Girl gets sunburn at school after suncream ban

[FamilyGuy]

Podie said:

Research suggests that cancer isn't genetic, and I've certainly been told this in the past.

This is certainly not the case for breast cancer (just type "breast cancer gene inherited" into your favourite search engine)

[Merlot]

JonRB said:

"A nine-year-old girl whose mother died from skin cancer was banned from applying suncream at school for health and safety reasons."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/57805...

Wait... what?

Whilst at our school, the slightest hint of sun and our H&S officer emails all staff to remind students to wear suncream when out of the main school building!

[ShadownINja]

mouseymousey said:

Are many people allergic to sun cream then?

I expect they also ban children from bringing nuts into school... or milk... or bread... just in case someone is allergic.

[Gargamel]

Isn't it better to let the allergic people die though ?

Something to do with natural selection.

[FNG]

Horse_Apple said:

The schools have had no choice but to head down this rediculous route. That and also the fact that they repeatedly and comprehensively fail to weed out fiddlers at the interview stage but leave it until a few hundred kids have mentioned being touched inappropriately over a period of years or decades.

The school had the option to allow the girl to apply the cream she brought to school with her, and they chose to prevent her from doing that.

How that is preferable to the very small risk that a child is allergic to sun cream, comes into contact with some in some improbable way, and incidentally does this despite knowing that they are allergic to sun cream, beats me.

This school has thought of all possible (not likely, just highly improbable) risks and automatically said "no". And without considering the risk to the child in question, just the risk to all the other children.

The fact they can now come up with solutions says it all - they didn't risk assess properly in the first place.

[ShadownINja]

Gargamel said:

Isn't it better to let the allergic people die though ?

Something to do with natural selection.

Technically, you're right. And as for those attention wes with sickle cell disease... And then there's the time wasters who can't even get pregnant naturally and have to waste the tax payers' money with IVF just so they can waste more tax payers' money by claiming benefits... And then there's those children on kidney dialysis machines... talk about taking the piss...

Edited by ShadownINja on Thursday 9th July 19:00

[Hyperion]

Gargamel said:

Isn't it better to let the allergic people die though ?

Something to do with natural selection.

They aren't really allergic...they're just attention seeking.

[otolith]

Proportion of children who will be injured by exposure to sunscreen?

Proportion of children who will be injured by exposure to strong solar UV radiation?

Utter cockends. Why is someone with so little sense in a position of responsibility?

[Busa_Rush]

otolith said:

Utter cockends. Why is someone with so little sense in a position of responsibility?

It's the way things are now. It's the law. Any ability to use your brain and you're obviously a risk.

[loafer123]

I'm with Jeremy Clarkson on this one.

They should just leave us alone.

We have more common sense than they will ever have.

They should stop fking interfereing.

[mechsympathy]

HRG. said:

mouseymousey said:

Are many people allergic to sun cream then?

I've met precisely no people with sun cream allergy in my forty four years.

Minimechs gets excema if we use anything other than (the very expensive) hypo-allergenic stuff. OTOH, unlike skin cancer, excema won't kill you.

[mrmr96]

FNG said:

This school has thought of all possible (not likely, just highly improbable) risks and automatically said "no". And without considering the risk to the child in question, just the risk to all the other children.

It's crazy, isn't it? They place a higher priority on the 'possible' danger than the 'actual' danger.

This isn't the only example I've seen, either. (Struggling to remember what the others were, but I'm sure I've heard of other cases where Gov bodies have prioritised speculation over fact.)

[mouseymousey]

mrmr96 said:

FNG said:

This school has thought of all possible (not likely, just highly improbable) risks and automatically said "no". And without considering the risk to the child in question, just the risk to all the other children.

It's crazy, isn't it? They place a higher priority on the 'possible' danger than the 'actual' danger.

This isn't the only example I've seen, either. (Struggling to remember what the others were, but I'm sure I've heard of other cases where Gov bodies have prioritised speculation over fact.)

It's because a lot of people are bad at making accurate risk assessments.

[mrmr96]

mouseymousey said:

mrmr96 said:

FNG said:

This school has thought of all possible (not likely, just highly improbable) risks and automatically said "no". And without considering the risk to the child in question, just the risk to all the other children.

It's crazy, isn't it? They place a higher priority on the 'possible' danger than the 'actual' danger.

This isn't the only example I've seen, either. (Struggling to remember what the others were, but I'm sure I've heard of other cases where Gov bodies have prioritised speculation over fact.)

It's because a lot of people are bad at making accurate risk assessments.

Really? 20 or 30 years ago there was none of this nonsense. Have people got stupider?

[pkitchen]

[/quote]
Really? 20 or 30 years ago there was none of this nonsense. Have people got stupider?
[/quote]

Not really, but it gets worse. There are some parents who would probably sue the school if their precious kiddies weren't protected by these ludicrous H+S rules. So you can't win. It's totally bonkers. The world has gone mad

[Menguin]

redweapon said:

The school my kids go to insist they bring in suncream hats etc when its hot. Clearly the head at this other place is a Knob.

Suncream hats? They sound messy.

Edited by Menguin on Friday 10th July 11:08

[Podie]

Podie said:

Research suggests that cancer isn't genetic, and I've certainly been told this in the past.

s2art said:

Then you have been wrongly informed, at least for some cancers. In this case being very fair skinned is associated with increased risk, and that certainly is genetic.

FamilyGuy said:

This is certainly not the case for breast cancer (just type "breast cancer gene inherited" into your favourite search engine)

I was referring to this specific example, perhaps I should have made it clearer.

Interestingly, having spent considerable time with oncologists in recent years none have expressed concern over any genetic possibilities, and that includes a recent case of breast cancer in the family.

[mechsympathy]

mrmr96 said:

Really? 20 or 30 years ago there was none of this nonsense. Have people got stupider?

People are required to think for themselves less and less, and as a consequence they become unable to think for themselves.

[andy_s]

P20

[mouseymousey]

mrmr96 said:

Really? 20 or 30 years ago there was none of this nonsense. Have people got stupider?

I think it's also about the media and availability of information. In this example people know that a nut allergy might kill a kid so a kneejerk reaction is ban all nut products, including sun screen(!), without actually realising that skin cancer is a far higher risk than a reaction from a nut allergy.

I read the book 'Risk' recently, all about how people make risk assessments and why they often do it badly. Perceived risk has a lot to do with media coverage and anecdotal evidence which gives people a skewed impression of the actual, real, risks.