeping in his tent at one of our camps. It was a TRUE accident - not a dead limb, the tent was not in a bad location, the camp was very well maintained. Our troop had been in almost the same site the week before - no 'training' or safety precautions could have protected the boy in that instance.

 

But Firearms are part of the 'romance' of many camps - esp Black powder. and there are many things which can be done to reduce their known dangers. Addmittedly, I know very little about firearms. Which is why you will NEVER find ME shooting off a cannon at camp! Even with a helmet!

 

Boys OR Adults, no matter how well trained, make errors. It only makes sense to have training, safety gear, and a back up person to double check every step. If there had been a back up person, better training or saftey helmet - they might have caught the overload or reduced the injury and that young man might still be alive.

 

do YOU want to explain to the parents of a boy in YOUR troop that he was allowed to overload a firearm in YOUR presence and it blew up in his face, because YOU think safety precautions are silly?

 

I sure don't!

 

And if so, I'm glad YOU are not in OUR troop!

 

laura

 

 

[scoutldr]

Those citations sound like typical OSHA violations. The Council was cited because it is an employer and the camp staff are employees. They are covered by OSHA law. Volunteers and scouts are not. However, that does not relieve Councils from civil and criminal liability. As OSH (occupational safety and health) professionals, we are taught that there is no such thing as an "accident". There are only unsafe acts and unsafe conditions. Both are prevented by inspecting the environment, training, enforcement of rules, and, as a last resort, PPE (personal protective equipment). We also recognize that there is no such thing as "zero risk". However, with today's litigious parents and lawyers, we need to get as close to zero as we can. It always amazes me that the climbing ropes have their usage logged and recorded so that they can be replaced on schedule, but the camp 5-ton truck is allowed to be operated for 2 years without any brakes and 8 year old cub scouts are allowed to feed limbs into a chipper without eye or ear protection. If I were to put my "safety man" hat on, the camp would be shut down. The money is not there. The emphasis is on doing the minimum necessary to get the accreditation pennant.

[scoutingagain]

"So you are in favor of the flag raisers wearing hard hats? "

 

If it has the potential to save a life ... yes, in this instance though I'm not sure a hard hat was the answer.

 

FOG, I'll admit I enjoy your somewhat acerbic wit now and then, but your attitude towards basic safety and health requirements really needs adjustment.

 

Accident prevention is not about the enforcement of arbitrary rules. It's about examining an action or activity, identifying what could go wrong and taking precautions to prevent accidents.

 

It's also about having the courage and persistende to bring safety issues to the attention of those that can make a difference. We will not know whose life may have been saved or injury prevented by Bob White's insistence of taking steps to correct actions he knew to be dangerous.

 

May we all be so inspired and work towards a safer and healthier New Year.

 

SA

 

 

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

"FOG, I'll admit I enjoy your somewhat acerbic wit now and then, but your attitude towards basic safety and health requirements really needs adjustment."

 

You don't know what my attitude is toward safety and health. I've been in more dangerous locations than you can probably imagine, sometimes with safety gear and other times without because the circumstances dictated it. Get down off your high horse and stop crying. The reality of the situation is that too often when a child is hurt, the saftey patrol reacts with rules that have nothing to with the situation at hand. That's why my daughter's grade school cafeteria has no knives, after all the plastic knives that they used to have are so dangerous.

 

"Accident prevention is not about the enforcement of arbitrary rules."

 

Maybe not, but the safery patrol likes to make their arbitrary rules. That's how the Ferrari F40 wound up with motorized "Mice" seatbelts instead of the standard Ferrari 5 point harness.

 

 

[scoutingagain]

"Maybe not, but the safery patrol likes to make their arbitrary rules. That's how the Ferrari F40 wound up with motorized "Mice" seatbelts instead of the standard Ferrari 5 point harness. "

 

FOG, if you drive a Ferrari F40 and are disappointed with it's seatbelt system, you have my deepest sympathies.

 

SA

 

 

 

[fotoscout]

My adult life has been spent on Oil Tankers, in Refineries, at Power Plants and in Steam Plants. I venture to say that almost none of you have lived with the daily hazards that I do. Few of you have ever had to endure the endless safety training that Ive had. Fewer of you have been the person of responsibility for tasks that could have life and death consequences.

 

I can tell you from experience that all the regulations, and all the training, and all the oversight, cannot protect the worker, man or boy from choosing his own path to destruction. Supervisory safety oversight cannot be 100%. I dont know the details of this particular case, but I can tell you that you can train a person to do something safely, and, you can give him all the materials and tools to do it safely, but unfortunalty, the one thing you cannot do is expect the worker to do as hes been told.

 

The flip side of this is the action taken by knowledgeable adults in the face of an unsafe situation. Bob, did you shut down the unsafe operations you witnessed at the OA work weekend? Retorical question, no answer is expected.

 

By the way, a hard hat for flag raisers is excessive, but we have similarly excessive safety rules where I work. The end result of this type of excessive regulation is a discounting of all the safety rules. Ultimately with counter productive results.

 

[Rooster7]

Not making an argument pro or con for the safety patrols, but I understand why people react as they do. We want to believe that these kinds of horrible accidents dont arbitrarily occur. We want to believe that if we put the proper controls in place, no other boy (or girl) will suffer this fate. For the most part, it is very well intended.

 

I say for the most part, because there are many folks running around in government and in the corporate world who re-invent safety to justify their positions. As an aside, ISO9000 and TQL represent two other occupations where this occurs. Be that as it may, I dont automatically dismiss new ideas pertaining to safety, but I do understand FOGs skepticism.

 

Also, while many safety efforts are well intended, we need to ask ourselves as a society what are we willing to give up. Do you realize that if we required every boys and girls club to provide chest protectors for their youth, about a half dozen deaths in little league baseball would be avoided each year? At first glance, some say This is a no brainer, make it happen! However, if the law required this, hundreds of thousands of boys and girls would no longer have organized baseball available to them. Many clubs would fold because they cannot afford to provide this equipment. Furthermore, the enjoyment of the event itself for the boys and girls would be significantly hindered. These chest protectors can be restrictive and hot to wear. Being informed of this, many others would say So what? Its worth the sacrifice! Perhaps it is indeed, but we should seriously consider the consequences of new safety requirements.

 

Prior to new technology, which made equipping automobiles with airbags an economic feasibility, a law requiring all automobiles to be so equipped would have made the purchase of a new automobile cost prohibitive for many if not most Americans. This reality would have severely impacted the automobile industry, not to mention the millions of families that need dependable transportation. Some people discount economic consequences such as the one I just described. They argue, and rightly so the health and safety of others, particularly our kids, is more important than the almighty dollar. However, this is a simplistic reaction, which does not consider the harm done to others due to economic hardship triggered by such regulations. For example, what happens to the children of the automobile worker who is now unemployed? How are these childrens needs being addressed? Are they getting food, shelter, and safety equipment? What happens to the family of the guy who loses his job because he was late to work again after his used vehicle broke down one last time?

 

Safety is important. I understand and agree that when horrible accidents occur, we need to do a root cause and analysis. It is wise to make sure all that could have been done, was done within reason. Yet, we should not forget the last part within reason. As mere men, we do have our limitations. And as reasonable men, we need to look at consequences carefully.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Scoutmaster Ron]

What's the purpose for a Troop to be using a cannon? I never got that. It seems so unncessary for it to even be involved in Scouting.