So, a new edition of CAPR 52-16 has just been published. I don't see anything truly earth-shaking in it, but there are a lot of suggestions (should, may) from previous editions that have now been changed to commands (will, shall, or must).
Well they finally banned energy drinks for cadets. It is about time. Glad they did this. Now if we could only ban soda/pop as well.
Good lord...
You know, just changing a "should" to a "shall" does not regulatory language make...
Like this:
Quote4-5. Cadet Flying. Surveys show that the desire to fly is the most common reason youth join CAP.
Units are responsible for coordinating their flying needs with the wing. Wings are responsible for
developing plans to maximize flying opportunities for cadets in every unit within the wing. Working with
their units, the wing will provide each cadet with a flight in CAP or military aircraft within 90 days of
joining, as budgets and mission tempo allow. Furthermore, wings will strive to provide each cadet with at
least one flight per year, if funds are available. See 8-8 and CAPP 52-7, Cadet Orientation Flight
Syllabus, for details. Regions and wings are authorized to issue a supplement to this paragraph.
OK, so now the 90 days to first ORide is mandatory...but it isn't, because "as budgets and mission tempo allow"
Changing the "should" to "will" had precisely zero impact on the regulation in this paragraph...there are lots of other examples like "will endeavour to...", not "will do".
Or "All units must strive to be well-rounded and offer activities encompassing all three CAP missions" Look at that one from an "inspection" point of view, shall we:
IG: Are you offering activities encompassing all 3 CAP missions?
CC: No, we don't do any ES right now
IG: But the regulation says you must
CC: No, the regulation says we must strive to, we are striving to do so, but other items are higher priority right now. We will continue to strive towards that glorious future.
Quote from: LSThiker on June 19, 2014, 07:04:08 PM
Well they finally banned energy drinks for cadets. It is about time. Glad they did this. Now if we could only ban soda/pop as well.
Yes because forbidding things always works, just like with drugs and alcohol. Perhaps instead of writing "nanny" regulations we educate both parents and cadets and let them make informed decisions.
Quote from: Alaric on June 19, 2014, 07:25:26 PM
Yes because forbidding things always works, just like with drugs and alcohol. Perhaps instead of writing "nanny" regulations we educate both parents and cadets and let them make informed decisions.
Engage in slippery slopes often?
No it does make a significant change.
Now wings must justify why they are not flying O-rides. It makes it harder for wings OPS side to just ignore Cadet O-rides.
Sure....if there is no money or they really are flying a lot....cadets come second. But now wings MUST plan for O-rides or justify why they can't fly them.
Changing should to must also make the line item an inspectable item on the SUI and units must plan for all the line items and justify (to the inspectors) why they cannot meet said line item.
Should include ES......means I don't have do it even if I can and it can't be used against me during the SUI. MUST Stride to include ES means that I have to have a valid reason NOT to include ES. Subtle but important difference.
Quote from: LSThiker on June 19, 2014, 07:27:38 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 19, 2014, 07:25:26 PM
Yes because forbidding things always works, just like with drugs and alcohol. Perhaps instead of writing "nanny" regulations we educate both parents and cadets and let them make informed decisions.
Engage in slippery slopes often?
As I do regulatory compliance for a living, yes.
Quote from: Alaric on June 19, 2014, 07:25:26 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on June 19, 2014, 07:04:08 PM
Well they finally banned energy drinks for cadets. It is about time. Glad they did this. Now if we could only ban soda/pop as well.
Yes because forbidding things always works, just like with drugs and alcohol. Perhaps instead of writing "nanny" regulations we educate both parents and cadets and let them make informed decisions.
Alaric - Energy drinks are only banned at cadet activities, which is well within CAP's area of influence.
LSThiker - I'm pretty sure that you've always been free to ban soda/pop at any cadet activity that you're in charge of.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 19, 2014, 07:31:27 PM
No it does make a significant change.
Now wings must justify why they are not flying O-rides. It makes it harder for wings OPS side to just ignore Cadet O-rides.
Sure....if there is no money or they really are flying a lot....cadets come second. But now wings MUST plan for O-rides or justify why they can't fly them.
Changing should to must also make the line item an inspectable item on the SUI and units must plan for all the line items and justify (to the inspectors) why they cannot meet said line item.
Should include ES......means I don't have do it even if I can and it can't be used against me during the SUI. MUST Stride to include ES means that I have to have a valid reason NOT to include ES. Subtle but important difference.
Nope...Ops Tempo can get you out of all of that. Sorry, pilots were busy with other stuff, our ops tempo wouldn't support it. Justification done.
Also, not justification needed for the ES thing. "I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me." There is no requirement in the regulation to achieve anything.
It's horrendous regulatory drafting. If you were to ask me what they did, someone did a Ctrl-R and did a global search and replace for "should" and replaced it with "will" without bothering to look at the context.
Quote from: Alaric on June 19, 2014, 07:32:41 PM
As I do regulatory compliance for a living, yes.
If you recognize the fallacy in your argument, then I do not need to counter it. Have a good day
Quote from: NC Hokie
LSThiker - I'm pretty sure that you've always been free to ban soda/pop at any cadet activity that you're in charge of.
Oh I do.
Quote from: Alaric on June 19, 2014, 07:32:41 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on June 19, 2014, 07:27:38 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 19, 2014, 07:25:26 PM
Yes because forbidding things always works, just like with drugs and alcohol. Perhaps instead of writing "nanny" regulations we educate both parents and cadets and let them make informed decisions.
Engage in slippery slopes often?
As I do regulatory compliance for a living, yes.
So if CAP decides meat is unhealthy are we going to ban that? how about the ready made meals which are high in carb? We going to start running nutritional guidelines for CAP events? Have a unit nutritionist? As usual CAP has overreached into decision making that is best left to parents.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 19, 2014, 07:39:44 PM
"I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Sorry, gotta go with lordmonar on this one. Here's how that conversation would most likely go...
CP Staffer: "I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Inspector: "You're right. Just to be clear, how, exactly, are you striving to include ES into your cadet activity schedule?"
CP Staffer: "..."
Inspector: "I'll mark that as failure to comply. I'm sure that you'll have another opportunity to answer the question later."
Same story with "OPS TEMPO".
Sure we may be busy some time and may break the 90 day window....but it gives the wing CP guy the power to sit in the OPS meetings and point out HIS flying requirements for the year/quarter/month.
Quote from: NC Hokie on June 19, 2014, 07:50:36 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 19, 2014, 07:39:44 PM
"I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Sorry, gotta go with lordmonar on this one. Here's how that conversation would most likely go...
CP Staffer: "I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Inspector: "You're right. Just to be clear, how, exactly, are you striving to include ES into your cadet activity schedule?"
CP Staffer: "Here it is in my plan of action for next year"
Inspector: "OK"
Easy fix
Quote from: lordmonar on June 19, 2014, 07:53:30 PM
Same story with "OPS TEMPO".
Sure we may be busy some time and may break the 90 day window....but it gives the wing CP guy the power to sit in the OPS meetings and point out HIS flying requirements for the year/quarter/month.
Yep, but since the 90 day rule is regulatorily subordinate to the OPS TEMPO, he has no standing to demand anything.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 19, 2014, 07:39:44 PM
It's horrendous regulatory drafting. If you were to ask me what they did, someone did a Ctrl-R and did a global search and replace for "should" and replaced it with "will" without bothering to look at the context.
FWIW, I completely agree with what you're saying here, but it's pretty clear what the intent of the changes is. Rules lawyering might win a battle here and there, but it won't win you many friends, and it certainly won't win any wars.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 19, 2014, 08:01:41 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on June 19, 2014, 07:50:36 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 19, 2014, 07:39:44 PM
"I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Sorry, gotta go with lordmonar on this one. Here's how that conversation would most likely go...
CP Staffer: "I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Inspector: "You're right. Just to be clear, how, exactly, are you striving to include ES into your cadet activity schedule?"
CP Staffer: "Here it is in my plan of action for next year"
Inspector: "OK"
Easy fix
So say that first and leave out the silly rules lawyering bit. Your original statement reeks of, "I haven't done it and you can't make me."
Or maybe that's just me missing out on the nuances of internet communication.
Quote from: NC Hokie on June 19, 2014, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 19, 2014, 08:01:41 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on June 19, 2014, 07:50:36 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 19, 2014, 07:39:44 PM
"I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Sorry, gotta go with lordmonar on this one. Here's how that conversation would most likely go...
CP Staffer: "I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Inspector: "You're right. Just to be clear, how, exactly, are you striving to include ES into your cadet activity schedule?"
CP Staffer: "Here it is in my plan of action for next year"
Inspector: "OK"
Easy fix
So say that first and leave out the silly rules lawyering bit. Your original statement reeks of, "I haven't done it and you can't make me."
Or maybe that's just me missing out on the nuances of internet communication.
The way the regulation reads, the commander involved is entirely justified in saying "I haven't done it, and you can't make me so long as I have a plan to do it someday".
As I said, the regulation is written very badly if they want to achieve an actual mandate. Global-search-and-replace is insufficient to change shoulds to musts.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 19, 2014, 08:01:41 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on June 19, 2014, 07:50:36 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 19, 2014, 07:39:44 PM
"I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Sorry, gotta go with lordmonar on this one. Here's how that conversation would most likely go...
CP Staffer: "I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Inspector: "You're right. Just to be clear, how, exactly, are you striving to include ES into your cadet activity schedule?"
CP Staffer: "Here it is in my plan of action for next year"
Inspector: "OK"
Easy fix
And that's the point. :)
Quote from: JeffDG on June 19, 2014, 08:03:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 19, 2014, 07:53:30 PM
Same story with "OPS TEMPO".
Sure we may be busy some time and may break the 90 day window....but it gives the wing CP guy the power to sit in the OPS meetings and point out HIS flying requirements for the year/quarter/month.
Yep, but since the 90 day rule is regulatorily subordinate to the OPS TEMPO, he has no standing to demand anything.
No...because the WING will also be graded on how well they are meeting the 90-day rule and as we know from Safety Compliance wings don't like like to tell higher headquarters that they are not doing something.
Point being...with virtually NO wings meeting the 200 hour goal for aircraft.......OPS tempo may be an excuse for "this month" but not the whole year.
The part that is going to be a pain is now cadet squadrons will have to much more proactive in getting this done in stead of waiting for the next O-flight day. Which I think is a good thing.
So, if you're in a pot state:
The summary reads "Prohibits cadets from using or possessing drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Prohibits energy drinks and e-cigarettes at cadet activities. 2-4 "
But the actual text says "c. Recreational Drugs. Cadets will not possess nor use any drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Further, tobacco products and e-cigarettes are prohibited for cadets at CAP activities."
But if the pot is by prescription, it could be argued that it's not "recreational" but a prescription medication as covered in section a. But yes, still prohibited under federal law.
So is the federal law override for prescribed items, or only recreational items?
English teachers call them "context clues." Military officers call it "command intent." Read a text with an eye for it's overall philosophy and "problems" like whether Dr. Pepper Ultra counts as an energy drink or a pot prescription from the Netherlands, which is a NATO country, counts as legitimate for CAP, which is sometimes and sometimes not an instrumentality of the United States, tend to fade away.
Big picture, guys. Don't check your common sense at the door.
Quote from: SamFranklin on June 19, 2014, 08:57:18 PM
English teachers call them "context clues." Military officers call it "command intent." Read a text with an eye for it's overall philosophy and "problems" like whether Dr. Pepper Ultra counts as an energy drink or a pot prescription from the Netherlands, which is a NATO country, counts as legitimate for CAP, which is sometimes and sometimes not an instrumentality of the United States, tend to fade away.
Big picture, guys. Don't check your common sense at the door.
[darn] it Sam! We can't use common sense! That would be too smart! :)
Quote from: SamFranklin on June 19, 2014, 08:57:18 PM
English teachers call them "context clues." Military officers call it "command intent." Read a text with an eye for it's overall philosophy and "problems" like whether Dr. Pepper Ultra counts as an energy drink or a pot prescription from the Netherlands, which is a NATO country, counts as legitimate for CAP, which is sometimes and sometimes not an instrumentality of the United States, tend to fade away.
Big picture, guys. Don't check your common sense at the door.
Big picture, once you start down the slippery slope you never know where it will end up. Next up forbidding caffeine for senior members at CAP activities (its bad for you) >:D
Knowing a slippery slope is there does not mean you can't still go down it.
So saying we should not draw the line there because maybe, sometime down the road, someone may be inclined to move that line.....is not really a valid argument.
If you can show that this line "no energy drinks" is bad in and of itself....then by all means make that argument. But if all you got is "next they will be banning coffee" I don't think that dog will hunt.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 19, 2014, 09:30:47 PM
Knowing a slippery slope is there does not mean you can't still go down it.
So saying we should not draw the line there because maybe, sometime down the road, someone may be inclined to move that line.....is not really a valid argument.
If you can show that this line "no energy drinks" is bad in and of itself....then by all means make that argument. But if all you got is "next they will be banning coffee" I don't think that dog will hunt.
The rationale they used is poor "Because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warns that energy drinks are hazardous to teens..." as the US DHS&S makes many such warnings. Decisions regarding the diet of children belong to that child's parents not CAP. Why are we taking this warning seriously but not the ones on (to name a few) caffeine in general, sodium, fat etc. According to consumer reports Redbull has
less caffeine than a cup of coffee (83mg < 100mg) http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20121025/how-much-caffeine-energy-drink. (http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20121025/how-much-caffeine-energy-drink.) If we are so worried about caffeine why were coffee and tea not mentioned? A classic example of the "nanny state" mentality, former Mayor Bloomberg would be proud
Quote from: Alaric on June 19, 2014, 09:38:21 PM
If we are so worried about caffeine why were coffee and tea not mentioned?
The day CAP bans coffee from activities is the day I would most likely hang my CAP uniform.
Quote from: Alaric on June 19, 2014, 09:38:21 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 19, 2014, 09:30:47 PM
Knowing a slippery slope is there does not mean you can't still go down it.
So saying we should not draw the line there because maybe, sometime down the road, someone may be inclined to move that line.....is not really a valid argument.
If you can show that this line "no energy drinks" is bad in and of itself....then by all means make that argument. But if all you got is "next they will be banning coffee" I don't think that dog will hunt.
The rationale they used is poor "Because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warns that energy drinks are hazardous to teens..." as the US DHS&S makes many such warnings. Decisions regarding the diet of children belong to that child's parents not CAP. Why are we taking this warning seriously but not the ones on (to name a few) caffeine in general, sodium, fat etc. According to consumer reports Redbull has less caffeine than a cup of coffee (83mg < 100mg) http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20121025/how-much-caffeine-energy-drink. (http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20121025/how-much-caffeine-energy-drink.) If we are so worried about caffeine why were coffee and tea not mentioned? A classic example of the "nanny state" mentality, former Mayor Bloomberg would be proud
When the cadets are on CAP time.....we are their parents in a lot of ways.
We already say no smoking....even for cadets who are of age. We also say no alcohol or illegal drugs....even if said cadet's parents may allow it for their child.
We forbid a lot of activites on CAP time....for safety issues and health issues....even if those activities are perfectly fine with their parents.
So that argument does not play well.
As for the Nanny State comment......okay...I'll buy that to a point. Maybe we would not have so many kids over weight and with insipid type 2 diabetes if parents were doing their job. When the cadets are under our care we need to be doing the right thing.
If you want to argue one type of substance over another....go right ahead.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 19, 2014, 10:52:08 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 19, 2014, 09:38:21 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 19, 2014, 09:30:47 PM
Knowing a slippery slope is there does not mean you can't still go down it.
So saying we should not draw the line there because maybe, sometime down the road, someone may be inclined to move that line.....is not really a valid argument.
If you can show that this line "no energy drinks" is bad in and of itself....then by all means make that argument. But if all you got is "next they will be banning coffee" I don't think that dog will hunt.
The rationale they used is poor "Because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warns that energy drinks are hazardous to teens..." as the US DHS&S makes many such warnings. Decisions regarding the diet of children belong to that child's parents not CAP. Why are we taking this warning seriously but not the ones on (to name a few) caffeine in general, sodium, fat etc. According to consumer reports Redbull has less caffeine than a cup of coffee (83mg < 100mg) http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20121025/how-much-caffeine-energy-drink. (http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20121025/how-much-caffeine-energy-drink.) If we are so worried about caffeine why were coffee and tea not mentioned? A classic example of the "nanny state" mentality, former Mayor Bloomberg would be proud
When the cadets are on CAP time.....we are their parents in a lot of ways.
We already say no smoking....even for cadets who are of age. We also say no alcohol or illegal drugs....even if said cadet's parents may allow it for their child.
We forbid a lot of activites on CAP time....for safety issues and health issues....even if those activities are perfectly fine with their parents.
So that argument does not play well.
As for the Nanny State comment......okay...I'll buy that to a point. Maybe we would not have so many kids over weight and with insipid type 2 diabetes if parents were doing their job. When the cadets are under our care we need to be doing the right thing.
If you want to argue one type of substance over another....go right ahead.
Actually your argument is a little spurious. We don't forbid smoking, we forbid tobacco products; We forbid alcohol, not allow beer but not allow liquor. If our
real concern with the new regulation is the health of our cadets, then why energy drinks, and not all caffeine. Alcohol actually shouldn't even be an issue in this argument as the law forbids drinking under the age of 21 and we are required to obey the law. If the CAP believes they know better than the cadet's parents on what they should or should not consume then a) I would like to know that the people making these decisions are health professionals, not lawyers or other non- health professionals; b) That we make it very clear to parents that we will be making such decisions for their children
before they write the check c) I would like to see the appointment of at least a Wing level nutritionist that will need to approve the menu for any CAP event.
Let's look at something else to quote above "We forbid a lot of activites on CAP time....for safety issues and health issues...." why only for cadets, aren't we concerned about our senior members. Let's ban donuts, caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco products for them as well. Once again once allow one "nanny" type decision, you have allowed precedent to be set and then what's your argument when they ban something else. For instance, why don't we ban donuts at CAP events? I don't think anyone would argue they are good for you.
Quote from: Alaric on June 19, 2014, 11:10:14 PM
Actually your argument is a little spurious. We don't forbid smoking, we forbid tobacco products; We forbid alcohol, not allow beer but not allow liquor.
Ummm, what? I've read that a few times and can't make much sense of it. Can you expand on that a bit?
QuoteIf our real concern with the new regulation is the health of our cadets, then why energy drinks, and not all caffeine.
Ahh, you caught us. We actually don't care about cadets' health at all. We only do this out of an because we can get away with it and it is fun to torture young people by depriving them of tobacco, alcohol, and energy drinks for days and weeks at a time.
Seriously, what do you think our "real" concern is?
QuoteAlcohol actually shouldn't even be an issue in this argument as the law forbids drinking under the age of 21 and we are required to obey the law.
I agree that generally speaking possession and use of alcohol is heavily regulated in all states for persons under 21. But there are certainly circumstances when it is lawful (certain religious practices, under parental supervision in a private residence, etc. All vary by individual state.)
Historically, CAP's prohibition on cadet use and possession of alcohol predates the universal 21 year "drinking age" that was required by Federal law in the (early 80's?). I had several lawful drinks as a 18 year old college student (and CAP cadet) in Boston.
But again, I'm not sure I take your point.
QuoteIf the CAP believes they know better than the cadet's parents on what they should or should not consume then a) I would like to know that the people making these decisions are health professionals, not lawyers or other non- health professionals; b) That we make it very clear to parents that we will be making such decisions for their children before they write the check c) I would like to see the appointment of at least a Wing level nutritionist that will need to approve the menu for any CAP event.
CAP believes strongly that a parent's wishes and guidance should be respected, but the alcohol / tobacco / energy drink guidance in the 52-16 covers our own CAP activities -- not what happens when the cadet is at home. Parents are absolutely permitted to allow their cadets to have cigars, tequilla shots, and Red Bull at home. Sounds like quite a party.
QuoteLet's look at something else to quote above "We forbid a lot of activites on CAP time....for safety issues and health issues...." why only for cadets, aren't we concerned about our senior members. Let's ban donuts, caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco products for them as well. Once again once allow one "nanny" type decision, you have allowed precedent to be set and then what's your argument when they ban something else. For instance, why don't we ban donuts at CAP events? I don't think anyone would argue they are good for you.
So your position is that CAP should not encourge or discourage anything for cadets?
Really? That's not part of our job of encouraging fitness? (See CAPR 52-16, para 1-2 "MIssion")
I don't have the mission of developing the leadership, character, fitness, and aerospace skills of our seniors, but I have a Congressionally-mandated mission of doing exactly that for our cadet members.
BTW, I am all for encouraging healthy lifestyles for our seniors. CP doctrine actually has a lot to offer them. All seniors have access to the nutrition and fitness training materials including CAPP 52-18. We already forbid alcohol and tobacco use by seniors (when interacting with cadets.) All of our DDR materials -- including the lessons that describe the unhealthful effects of energy drinks -- are likewise available to our terrific senior members.
But I'm not sure all senior share your enthusiasm for restrictions on their food, alcohol, and tobacco choices during CAP activities. But maybe I'm misreading that. We'll just have to see.
Because 52-16 only applies to cadet activities
It would be wrong for the CP shop to dictate health and safety to all CAP personnel and operations
Quote from: Ned on June 19, 2014, 11:51:16 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 19, 2014, 11:10:14 PM
Actually your argument is a little spurious. We don't forbid smoking, we forbid tobacco products; We forbid alcohol, not allow beer but not allow liquor.
Ummm, what? I've read that a few times and can't make much sense of it. Can you expand on that a bit?
In the case of alcohol and tobacco we ban them entirely not only some sources and not others
QuoteIf our real concern with the new regulation is the health of our cadets, then why energy drinks, and not all caffeine.
Ahh, you caught us. We actually don't care about cadets' health at all. We only do this out of an because we can get away with it and it is fun to torture young people by depriving them of tobacco, alcohol, and energy drinks for days and weeks at a time.
Seriously, what do you think our "real" concern is?
Once again, if caffeine is bad, then isn't all caffeine bad why ban one source and not the others
QuoteAlcohol actually shouldn't even be an issue in this argument as the law forbids drinking under the age of 21 and we are required to obey the law.
I agree that generally speaking possession and use of alcohol is heavily regulated in all states for persons under 21. But there are certainly circumstances when it is lawful (certain religious practices, under parental supervision in a private residence, etc. All vary by individual state.)
Historically, CAP's prohibition on cadet use and possession of alcohol predates the universal 21 year "drinking age" that was required by Federal law in the (early 80's?). I had several lawful drinks as a 18 year old college student (and CAP cadet) in Boston.
But again, I'm not sure I take your point.
QuoteIf the CAP believes they know better than the cadet's parents on what they should or should not consume then a) I would like to know that the people making these decisions are health professionals, not lawyers or other non- health professionals; b) That we make it very clear to parents that we will be making such decisions for their children before they write the check c) I would like to see the appointment of at least a Wing level nutritionist that will need to approve the menu for any CAP event.
CAP believes strongly that a parent's wishes and guidance should be respected, but the alcohol / tobacco / energy drink guidance in the 52-16 covers our own CAP activities -- not what happens when the cadet is at home. Parents are absolutely permitted to allow their cadets to have cigars, tequilla shots, and Red Bull at home. Sounds like quite a party.
Once again, all I'm saying is that if CAP is going to make decisions parents should be making then we should make sure that is clear before we take their money. I note you did not respond to c)
QuoteLet's look at something else to quote above "We forbid a lot of activites on CAP time....for safety issues and health issues...." why only for cadets, aren't we concerned about our senior members. Let's ban donuts, caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco products for them as well. Once again once allow one "nanny" type decision, you have allowed precedent to be set and then what's your argument when they ban something else. For instance, why don't we ban donuts at CAP events? I don't think anyone would argue they are good for you.
So your position is that CAP should not encourge or discourage anything for cadets?
Really? That's not part of our job of encouraging fitness? (See CAPR 52-16, para 1-2 "MIssion")
I don't have the mission of developing the leadership, character, fitness, and aerospace skills of our seniors, but I have a Congressionally-mandated mission of doing exactly that for our cadet members.
BTW, I am all for encouraging healthy lifestyles for our seniors. CP doctrine actually has a lot to offer them. All seniors have access to the nutrition and fitness training materials including CAPP 52-18. We already forbid alcohol and tobacco use by seniors (when interacting with cadets.) All of our DDR materials -- including the lessons that describe the unhealthful effects of energy drinks -- are likewise available to our terrific senior members.
But I'm not sure all senior share your enthusiasm for restrictions on their food, alcohol, and tobacco choices during CAP activities. But maybe I'm misreading that. We'll just have to see.
First encourage and discourage is not the same as allow and forbid; we are not discouraging cadets from using energy drinks, we are forbidding it that's a difference.
I don't have any enthusiasm for restricting the food, alcohol or tobacco choices for Senior members, but if its good enough for the cadets then shouldn't it be good enough for us?
Quote from: lordmonar on June 19, 2014, 08:25:37 PM
The part that is going to be a pain is now cadet squadrons will have to much more proactive in getting this done in stead of waiting for the next O-flight day. Which I think is a good thing.
Agreed - I can't tell you how many times I've heard "wing has no ride days scheduled"...
Hint: You don't wait for someone
else to do
your job.
Saying "no tobacco products" insures we don't have to deal with the nonsense of "vaping" or whatever it is called this week.
I suppose we're going to need to get off the stick on legal marijuana, since in a number of states it's a legit issue,
and few 12-year olds will understand the "states rights" conversation about legal consumption, especially when mom, dad,
and sis are too high to discuss it.
Saying "no energy drinks" still allows for cadets to have an occasional pop, or drink some coffee, which do contain caffeine and
can be harmful, though the sugar and artificial sweetners are the real danger.
"Energy drinks" like Monster and Red Bull are the liquid equivalent of Facebook and Twitter - horrible taste, appealing to
the most baseline, uneducated consumer, overpriced by a factor of about 10, and chocked full of whatever junk is left over on the chemists
bench that is banned (yet), sounds sciencey, and can be produced cheaply. Like a lot of food these days, they are literally tuned to
promote consumption vs. satisfaction.
There are also a number of studies that indicate that the way energy drinks are consumed is more the problem then
the drink themselves (vs. say coffee). The energy drinks are flavored to appeal to children, more prone to binging and "shotgunning"
and properly made coffee is essentially a natural beverage - but I wouldn't suggest my adolescents drink that, either.
If they can't stay awake, they need more sleep, not more caffeine.
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 12:15:10 AM
I don't have any enthusiasm for restricting the food, alcohol or tobacco choices for Senior members, but if its good enough for the cadets then shouldn't it be good enough for us?
No....being more mature we can handle adult things better the younger cadet aged people.
Also being mature adults we don't need a nanny state dictating our behavior beyond that is necessarry to accomplish our mission.
So just like a beer drinking parent we are going to say to our cadets......do as I say....when you are older you can do adult things.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 02:40:55 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 12:15:10 AM
I don't have any enthusiasm for restricting the food, alcohol or tobacco choices for Senior members, but if its good enough for the cadets then shouldn't it be good enough for us?
No....being more mature we can handle adult things better the younger cadet aged people.
Also being mature adults we don't need a nanny state dictating our behavior beyond that is necessarry to accomplish our mission.
So just like a beer drinking parent we are going to say to our cadets......do as I say....when you are older you can do adult things.
If only cadets had mature adults legally obligated to make decisions for them. No wait aren't they called parents?
Except often those parents aren't present. The rule structure allows parents to have a reasonable assumption of what things will be like when they hand their kid over.
And I seriously cannot believe the debating point is whether energy drinks, alcohol, or tobacco should be restricted at activities. There are real issues to debate... And we're going to navel-gaze about whether a kid can have Monster? Let's try debating the substantive stuff.
My major beef with the new reg is the "substantive edits" that we're never put on the proving ground. Why have the proving ground?
The monthly contact mandate will really stiff units who had quality, quarter-organized programming. No, that doesn't mean "it's AE quarter". It means a unit might do AE for three weeks in January to focus on a project. Then do double leadership the next month. NHQ is reducing innovation in delivery. I realize that's sort of the point in regulation, but forcing people in a box isn't always the way to get where you want to go. It assumes the box is the right place in the first place.
The admin burden on unit approval to other activities also not thought out. It's a wide definition ... Guaranteed you'll see more 31s required which are a barrier to participation. We focus so much on process and not enough on outcomes.
And I continue to have a real problem with NHQ's approach to TLC. I support requiring TLC grads in every unit, but if it's so important then NHQ needs to reflect that. TLC directors used to receive great support, now it's next to nothing. I know this change is not CP's choice, but it does send a message to the membership.
Quote from: MajorM on June 20, 2014, 03:05:43 AM
Except often those parents aren't present. The rule structure allows parents to have a reasonable assumption of what things will be like when they hand their kid over.
And I seriously cannot believe the debating point is whether energy drinks, alcohol, or tobacco should be restricted at activities. There are real issues to debate... And we're going to navel-gaze about whether a kid can have Monster? Let's try debating the substantive stuff.
My mother wasn't present at BSA meetings didn't mean she didn't have a say on what I was allowed to eat or drink.
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 02:53:47 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 02:40:55 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 12:15:10 AM
I don't have any enthusiasm for restricting the food, alcohol or tobacco choices for Senior members, but if its good enough for the cadets then shouldn't it be good enough for us?
No....being more mature we can handle adult things better the younger cadet aged people.
Also being mature adults we don't need a nanny state dictating our behavior beyond that is necessarry to accomplish our mission.
So just like a beer drinking parent we are going to say to our cadets......do as I say....when you are older you can do adult things.
If only cadets had mature adults legally obligated to make decisions for them. No wait aren't they called parents?
NOT ON CAP TIME. That's where you argument breaks down. I don't care what your parents allow you to do. Eat Cheetos and Jelly Bellys for breakfast and 10-15 Monsters a day, 1/2 pack of Camel Unfiltered, and beer at dinner time.
ON CAP TIME you are we as CP Leaders need to be treating them responsibly as if we were legally responsible for their health and well being.....oh wait we are.
Of course she had a say.. If you are kosher for example I'm assuming she'd say something. But we can knock out a large swath of the population by setting some basic ground rules. "When your kid goes on a Cadet activity there won't be drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or energy drinks". Yes, some parents want to be more restrictive-ok. I honor those as feasible. Want your kid to eat vegan? Then send the food. Want him to avoid candy? Well I'll watch out as best I can.
And am I missing something? Do we think there will be some significant subset of parents who are so offended by the lack of Monster that they will have their cadet leave CAP? Will they be so insulted at the "infringement on their rights" that they pull their cadet out? I'm sure some small number exist.. I've just never met them in all my years.
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 03:21:49 AM
Quote from: MajorM on June 20, 2014, 03:05:43 AM
Except often those parents aren't present. The rule structure allows parents to have a reasonable assumption of what things will be like when they hand their kid over.
And I seriously cannot believe the debating point is whether energy drinks, alcohol, or tobacco should be restricted at activities. There are real issues to debate... And we're going to navel-gaze about whether a kid can have Monster? Let's try debating the substantive stuff.
My mother wasn't present at BSA meetings didn't mean she didn't have a say on what I was allowed to eat or drink.
Good thing this is not the Boy Scouts. :)
Quote from: MajorM on June 20, 2014, 03:28:35 AM
Of course she had a say.. If you are kosher for example I'm assuming she'd say something. But we can knock out a large swath of the population by setting some basic ground rules. "When your kid goes on a Cadet activity there won't be drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or energy drinks". Yes, some parents want to be more restrictive-ok. I honor those as feasible. Want your kid to eat vegan? Then send the food. Want him to avoid candy? Well I'll watch out as best I can.
And am I missing something? Do we think there will be some significant subset of parents who are so offended by the lack of Monster that they will have their cadet leave CAP? Will they be so insulted at the "infringement on their rights" that they pull their cadet out? I'm sure some small number exist.. I've just never met them in all my years.
Once again I care more about consistency if energy drinks are bad, what about those cold Starbucks drinks: high sugar, high caffeine. My point is I do not believe that CAP should be making nutritional decisions for the cadets. That's the parents job.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 03:27:59 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 02:53:47 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 02:40:55 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 12:15:10 AM
I don't have any enthusiasm for restricting the food, alcohol or tobacco choices for Senior members, but if its good enough for the cadets then shouldn't it be good enough for us?
No....being more mature we can handle adult things better the younger cadet aged people.
Also being mature adults we don't need a nanny state dictating our behavior beyond that is necessarry to accomplish our mission.
So just like a beer drinking parent we are going to say to our cadets......do as I say....when you are older you can do adult things.
If only cadets had mature adults legally obligated to make decisions for them. No wait aren't they called parents?
NOT ON CAP TIME. That's where you argument breaks down. I don't care what your parents allow you to do. Eat Cheetos and Jelly Bellys for breakfast and 10-15 Monsters a day, 1/2 pack of Camel Unfiltered, and beer at dinner time.
ON CAP TIME you are we as CP Leaders need to be treating them responsibly as if we were legally responsible for their health and well being.....oh wait we are.
If we are leaders shouldn't it be example. Banned for cadets banned for seniors otherwise your hypocrisy is showing
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 03:21:49 AM
My mother wasn't present at BSA meetings didn't mean she didn't have a say on what I was allowed to eat or drink.
You're assuming a level of parental involvement and even presence that is no longer the norm today.
My kids, 10/12 have a Wii they could take or leave, no cell phones, strict daily regimes, and we (as in my spouse) are involved
in knowing where they go, who they hang with, and also know those parents. They spend far too much time
buried in a screen, but probably not 1/2 the time as their peers.
Everything that they use which communicates with the outside world is either parental controlled or filtered.
They go to church regularly and are invested in the community.
Knowing you personally I would hazard you benefited from a similar upbringing, I certainly did.
Based on exasperated, clueless comments from the parents of some of their peers, I can say for a fact that
they are an island. It brings me pride, but no joy to say that.
The problem with the comments about "nanny state" is that it presupposes the guv'mint is trying to
circumvent and replace the will of involved parents, when the reality is that in far too many situations
there is "parent" - struggling to get through the day, and possibly from Gen X would prefer to be their
kids' friend instead of their parent.
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 03:40:47 AM
If we are leaders shouldn't it be example. Banned for cadets banned for seniors otherwise your hypocrisy is showing
To some extent it highlights the proper separation between those capable of making their own decisions,
and those who still must have some made for them. If a person wants the power, they can become
CAP "adult" (i.e. senior member). Until that time, and while others are responsible for their safety
restrictions apply.
When mom and dad are around, and in control, they can allow whatever behavior is legal, when they
have abdicated their responsibility to another, usually to the benefit of all involved, different rules apply.
It's different then telling someone eles's kid to "stop jumping on the couch" if you are babysitting them.
What they do at home doesn't apply.
I don't necessarily disagree that those should be off-limits. I do disagree about nutritional choices. The AAP clearly says kids should not have energy drinks. They also say kids shouldn't have caffeine, though their recommendations focus more on energy drinks. Monster will have up to 40% more caffeine than a Starbucks drink. And more sugar too. But if the backstop is the American Assoc of Pediatricians, then yes, we should ban them all. Why didn't they? I don't know.. Though manageability and social norms I imagine played a role.
The encampment workgroup batted around nutritional guidelines for a bit. I believe we should have them. Especially for something like a week long event. At that same time we have to be realistic on what can be done within the skillsets and budgets we have. But to simply ignore medical guidance (and not some random study here or there, but recommendations from a defining organization) is not good risk management nor wise. But yes.... Toss the Dew, Sundrop, Mello Yellow (anyone still drink that?), frappacinos, and other stuff out. Replace it with scheduled naps and sleep. It's a better footing to be on.
Quote from: MajorM on June 20, 2014, 03:54:09 AMThe encampment workgroup batted around nutritional guidelines for a bit. I believe we should have them. Especially for something like a week long event. At that same time we have to be realistic on what can be done within the skillsets and budgets we have. But to simply ignore medical guidance (and not some random study here or there, but recommendations from a defining organization) is not good risk management nor wise. But yes.... Toss the Dew, Sundrop, Mello Yellow (anyone still drink that?), frappacinos, and other stuff out. Replace it with scheduled naps and sleep. It's a better footing to be on.
They bring no advantage to the activity, and are expensive. That alone should be enough to end the conversation.
One of the parts of encampment is imparting life skills, nutrition is a huge part of that. It's kind of hard to
stress PT on one hand and then allow junk food in the same conversation.
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 03:38:31 AM
Once again I care more about consistency if energy drinks are bad, what about those cold Starbucks drinks: high sugar, high caffeine. My point is I do not believe that CAP should be making nutritional decisions for the cadets. That's the parents job.
Not on CAP time. It is that simple. It is the parents to job to decide what is right and wrong....but not on CAP time...that's our job. It is a parent's job to decide was is safe or not safe.....but not on CAP time....that's our job. Are you beginning to see the pattern?
Sure....let's go and argue about if we should be consistent in where we draw the line. I'm all with you on that one. Set a standard and write the guidelines.
But you can't say we can't do the parent's job in this case.....when we do it in so many other cases.
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 03:40:47 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 03:27:59 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 02:53:47 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 02:40:55 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 12:15:10 AM
I don't have any enthusiasm for restricting the food, alcohol or tobacco choices for Senior members, but if its good enough for the cadets then shouldn't it be good enough for us?
No....being more mature we can handle adult things better the younger cadet aged people.
Also being mature adults we don't need a nanny state dictating our behavior beyond that is necessarry to accomplish our mission.
So just like a beer drinking parent we are going to say to our cadets......do as I say....when you are older you can do adult things.
If only cadets had mature adults legally obligated to make decisions for them. No wait aren't they called parents?
NOT ON CAP TIME. That's where you argument breaks down. I don't care what your parents allow you to do. Eat Cheetos and Jelly Bellys for breakfast and 10-15 Monsters a day, 1/2 pack of Camel Unfiltered, and beer at dinner time.
ON CAP TIME you are we as CP Leaders need to be treating them responsibly as if we were legally responsible for their health and well being.....oh wait we are.
If we are leaders shouldn't it be example. Banned for cadets banned for seniors otherwise your hypocrisy is showing
It is not hypocrisy. An adult member is thought to know what is best for themselves. A cadet is not.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 04:00:23 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 03:38:31 AM
Once again I care more about consistency if energy drinks are bad, what about those cold Starbucks drinks: high sugar, high caffeine. My point is I do not believe that CAP should be making nutritional decisions for the cadets. That's the parents job.
Not on CAP time. It is that simple. It is the parents to job to decide what is right and wrong....but not on CAP time...that's our job. It is a parent's job to decide was is safe or not safe.....but not on CAP time....that's our job. Are you beginning to see the pattern?
Sure....let's go and argue about if we should be consistent in where we draw the line. I'm all with you on that one. Set a standard and write the guidelines.
But you can't say we can't do the parent's job in this case.....when we do it in so many other cases.
Yes actually I can we don't do the parents job (at least not in any composite squadron I've belonged to YMMV):
We do not make sure they are clothed, housed, educated, fed, see doctors, are kept safe (other than on meeting nights or activities), make decisions about the type of activities they may participate in (other than CAP), are taught right from wrong, are raised with the morals that their
parents hold important, learn about their culture. At best, we support these activities. We are not their parents, any more than teachers, priests, scout leaders are their parents. We may be adults that have influence, but the responsibility, and authority rest with the parents.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 04:05:16 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 03:40:47 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 03:27:59 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 02:53:47 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 02:40:55 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 12:15:10 AM
I don't have any enthusiasm for restricting the food, alcohol or tobacco choices for Senior members, but if its good enough for the cadets then shouldn't it be good enough for us?
No....being more mature we can handle adult things better the younger cadet aged people.
Also being mature adults we don't need a nanny state dictating our behavior beyond that is necessarry to accomplish our mission.
So just like a beer drinking parent we are going to say to our cadets......do as I say....when you are older you can do adult things.
If only cadets had mature adults legally obligated to make decisions for them. No wait aren't they called parents?
NOT ON CAP TIME. That's where you argument breaks down. I don't care what your parents allow you to do. Eat Cheetos and Jelly Bellys for breakfast and 10-15 Monsters a day, 1/2 pack of Camel Unfiltered, and beer at dinner time.
ON CAP TIME you are we as CP Leaders need to be treating them responsibly as if we were legally responsible for their health and well being.....oh wait we are.
If we are leaders shouldn't it be example. Banned for cadets banned for seniors otherwise your hypocrisy is showing
It is not hypocrisy. An adult member is thought to know what is best for themselves. A cadet is not.
Cadets have parents and/or guardians to know what is best for their child
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 04:08:26 AM
Cadets have parents and/or guardians to know what is best for their child
Right up until the time they drop them off at my door step for CAP.....then they belong to CAP with CAP's best judgment on what is good for them. If the parents disagree they are free to remove their kids from the program at any time.
That is point you are missing. When the parent is not there....CAP becomes the parent. Loco Parentis is the legal term IIRC.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 04:12:28 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 04:08:26 AM
Cadets have parents and/or guardians to know what is best for their child
Right up until the time they drop them off at my door step for CAP.....then they belong to CAP with CAP's best judgment on what is good for them. If the parents disagree they are free to remove their kids from the program at any time.
That is point you are missing. When the parent is not there....CAP becomes the parent. Loco Parentis is the legal term IIRC.
I'm not missing the point you are. In loco parentis only goes so far. If for instance I tell you that my child is medically restricted from certain activities, you cannot force him to do those activities because he is in CAP. If I tell you he is required to wear a yamaka, or keep his retainer in you can't give him permission violate that. They don't belong to CAP, we are not the military and parents don't give up their rights when they drop them off for a 3 hour meeting.
Ah....now you are changing the story.
If you come to me and say that your child must have monster energy drink under doctor's order....by all means Little Timmy get's the drink.
But if not....I don't care how if you let Timmy pop caffeine Pills....he does not get to have energy drinks on a CAP activity.
If little Timmy is restricted from certain activities....by all means he will not be forced to participate.
If little Timmy needs to wear his Yamaka...I will follow the rules in 39-1 for a waiver.
If little Timmy needs to wear his retainer....he gets to wear it.....if there is some safety reason why wearing the retainer prevents him from participating in an activity....he won't get to play.
But that is not what we are talking about....we are talking about keeping little Timmy safe and healthy on CAP time.
And I most assuredly have a moral, legal and regulatory duty to do just that to the best of my ability.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 04:25:55 AM
Ah....now you are changing the story.
If you come to me and say that your child must have monster energy drink under doctor's order....by all means Little Timmy get's the drink.
But if not....I don't care how if you let Timmy pop caffeine Pills....he does not get to have energy drinks on a CAP activity.
If little Timmy is restricted from certain activities....by all means he will not be forced to participate.
If little Timmy needs to wear his Yamaka...I will follow the rules in 39-1 for a waiver.
If little Timmy needs to wear his retainer....he gets to wear it.....if there is some safety reason why wearing the retainer prevents him from participating in an activity....he won't get to play.
But that is not what we are talking about....we are talking about keeping little Timmy safe and healthy on CAP time.
And I most assuredly have a moral, legal and regulatory duty to do just that to the best of my ability.
No I'm not changing my story.
We are not their parents, therefore we should not be making nutritional decisions for them. If we are going to make nutritional decisions for them then we should at least man up and follow those same decisions. Obviously National disagrees which does not surprise me as they seem to feel that the "nanny state" is the desirable state. My opinion is and remains we are on a slippery slope and I look forward to the time that CAP bans meat, donuts, pizza for the cadets as they are unhealthy to. And as long as the adults don't have to follow the rules, they don't have to worry about how restrictive or random they are.
Maybe Ned can chime in with the legal mumbo jumbo....but as I understand it as a layman......on CAP time we are their parents.
I know that I am the one going to get sued if Little Johnny goes into a diabetic shock on my watch.
I know that I am the one who will have to answer to NHQ on down for any accidents that happen on my watch.
I know that I am the one who's job is to keep Johnny save on my watch.
So....why are nutritional decisions different then all the other health and safety decisions I make for other people's kids.....EVERY TIME I AM AT A CADET ACTIVITY?
All the rest of you statement is not germain to this key point here. Explain why CAP can say "You can't run on the flight line" to someone else's kids....but not say "you can't drink energy drinks on CAP activities"?
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 04:16:52 AM
In loco parentis only goes so far...
Yes, as far as when you are the "local parent"...
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 04:16:52 AM
...parents don't give up their rights when they drop them off for a 3 hour meeting.
Legally? No. Practically? They certainly do - in the same way they do when they drop Johnny
over at Mikey's house. During that time, within the bounds of due care, Mikey's parents are in charge.
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 04:07:35 AM
We do not make sure they are clothed, housed, educated, fed, see doctors, are kept safe (other than on meeting nights or activities), make decisions about the type of activities they may participate in (other than CAP),
As you say, during encampments, for example, we do exactly that.
Just like parents, CAP's authority begins and ends when it is conferred or abdicated.
In this case, during any CAP activity.
If the kid wants to pound 3 monsters on the way to the meeting, and two on the way home, that's their court appointed guardian's problem.
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 03:38:31 AM
Once again I care more about consistency if energy drinks are bad, what about those cold Starbucks drinks: high sugar, high caffeine. My point is I do not believe that CAP should be making nutritional decisions for the cadets. That's the parents job.
You keep talking about the caffeine as though it is the only factor. Unfortunately, it is not. There are numerous factors that play into the monster drink vs. coffee debate.
1. Coffee is not usually binge drank as opposed to energy drinks. Time is a factor as with alcoholic drinks. 5 drinks is not necessarily the same. If I drink 5 alcoholic drinks in 1 hour as opposed to 5 alcoholic drinks throughout the day, the effects are different. Within 1 hour and I may end up drunk. Throughout the day and my liver has the time to process the alcohol.
2. FDA does not regulate caffeine content as they do with soda (<0.02%). So the fact that monster energy drinks claim there is only 160 mg per 16 fl oz is misleading. Look at the ingredients list. You will see caffeine and guarana listed separately. Why do you suppose they do that?
3. Caffeine interaction with adults is relatively safe as demonstrated by numerous studies. However, caffeine interactions with adolescents is not as well studied. A study in Ohio demonstrated that most 7-9th graders only take in 53 mg per day with 20% taking in 100mg per day. Children's bodies are less adapted to caffeine intake than an adult who has been drinking coffee for years. Unfortunately, the FDA refuses to put recommendations for caffeine intake for children since the energy drink business alone is $5.4 billion/year. Hence the reason why DHHS and other organizations are willing to put out recommendations.
4. Caffeine is the only active ingredient in coffee. However, this is not the case with energy drinks which have a variety of "active ingredients", of which the interactions have not really been studied either.
5. Due to the increase of drinking caffeinated beverages, children and teens are decreasing calcium intake through milk. As this is the time calcium is crucial for bone development, a decrease in calcium intake is detrimental to proper growth.
Also, a mission given to the Health Services Personnel is to:
h. Promote the Air Force's health, wellness and fitness philosophy.
i. Educate members about and encourage behaviors which result in increased safety,
health and wellness including, but not limited to:
(4) Proper hydration.
(6) Eating of healthy and nutritious foods, snacks and beverages.
(10) Importance of self-care and personal care in maintaining an operationally ready
member.
Furthermore, commanders and leaders in the cadet program are required to:
CAPP 52-18:
Commanders and the leaders they designate to supervise this program must emphasize the value of physical training and clearly explain the objectives and benefits of the [physical fitness] program
The physical fitness program includes proper nutrition education and implementation (chapter 3).
Besides, if a cadet cannot go for a typical weekend activity without an energy drink or even an encampment without an energy drink, is not that telling you something?
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 04:38:46 AM
Maybe Ned can chime in with the legal mumbo jumbo....but as I understand it as a layman......on CAP time we are their parents.
I know that I am the one going to get sued if Little Johnny goes into a diabetic shock on my watch.
Well no not really.
CAPR 160-1:
Quote4-1. General Rule. The taking of prescription medication is the responsibility of the individual member for whom the medication was prescribed or, if the member is a minor, the member's parent or guardian. Except in extraordinary circumstances, CAP members, regardless of age, will be responsible for transporting, storing, and taking their own medications, including inhalers and epinephrine pens.
a. A CAP senior member, after obtaining all the necessary information and receiving documentation of the written permission from a minor cadet's parent or guardian for the administration of prescription medication during the activity, can agree to accept the responsibility of making sure the minor cadet is reminded to take any prescribed medication at the times and in the frequencies prescribed; however, no senior member will be required or encouraged to do so. This regulation does not prohibit senior member staff from monitoring medication compliance with directly observed medication ingestion, having medication forms for the cadet to initial when doses were taken, performing pill counts, or other compliance verification.
b. When a cadet is unable to safely self-medicate and senior member supervision is not available, one option may be to postpone attendance at the activity until the cadet can handle the self-medication task. Another option may be to have a parent or guardian attend the activity as a CAP member or cadet sponsor member to supervise the cadet's medication.
c. In the case of a severe reaction requiring use of an epinephrine injection pen where a cadet has become so ill as to have difficulty in administering his or her own epinephrine injection, senior members may assist the cadet in administering the epinephrine injection in order to save the life of the cadet. It is encouraged that health service officers or senior members who may have contact with this cadet be made aware of the potential for severe reactions and become familiar with the operation of the cadet's particular epinephrine device.
d. Members who require refrigeration for medications should carefully coordinate with activity officials well in advance of their attendance at the activity to ensure that refrigeration will be available. CAP cannot guarantee the availability of refrigeration at all activities.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 04:38:46 AM
Maybe Ned can chime in with the legal mumbo jumbo....but as I understand it as a layman......on CAP time we are their parents.
I know that I am the one going to get sued if Little Johnny goes into a diabetic shock on my watch.
I know that I am the one who will have to answer to NHQ on down for any accidents that happen on my watch.
I know that I am the one who's job is to keep Johnny save on my watch.
So....why are nutritional decisions different then all the other health and safety decisions I make for other people's kids.....EVERY TIME I AM AT A CADET ACTIVITY?
All the rest of you statement is not germain to this key point here. Explain why CAP can say "You can't run on the flight line" to someone else's kids....but not say "you can't drink energy drinks on CAP activities"?
First I'm not saying they can't say it, as that would be stupid they have said it. I'm saying it's wrong and is a slippery slope that we shouldn't be making. There is a difference between decisions that need to be made for immediate dangers to health and safety (don't run on the flight line) and decisions about nutrition, which at the end of the day are meaningless because even if we are "their parents" for the 3 hours we have them since the other 165 hours of the week we have no control over them at the end of the day, it will have no real effect. We are making a random decision of what should be forbidden based on someone's opinion, drawing an artificial fence around a particular kind of beverage without consistency to other sources of the same "problematic element" in this case caffeine.
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 04:45:16 AM
drawing an artificial fence around a particular kind of beverage without consistency to other sources of the same "problematic element" in this case caffeine.
It is not an artificial fence. It is a fence recommended by experts in pediatrics and medicine. CAP is not saying energy drinks are bad. They are using the recommendation of the DHHS and AAP among others.
Quote from: LSThiker on June 20, 2014, 04:43:16 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 04:38:46 AM
Maybe Ned can chime in with the legal mumbo jumbo....but as I understand it as a layman......on CAP time we are their parents.
I know that I am the one going to get sued if Little Johnny goes into a diabetic shock on my watch.
Well no not really.
CAPR 160-1:
Quote4-1. General Rule. The taking of prescription medication is the responsibility of the individual member for whom the medication was prescribed or, if the member is a minor, the member's parent or guardian. Except in extraordinary circumstances, CAP members, regardless of age, will be responsible for transporting, storing, and taking their own medications, including inhalers and epinephrine pens.
a. A CAP senior member, after obtaining all the necessary information and receiving documentation of the written permission from a minor cadet's parent or guardian for the administration of prescription medication during the activity, can agree to accept the responsibility of making sure the minor cadet is reminded to take any prescribed medication at the times and in the frequencies prescribed; however, no senior member will be required or encouraged to do so. This regulation does not prohibit senior member staff from monitoring medication compliance with directly observed medication ingestion, having medication forms for the cadet to initial when doses were taken, performing pill counts, or other compliance verification.
b. When a cadet is unable to safely self-medicate and senior member supervision is not available, one option may be to postpone attendance at the activity until the cadet can handle the self-medication task. Another option may be to have a parent or guardian attend the activity as a CAP member or cadet sponsor member to supervise the cadet's medication.
c. In the case of a severe reaction requiring use of an epinephrine injection pen where a cadet has become so ill as to have difficulty in administering his or her own epinephrine injection, senior members may assist the cadet in administering the epinephrine injection in order to save the life of the cadet. It is encouraged that health service officers or senior members who may have contact with this cadet be made aware of the potential for severe reactions and become familiar with the operation of the cadet's particular epinephrine device.
d. Members who require refrigeration for medications should carefully coordinate with activity officials well in advance of their attendance at the activity to ensure that refrigeration will be available. CAP cannot guarantee the availability of refrigeration at all activities.
Diabetic shock brought on by drinking too many energy drinks....not because of a diabetic got their meds screwed up.
But CAPR 160-1 will not keep me out of court in any case....it may make sure I got a CAP lawyer on my side or not. But my point is that the encampment/activity director/commander is responsible for the health and safety of his people at this activity.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 04:50:22 AM
Diabetic shock brought on by drinking too many energy drinks....not because of a diabetic got their meds screwed up.
But CAPR 160-1 will not keep me out of court in any case....it may make sure I got a CAP lawyer on my side or not. But my point is that the encampment/activity director/commander is responsible for the health and safety of his people at this activity.
Okay, I was going on the meds assumption.
Either way, it will keep you (personal finances) out of court as you would be following the rules, which were also acknowledged by the parents (permission slip). So if they sue, they will be suing the organization, not you personally.
Nevertheless, I await for Ned's opinion.
Quote from: LSThiker on June 20, 2014, 04:49:40 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 04:45:16 AM
drawing an artificial fence around a particular kind of beverage without consistency to other sources of the same "problematic element" in this case caffeine.
It is not an artificial fence. It is a fence recommended by experts in pediatrics and medicine. CAP is not saying energy drinks are bad. They are using the recommendation of the DHHS and AAP among others.
DHHS and the AAP make plenty of other recommendations to, fat consumption, sodium consumption, etc. CAP is saying energy drinks are bd
based on the recommendation of the AAP and DHHS
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 04:45:16 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 04:38:46 AM
Maybe Ned can chime in with the legal mumbo jumbo....but as I understand it as a layman......on CAP time we are their parents.
I know that I am the one going to get sued if Little Johnny goes into a diabetic shock on my watch.
I know that I am the one who will have to answer to NHQ on down for any accidents that happen on my watch.
I know that I am the one who's job is to keep Johnny save on my watch.
So....why are nutritional decisions different then all the other health and safety decisions I make for other people's kids.....EVERY TIME I AM AT A CADET ACTIVITY?
All the rest of you statement is not germain to this key point here. Explain why CAP can say "You can't run on the flight line" to someone else's kids....but not say "you can't drink energy drinks on CAP activities"?
First I'm not saying they can't say it, as that would be stupid they have said it. I'm saying it's wrong and is a slippery slope that we shouldn't be making. There is a difference between decisions that need to be made for immediate dangers to health and safety (don't run on the flight line) and decisions about nutrition, which at the end of the day are meaningless because even if we are "their parents" for the 3 hours we have them since the other 165 hours of the week we have no control over them at the end of the day, it will have no real effect. We are making a random decision of what should be forbidden based on someone's opinion, drawing an artificial fence around a particular kind of beverage without consistency to other sources of the same "problematic element" in this case caffeine.
For the 3 hours....for the 7 day for the 14 days that I got a cadet......I don't care about all those other hours and days. You stay safe and healthy on my time. Energy drinks are not good for you. Don't drink them on CAP time.
The slippery slope is not a factor here. It a logical fallacy that has no bearing on whether we should or should not ban cadets from drinking energy drinks.
You say it is wrong......so present the evidence and show that study cited is wrong in its conclusions and recommendations. Show where CAP is wrong to make the interpretation they did of the study and the conclusions that they came up with. Show that the implementation of said policy is wrong....morally, logically, legally or what ever.
I make random decisions about safety based on other peoples opinions all the time. I've never walked into a spinning propeller but I've been told that it is a BAD thing to do. Other then the speed at which one can kill you........what is the effective difference in this case? Too much sugar and caffeine on a hot summer day when stressed by encampment or on a SAREX can cause server reactions. That can cause death. So just like we don't let Little Timmy run on the flight line.....even if his mom let's him when they go down to the air port......Little Timmy can't have his energy drink on CAP time. If Timmy's mom's wishes are more important to CAP responsibility to keep Timmy Safe.....how can we possibly order Timmy not to run on the flight line?
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 05:00:12 AM
DHHS and the AAP make plenty of other recommendations to, fat consumption, sodium consumption, etc. CAP is saying energy drinks are bd based on the recommendation of the AAP and DHHS
Which are found in CAPP 52-18 Chapter 3 and CAPR 160-1.
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 04:45:16 AMFirst I'm not saying they can't say it, as that would be stupid they have said it. I'm saying it's wrong and is a slippery slope that we shouldn't be making. There is a difference between decisions that need to be made for immediate dangers to health and safety (don't run on the flight line) and decisions about nutrition, which at the end of the day are meaningless because even if we are "their parents" for the 3 hours we have them since the other 165 hours of the week we have no control over them at the end of the day, it will have no real effect. We are making a random decision of what should be forbidden based on someone's opinion, drawing an artificial fence around a particular kind of beverage without consistency to other sources of the same "problematic element" in this case caffeine.
Caffeine is not the issue, nor the substance of concern - you gotta read those labels.
Monster:
Caffeine: 10Mg per OZ.
Ingredients: carbonated water, sucrose, glucose, citric acid, natural flavors, taurine, sodium citrate, color added, panax ginseng root extract, L-carnitine, caffeine, sorbic acid, benzoic acid, niacinamide, sodium chloride, glucuronolactone, inositol, guarana seed extract, pyridoxine hydrochloride, sucralose, riboflavin, maltodextrin, and cyanocobalamin.
Coffee:
Caffeine: 12Mg per OZ.
Ingredients: Water, coffee.
Not to mention that those studies that exist indicate that caffeine is worse in the developing adolescent then in adults,
which is basically true for just about any questionable substance.
Beyond that, CAP is no longer supposed to present a proper example, or establish rules for its participants?
In many, many cases, an encampment or other CAP activity is the only time these kids ever get proper nutrition
or the right amount of sleep, literally.
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 05:00:12 AM
Quote from: LSThiker on June 20, 2014, 04:49:40 AM
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 04:45:16 AM
drawing an artificial fence around a particular kind of beverage without consistency to other sources of the same "problematic element" in this case caffeine.
It is not an artificial fence. It is a fence recommended by experts in pediatrics and medicine. CAP is not saying energy drinks are bad. They are using the recommendation of the DHHS and AAP among others.
DHHS and the AAP make plenty of other recommendations to, fat consumption, sodium consumption, etc. CAP is saying energy drinks are bd based on the recommendation of the AAP and DHHS
I am assuming bd means bad............but Yes...that's right. CAP is saying don't let the cadets drink energy drinks on CAP time because we think they are bad based on our read of the DHHS and AAP recommendations.
Now if you want to argue what the shape and size that fence should be........by adding or removing classes of foods and beverages or specific products......by all means that would be acceptable.
You made a claim before that Red Bull has less caffeine then a cup of coffee......it that is true...the maybe Red Bull should not be classed as an energy drink. I know that the D&Der's life blood was the dreaded Mountain Dew.....If MD got too much of the bad stuff it should be banned too.....I got no problem with consistency. Define the standard and then draw the line.
In a study (http://nutrition.ucdavis.edu/content/infosheets/fact-pro-energydrinks.pdf) UC Davis pegged the Monster caffeine content closer to 80mg per serving, with 2-3 servings in a can... Which means more like 160mg per drink.
I'm not sure where I stand on the whole energy drink debate. I enjoy Redbull in certain situations but not at CAP activities (I'm also an adult). How about we compromise - you can drink energy drinks but if you're bouncing off the walls your parents get to come pick you up...
Red Bull:
Caffeine 9.46 MG per Oz
Ingredients: taurine, glucuronolactone, B-group vitamins
Mountain Dew:
Caffeine 4.5 MG per Oz
Ingrediants (varies by country)
"carbonated water, High-fructose corn syrup (in much of the U.S.), concentrated orange juice, citric acid, natural flavors, sodium benzoate, caffeine, sodium citrate, erythorbic acid, gum arabic, calcium disodium EDTA, brominated vegetable oil, and yellow 5."
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 20, 2014, 05:16:28 AM
In a study (http://nutrition.ucdavis.edu/content/infosheets/fact-pro-energydrinks.pdf (http://nutrition.ucdavis.edu/content/infosheets/fact-pro-energydrinks.pdf)) UC Davis pegged the Monster caffeine content closer to 80mg per serving, with 2-3 servings in a can... Which means more like 160mg per drink.
I'm not sure where I stand on the whole energy drink debate. I enjoy Redbull in certain situations but not at CAP activities (I'm also an adult). How about we compromise - you can drink energy drinks but if you're bouncing off the walls your parents get to come pick you up...
We can't get them to pick them up when they have set fire to the building, jumped the fence, ran across the red line at the flight line and call the encampment commander a very very bad name.......:)
Quote from: Eclipse on June 20, 2014, 05:17:34 AM
Red Bull:
Caffeine 9.46 MG per Oz
Ingredients: taurine, glucuronolactone, B-group vitamins
Mountain Dew:
Caffeine 4.5 MG per Oz
Ingrediants (varies by country)
"carbonated water, High-fructose corn syrup (in much of the U.S.), concentrated orange juice, citric acid, natural flavors, sodium benzoate, caffeine, sodium citrate, erythorbic acid, gum arabic, calcium disodium EDTA, brominated vegetable oil, and yellow 5."
Yeah I missed the per oz in your post. Sorry 'bout that.
I have a cardiac issue that is aggravated by alcohol and caffeine. I have discussed the permissible level of caffeine consumption with my cardio doctor several times, particularly regarding sources. He has outright banned all energy drinks, strongly recommended not drinking regular coffee, and suggested a limit of one caffeine soda per day. Obviously, I don't have to follow any of that, but I do, because I value my health and wish to extend my longevity.
Caffeine raises your heart rate artificially, in a manner different from exercise, higher doses can affect concentration, and it can affect how your body processes different nutrients.
Bottom line - there's no good reason to allow energy drinks for cadets at CAP activities, and a whole bunch of reasons.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2014, 05:18:53 AM
We can't get them to pick them up when they have set fire to the building, jumped the fence, ran across the red line at the flight line and call the encampment commander a very very bad name.......:)
You remember that encampment, too? :)
Quote from: LSThiker on June 20, 2014, 04:40:38 AM
Besides, if a cadet cannot go for a typical weekend activity without an energy drink or even an encampment without an energy drink, is not that telling you something?
^This.
I've been to a number of encampments in my time. Commanded a few, commandant of cadets, various other staff positions (often managing training), etc.
One thing I have noticed (and this goes back to at LEAST my time as a senior, and probably WIWAC, but never noticed it) is that when summer rolls around, kids shift their sleep schedules. Not all kids, but a lot. They wind up playing video games or whatever and going to bed at 4-6am, sleep till noon, etc.
Some teenagers then do stuff like slam Red Bull (back in my day it was D&D or movies on the VCR and Coke or Mountain Dew) . This helps maintain their shift when the body tries to take them back to an "awake when its light, sleeping when its dark" kind of schedule that their circadian rhythm wants.
So here comes encampment. Cadets all arrive and fill on Saturday, Saturday night is absolute chaos in the barracks after lights out. Cadets are all keyed up, most have only been awake since noon, are all in their bunks but everybody is talking, screwing around, etc.
Next morning, you roll everybody out of bed for PT and you can almost pick out the sleep-shifted cadets who are going to be struggling during the day. They're the ones that look like they're still asleep at PT. Why? Because their body probably only actually went to bed at midnight or later, so they only have a few hours of sleep and quite a bit less than everybody else in the last 24 hrs. They're getting up for PT at encampment about the time that they would normally be going to bed. Their body goes "Woah! Whats this?"
That first full day is a lot of moving around, but you start to pick out the somnambulistic cadets. They're in the chow line with their heads lolling around, they're eating like they're in a haze, and god forbid you put them in the base theater for a class of some sort! I tried to avoid putting a sit-down class on the schedule after lunch those first couple days, but sometimes thats just how it worked. And the number of chins meeting chests in that training block was usually pretty high.
Now imagine if cadets are allowed to use chemical stimulants to "fix" their sleepyness?
Frankly, I'm glad that there is guidance that says they're not allowed. I didn't allow it anyway, and the buck stopped with me, but its nice to have something hang one's hat on
(I didn't meet a parent who said "You're a horrible man for not letting my Johnny have Mountain Dew!" Most said "He didn't have a soda all week? How did you manage that?")BTW, with the advent of Red Bull and other energy drinks, I didn't even let the cadet staff load up on that stuff.
My basic encampment I didn't even know where to find a soda. Energy drinks hadn't appeared yet, at least not in force (2006). The big thing was to get Kool-Aid (sugar free probably) but that was only an option once you drank a full glass of water. The water at that place stained my hydration hose green so you can imagine how eager we were to drink it...
NESA is pretty much the same way (soft drink wise), the only place to get anything carbonated/caffeinated is to bring it with (nobody does, at least in GSAR) or go to the PX, which nobody has time for once the session starts.
WIWAC someone should probably have banned Axe, in the concentrations teenage boys applied it at the time I'm pretty sure we killed a few brain cells (has that actually changed?).
I reset my kids' summer sleep schedules to allow them to stay up one hour later than the school year and sleep in one hour later. They think I've left the reservation :). "But my friends stay up til whenever!"
Well... They probably don't want to live here then :)
WIWAC, anything but water was forbidden. At encampment, we could have a glass of OJ or apple juice with breakfast, no milk, due to the old "it'll curdle in your stomach during the heat of the day and we don't want you to get sick" wive's tale. No soda whatsoever. Any cadet caught trying to sneak a Coke would be severely punished, not to mention having said Coke taken away and drank in front of him by a staff member. On FTXs we could have a soda...with our evening meal. After a full day of it sloshing around in the back of a truck and in your pack, it was barely drinkable. We did drink Gatorade, but 99% of the time it was good old DiHydroxide.
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 20, 2014, 02:06:28 PM
good old DiHydroxide.
Actually, dihydroxide would be bad for you. That is a compound that contains two OH- groups. What you are looking for is the IUPAC name oxidane. Or if you would like dihydrogen monoxide, hydrogen oxide, dihydrogen oxide, or hydrogen hydroxide.
Quote from: LSThiker on June 20, 2014, 02:34:53 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 20, 2014, 02:06:28 PM
good old DiHydroxide.
Actually, dihydroxide would be bad for you. That is a compound that contains two OH- groups. What you are looking for is the IUPAC name oxidane. Or if you would like dihydrogen monoxide, hydrogen oxide, dihydrogen oxide, or hydrogen hydroxide.
That's what it was. I saw an internet joke about "don't drink hydrogen oxide!"
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 20, 2014, 02:36:12 PM
That's what it was. I saw an internet joke about "don't drink hydrogen oxide!"
Still cannot believe that whom ever maintains this website has kept it going:
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)
I'm certain more people die every year from inhalation of DHMO than from energy drinks, yet I don't see the regulation banning DHMO. >:D
Quote from: JeffDG on June 20, 2014, 02:41:17 PM
I'm certain more people die every year from inhalation of DHMO than from energy drinks, yet I don't see the regulation banning DHMO. >:D
California has beaten you to it
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4534017/ (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4534017/)
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 20, 2014, 10:58:13 AM
WIWAC someone should probably have banned Axe, in the concentrations teenage boys applied it at the time I'm pretty sure we killed a few brain cells (has that actually changed?).
This is actually a strong pet peeve of mine, you don't ban a brand, especially considering that could be construed as endorsing other brands. You ban the actual product. Have an issue with aerosol deodorants? Ban them, not the popular brand. Especially since brands like Axe also have products that are not aerosol.
I actually went to an activity once where on the packing list, for deodorants it said "No Axe", so I ended up going with another brand of aerosol deodorant and Axe brand shower gel, shampoo, etc. When the director found out, they were not pleased, but I like to think my point got across, helps I was on staff.
Note: I did bring gel-type deodorant too, not a fan of aerosol myself for other reasons.
Quote from: Alaric on June 20, 2014, 04:30:54 AM
Obviously National disagrees which does not surprise me as they seem to feel that the "nanny state" is the desirable state.
To Robert and others:
I don't "Nanny State" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state) used in the CP context is quite the derogatory phrase you think it is.
When you think about it, it is actually a fairly good approximation of our some of our responsibilities in the cadet program - to care for our cadets with the permission and guidance of the parents. (While challenging the cadets in a rigorous leadership training program that uses a military model, of course. ;) )
Sometimes part of supervising young folks in our age cohort (12 - 20.99), is restricting some of our cadets' personal choices.
Just like good parents.
But are we really just gonna debate the energy drink question? I would have thought that was going to be among the least controversial of the substantive changes. I guess I was wrong again. God Bless CAP-Talk and it's unique blend of personalities.
Quote from: Ned on June 20, 2014, 06:13:20 PM
But are we really just gonna debate the energy drink question?
I think that was more or less my fault. Sorry :)
Quote from: LSThiker on June 20, 2014, 02:34:53 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 20, 2014, 02:06:28 PM
good old DiHydroxide.
Actually, dihydroxide would be bad for you. That is a compound that contains two OH- groups. What you are looking for is the IUPAC name oxidane. Or if you would like dihydrogen monoxide, hydrogen oxide, dihydrogen oxide, or hydrogen hydroxide.
Two guys walk into a bar run by a former chemist. The first says "I'll have some H2O". The second says "I'll have some H2O too". He died.
(http://s13.postimg.org/5dfyt51vr/5055611_700b_v1.jpg)
Quote from: BHartman007 on June 20, 2014, 07:00:24 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on June 20, 2014, 02:34:53 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 20, 2014, 02:06:28 PM
good old DiHydroxide.
Actually, dihydroxide would be bad for you. That is a compound that contains two OH- groups. What you are looking for is the IUPAC name oxidane. Or if you would like dihydrogen monoxide, hydrogen oxide, dihydrogen oxide, or hydrogen hydroxide.
Two guys walk into a bar run by a former chemist. The first says "I'll have some H2O". The second says "I'll have some H2O too". He died.
I heard it differently:
Two chemists walk into a bar. The first said to the bartender, "I will have some H2O." The second said "I will have some water, as well." The first chemist fumed, his assassination plot foiled.
Quote from: a2capt on June 20, 2014, 09:10:04 PM
(http://s13.postimg.org/5dfyt51vr/5055611_700b_v1.jpg)
I always remind my grand kids that water is composed of both Hydrogen and Oxygen, both of which are highly explosive and that if they drink too much it could cause burping and farting.
Oxygen in its gaseous form is not explosive. Compressed in bottles, it can rapidly expand, much like any other compressed gas, but you can't "light" it. It only serves as the third side of the fire triangle, and supports combustion. The higher the concentration, the faster the fuel burns. The Apollo 1 fire is a good example. There was no explosion; it was a flash fire.
This info is primarily from the LOX safety class I taught in the Navy.
Quote from: SarDragon on June 21, 2014, 01:43:25 AM
Oxygen in its gaseous form is not explosive. Compressed in bottles, it can rapidly expand, much like any other compressed gas, but you can't "light" it. It only serves as the third side of the fire triangle, and supports combustion. The higher the concentration, the faster the fuel burns. The Apollo 1 fire is a good example. There was no explosion; it was a flash fire.
This info is primarily from the LOX safety class I taught in the Navy.
The biggest danger with LOX is the extreme cold.
Spill LOX on an oily rag, and the last thing you need to worry about is the cold. The rag will autoignite almost immediately, and burn vigorously until either the rag or the LOX is depleted.
Now we should return to our regularly scheduled CAP regulation complaint thread. ;)
Read this a little bit while at work and don't see too much of a big change in it except that now promotion boards are mandatory.
Quote from: SarDragon on June 21, 2014, 07:49:22 AM
Spill LOX on an oily rag, and the last thing you need to worry about is the cold. The rag will autoignite almost immediately, and burn vigorously until either the rag or the LOX is depleted.
Now we should return to our regularly scheduled CAP regulation complaint thread. ;)
Spill it on bare skin! :o Or even better bare skin that has oil on it! >:D
Just an observation: five full pages and no one has turned it into a uniform debate!
I believe this may be a record for CAP Talk!
Quote from: CAPR 52-16
5-2 (d) Promotion Boards. Effective 1 September 2014, units will hold promotion boards to help the commander decide if cadets are ready to accept increased responsibilities that come with their promotions. At a minimum, the board meets without the cadet present and reviews the cadet's personnel file to ensure he or she is qualified for promotion.
How is it a promotion board if the cadet isn't present?
(Note: I'm just wondering.)
Quote from: Cadetter on June 21, 2014, 05:05:12 PM
Quote from: CAPR 52-16
5-2 (d) Promotion Boards. Effective 1 September 2014, units will hold promotion boards to help the commander decide if cadets are ready to accept increased responsibilities that come with their promotions. At a minimum, the board meets without the cadet present and reviews the cadet's personnel file to ensure he or she is qualified for promotion.
How is it a promotion board if the cadet isn't present?
(Note: I'm just wondering.)
The board (the Commander, the DCC/Leadership Officer and the Cadet Commander) sit down with the records of the cadet being promoted, fill out the CAPF50 (if applicable). they discuss the cadet's progress and make a promotion decision.
Quote from: Cadetter on June 21, 2014, 05:05:12 PM
Quote from: CAPR 52-16
5-2 (d) Promotion Boards. Effective 1 September 2014, units will hold promotion boards to help the commander decide if cadets are ready to accept increased responsibilities that come with their promotions. At a minimum, the board meets without the cadet present and reviews the cadet's personnel file to ensure he or she is qualified for promotion.
How is it a promotion board if the cadet isn't present?
(Note: I'm just wondering.)
The idea is to maximize the promotions for cadets. A board can review records and discuss promotions far easier and faster without the cadet present. But primarily because there may be a reason the cadet cannot attend the meeting due to illness, death in the family, or even attending an NCSA.
+1 - This "knock once, wait to enter, be seated" nonsense just wastes time, and sometimes violates regulations
about retesting or what the process should be.
The member need not be present for the board to consider his promotion - everything relevent should be documented,
cadet or senior.
Go look at all the promotion board threads.
The competitive board format is really just a waste of time.
Unless you got a whole butt load of cadets/seniors in your unit (I'm talking just squadron level boards here), the promotion authority should already know if Member X is ready or not.
If your promotion decision on the member's readiness for promotion is hinging on how well they do at the 5-10 interview......I seriously think you got bigger problems.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 21, 2014, 06:48:33 PM
Go look at all the promotion board threads.
The competitive board format is really just a waste of time.
Oh, I have. And I mostly agree.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 21, 2014, 06:48:33 PM
Unless you got a whole butt load of cadets/seniors in your unit (I'm talking just squadron level boards here), the promotion authority should already know if Member X is ready or not.
If your promotion decision on the member's readiness for promotion is hinging on how well they do at the 5-10 interview......I seriously think you got bigger problems.
Yeah, well we don't have a huge squadron.
Agreed. I can't say we have a lot of interview-style PrBs (we only have them for milestones). I'm pretty sure some sort of meeting happens between the CC, DC, and C/CC for non-milestone promotions.