Thursday, February 18, 2010
SnowBoarding, an insane "non sport"
12:24 PM | 
Posted by
Sam Redman
by Sam Redman
Snowboarding is a nothing but daredevil "sport" and should not be getting the extensive media exposure that it does, causing it to be glamorized among young men. Traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury is on the rise as the tricks become more insane. Just Google (or Bing) the phrase, "traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injuries snowboarding." This is a tragic trend. This is what an article in WebMD stated:
Continuing to glorify this risky activity is madness. Could the New York Times do an article profiling, for example, 50 or more snowboarders who have recently sustained and are attempting to live with severe spinal cord and brain injuries (just contact the authors of a few of those studies) so that the public can be made aware of the insanity of promotion and participation in this insanity?
Someone advanced the silly argument that Snowboarding is justified because Boxing and Football are still legal. However, that is a ridiculous position. Boxing definitely should join the ranks of the banned sports in the same way cock fighting and dog fighting are no longer legal (obviously, humans have far more value than animals and we should act for people at least in like fashion as we do to protect fowl and canines.). Brain injuries (like that suffered by Muhammad Ali) which destroy productive lives are rampant among former boxers, showing up years after they are out of the sport. Boxing cannot be made safe even with helmets. The AMA (American Medical Association) has a long-standing position calling for the sport of boxing to be banned. Nelson Richards, MD, from the American Academy of Neurology (the brain injury physicians who see the damage repeatedly), stated, "There is absolutely no way you can make boxing safe."
Football can possibly make changes as far as helmet and neck protection and huge research efforts are underway (including tests with various helmet candidates) to create a playing situation which does not result in concussions and subsequent brain damage. But, the NFL is very aware that this is an emergency situation with scores of former players actually unable to function mentally in their fifties and older and the NFL is working to try to create equipment which can make the sport safe.
Snowboarding is far more dangerous than even boxing or football and has no place in a civilized society. A review recently published in the journal, "Injury Prevention," concluded that head and spinal injuries are on the rise as a result of skiing and snowboard accidents. It stated that faster speeds and complicated maneuvers are leading to more head and spine injuries among downhill skiers and snowboarders. And what's significant is that while injuries in general are declining in these two sports, head injury is continuing to rise.
In that article it also stated that a survey of several United States ski resorts found that helmets were worn by just one in eight skiers and snowboarders. However, even if helmets are worn, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that only half of head injuries on the slopes could be prevented by those helmets. So helmets are simply not a solution.
The argument that a sport which has a high risk of brain injury is justified because "people are interested in watching" it is ludicrous logic. A comment to that effect was made in response to my posting on the NYtimes online of the first part of this discussion in response to an article about snowboarder Kevin Pierce suffering a brain injury. That nonsense was highlighted as a choice posting (while mine was not). That was an irresponsible response by the NYtimes editor (or perhaps the blog author). Medieval spear and sword fighting were at one time legal in England and other European countries, but are no longer permitted in any civilized cultures. Those would be fun to watch as well (and there are actually those who would like to see it made legal), but our culture has progressed considerably since those days. Snowboarding is as primitive as sword fighting and in the face of the steady rise in traumatic brain and spinal injuries in young men (now all over the world) there is no reasonable argument for its continued promotion and encouragement.
Snowboarding is a nothing but daredevil "sport" and should not be getting the extensive media exposure that it does, causing it to be glamorized among young men. Traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury is on the rise as the tricks become more insane. Just Google (or Bing) the phrase, "traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injuries snowboarding." This is a tragic trend. This is what an article in WebMD stated:
"Data came from 24 studies on skiing and snowboarding injuries from countries including the U.S., Canada, Japan, Switzerland, and Austria.Can the message be any clearer? It is a foolish non-sport which is causing brain and spinal cord injuries in young men. No amount of safety precautions (such as helmets and pads) are going to prevent these injuries from happening. If a professional like Kevin Pierce, who was extremely skilled, could sustain such an injury, beginners and those with limited experience are obviously at a far greater risk. Those victims won't get the publicity, nor the financial assistance from big sponsors and therefore won't receive a million dollar rehabilitation (which often can't do much anyway as some are left as para or quadriplegics). They can only rely on whatever is provided by welfare assistance.
Here are the key findings:
Traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury appear to be rising among skiers and snowboarders.
That trend matches the rise in acrobatic and high-speed moves on the slopes.
Young men are the most likely snowboarders and skiers to sustain such injuries."
Continuing to glorify this risky activity is madness. Could the New York Times do an article profiling, for example, 50 or more snowboarders who have recently sustained and are attempting to live with severe spinal cord and brain injuries (just contact the authors of a few of those studies) so that the public can be made aware of the insanity of promotion and participation in this insanity?
Someone advanced the silly argument that Snowboarding is justified because Boxing and Football are still legal. However, that is a ridiculous position. Boxing definitely should join the ranks of the banned sports in the same way cock fighting and dog fighting are no longer legal (obviously, humans have far more value than animals and we should act for people at least in like fashion as we do to protect fowl and canines.). Brain injuries (like that suffered by Muhammad Ali) which destroy productive lives are rampant among former boxers, showing up years after they are out of the sport. Boxing cannot be made safe even with helmets. The AMA (American Medical Association) has a long-standing position calling for the sport of boxing to be banned. Nelson Richards, MD, from the American Academy of Neurology (the brain injury physicians who see the damage repeatedly), stated, "There is absolutely no way you can make boxing safe."
Football can possibly make changes as far as helmet and neck protection and huge research efforts are underway (including tests with various helmet candidates) to create a playing situation which does not result in concussions and subsequent brain damage. But, the NFL is very aware that this is an emergency situation with scores of former players actually unable to function mentally in their fifties and older and the NFL is working to try to create equipment which can make the sport safe.
Snowboarding is far more dangerous than even boxing or football and has no place in a civilized society. A review recently published in the journal, "Injury Prevention," concluded that head and spinal injuries are on the rise as a result of skiing and snowboard accidents. It stated that faster speeds and complicated maneuvers are leading to more head and spine injuries among downhill skiers and snowboarders. And what's significant is that while injuries in general are declining in these two sports, head injury is continuing to rise.
In that article it also stated that a survey of several United States ski resorts found that helmets were worn by just one in eight skiers and snowboarders. However, even if helmets are worn, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that only half of head injuries on the slopes could be prevented by those helmets. So helmets are simply not a solution.
The argument that a sport which has a high risk of brain injury is justified because "people are interested in watching" it is ludicrous logic. A comment to that effect was made in response to my posting on the NYtimes online of the first part of this discussion in response to an article about snowboarder Kevin Pierce suffering a brain injury. That nonsense was highlighted as a choice posting (while mine was not). That was an irresponsible response by the NYtimes editor (or perhaps the blog author). Medieval spear and sword fighting were at one time legal in England and other European countries, but are no longer permitted in any civilized cultures. Those would be fun to watch as well (and there are actually those who would like to see it made legal), but our culture has progressed considerably since those days. Snowboarding is as primitive as sword fighting and in the face of the steady rise in traumatic brain and spinal injuries in young men (now all over the world) there is no reasonable argument for its continued promotion and encouragement.
Labels:
Corporate challenge - the color blind interview
by Sam Redman
It is imperative that businesses implement innovative, "color blind" employee interviewing and selection practices. Many software and numerous scientific developmental companies, those which engage programmers, chemists, engineers (mechanical, chemical, electrical, design), as well as similar disciplines, have already achieved that quite well in their research and creative departments where problem solving exercises have been readily constructed allowing applicants to be fairly tested with "real example" examinations (with the anonymity of computer and other blind communications) which relate directly to future job performance, without ever having to have personal interviews until very late in the screening process, when the most desired finalists are at the point of actually being "wooed" and enticed by their potential employers.
Of course, those types of particular scientific skills are easily filtered by obvious tests of performance and knowledge because of the technical training required and the requirements to be able to produce measurable and evaluatable physical results which characterize what the jobs demand. With other positions, which don't have such specific skill sets, it's not so easy and the true challenge would be to create similarly effective methods which would allow applicants for those not-so-rule-bound professional categories to be also examined based on what they can do, not on appearance or voice patterns. Writing skills, reading comprehension and learning evaluations combined with problem solving capacities, all relative to each position could be the criteria for singling out the best candidates.
The real proof that this concept can work comes in the entrepreneurial realm. I have dealt with many entrepreneurs over the past 20 years of the computer communication revolution, with whom I communicated for long periods of time (some several years) without ever meeting with them or actually seeing them in person. And many times upon finally seeing them face to face I have been surprised to find that some were aging professionals, some were people who had situations such as obesity or physical impairments and some were minorities, but each was someone who had found for their various reasons they were not readily employable, because of particular inappropriate discrimination which applied to their individual situations. However, all had discovered as entrepreneurs (using modern internet and other tools) they could overcome prejudices by creating excellent products and marketing them, largely utilizing the anonymity of a web presence combined with well produced promotional materials. In their cases, the skills they had to create and make and sell proved their worth and employable status irrespective of what the job markets dictated.
I am not suggesting that the key to overcoming job discrimination is entrepreneurial-ism, but instead for companies to work to eliminate the personal interview, which relies on subjective evaluations based on appearance, style and voice (which invite an interviewer's personal prejudices to be stimulated, in spite of noble intentions), replacing it with new selection methods, which, like the entrepreneurial experience, will demonstrate the real mettle and talent, relative to those jobs, needed to fulfill what the business requires to succeed.
Once, years ago, I needed a brochure writer and I had contacted an agency which was going to send me some candidates for interviews. I told them I didn't need to see or talk to any of them, but for them to send me over their rendition of a brochure for a particular random product which I selected from a hardware store. That method worked well and the person hired was never even seen by me for about the first six months of their employment. How does a business accomplish that same thing for other positions not quite as directly evaluation capable as by submitting brochure examples? Like I said, it's a huge challenge, but my entrepreneurial example (that's real) has illustrated to me that race, age, appearance (and even health) can all be eliminated as considerations if you have other ways to measure potential performance.
It is imperative that businesses implement innovative, "color blind" employee interviewing and selection practices. Many software and numerous scientific developmental companies, those which engage programmers, chemists, engineers (mechanical, chemical, electrical, design), as well as similar disciplines, have already achieved that quite well in their research and creative departments where problem solving exercises have been readily constructed allowing applicants to be fairly tested with "real example" examinations (with the anonymity of computer and other blind communications) which relate directly to future job performance, without ever having to have personal interviews until very late in the screening process, when the most desired finalists are at the point of actually being "wooed" and enticed by their potential employers.
Of course, those types of particular scientific skills are easily filtered by obvious tests of performance and knowledge because of the technical training required and the requirements to be able to produce measurable and evaluatable physical results which characterize what the jobs demand. With other positions, which don't have such specific skill sets, it's not so easy and the true challenge would be to create similarly effective methods which would allow applicants for those not-so-rule-bound professional categories to be also examined based on what they can do, not on appearance or voice patterns. Writing skills, reading comprehension and learning evaluations combined with problem solving capacities, all relative to each position could be the criteria for singling out the best candidates.
The real proof that this concept can work comes in the entrepreneurial realm. I have dealt with many entrepreneurs over the past 20 years of the computer communication revolution, with whom I communicated for long periods of time (some several years) without ever meeting with them or actually seeing them in person. And many times upon finally seeing them face to face I have been surprised to find that some were aging professionals, some were people who had situations such as obesity or physical impairments and some were minorities, but each was someone who had found for their various reasons they were not readily employable, because of particular inappropriate discrimination which applied to their individual situations. However, all had discovered as entrepreneurs (using modern internet and other tools) they could overcome prejudices by creating excellent products and marketing them, largely utilizing the anonymity of a web presence combined with well produced promotional materials. In their cases, the skills they had to create and make and sell proved their worth and employable status irrespective of what the job markets dictated.
I am not suggesting that the key to overcoming job discrimination is entrepreneurial-ism, but instead for companies to work to eliminate the personal interview, which relies on subjective evaluations based on appearance, style and voice (which invite an interviewer's personal prejudices to be stimulated, in spite of noble intentions), replacing it with new selection methods, which, like the entrepreneurial experience, will demonstrate the real mettle and talent, relative to those jobs, needed to fulfill what the business requires to succeed.
Once, years ago, I needed a brochure writer and I had contacted an agency which was going to send me some candidates for interviews. I told them I didn't need to see or talk to any of them, but for them to send me over their rendition of a brochure for a particular random product which I selected from a hardware store. That method worked well and the person hired was never even seen by me for about the first six months of their employment. How does a business accomplish that same thing for other positions not quite as directly evaluation capable as by submitting brochure examples? Like I said, it's a huge challenge, but my entrepreneurial example (that's real) has illustrated to me that race, age, appearance (and even health) can all be eliminated as considerations if you have other ways to measure potential performance.
