Posted By Stuie We had to sign a disclaimer before our 7yr old daughter was allowed to wear goggles for her swimming lessons! we had to say that she had been shown how to put the goggles on correctly (which she had) and that the school would not accept responsibility etc etc - all driven I suspect by their fear of litigation?

Posted By MarcusB I'd like to see figures for the number of eye injuries caused by swimming goggles...

Posted By Sally Are we not starting to tip the balance too far and deride any decision made on health and safety grounds as ridiculous. I agree with Simon - it is a sensible restriction for well thought out reasons ie a Risk Assessment has been done and this is the control measure

Posted By Merv Newman WE would not allow an employee to wear PPE without suitable training and supervision. Would we ? Seems a perfectly sensible assessment and justified control measure.

Posted By martinw Some of the original info from this came from an article by Nigel(Dr) and Sheena Jowett published in 1997 - have a look at http://www.pubmedcentral...tid=2431508&blobtype=pdf in which they describe the effects of goggles when they are not correctly used. They also say, however(which seems to have been ignored): "However, the noxious nature of the water in many of our swimming pools make eye protection necessary, and swimming goggles are not only appropriate, but probably medically desirable." Surely the risk assessment should be for the benefit of the child rather than the supervising adult. I agree with comments above - stop it being dangerous by giving correct instruction, training and supervision. M

Posted By rayclark1977 This is falling into the same bracket as the 'Teachers can't put suntan lotion on children' thread earlier this week. Teaching children the correct way to use the goggles would be a better solution than having kids with sore eyes from the chemicals used in some school swimming pools for the rest of the day. In the same way, I would rather my child have suntan lotion put on them in the daytime by a teacher than have them in the back of the car on the way home bright PINK!! This is the ambulance chaser society playing with the education authority... AGAIN! Lets be sensible about this and let teachers do what they should be doing... teaching.

Posted By Donna Thats ridiculous. If I hadnt been able to wear goggles in my swimming lessons(and they werent that long ago) I would have refused to do the lessons. I wear contact lenses and have since I was 12/13. Sometimes i think some people get a bit over zealous were safety is concerned. Do these people not have anything better to do?

Posted By martinw Only up to a point. the current afpe guidance states: schools should require a parental letter stating that the pupil has particular needs to warrant the use of goggles. Such a letter would have the status of simply being informative and would not constitute any form of indemnity should injury arise later through the misuse of the goggles. Parents/carers should be informed of the prerogative of the adult in charge to require the removal of the goggles for reasons of safety when they request the wearing of goggles because of their child’s particular need.

Posted By Nick Patience I totally agree with Donna. I find it incredibly difficult to swim in swimming pools without goggles - and have done so since I was a child, within minutes of getting in the water my eyes become very sore without goggles. Personally if I was stopped from wearing goggles I wouldn't swim.

Posted By peter gotch Until what was then DTi decided to stop funding RoSPA maintained the HASS and LASS databases for accidents at home and leisure http://www.hassandlass.org.uk So you can search the data for 2000-02 RoSPA got information about these accidents from a small number of A&E units, and then provide national estimates with upper and lower confidence limits. Goggles and other protective eyewear appear to have been a possible upwards trend in the leisure industry during this period. 2000 19 cases, national estimate 337 2001 24 cases, national estimate 428 2002 34 cases, national estimate 697 Conversely the stats for home accidents remarkedly stable.. 64, 68, 69 leading to a national estimate between 1135 and 1415. Regards, Peter

Posted By Graham Bullough Here are 2 other aspects to consider: 1. Chemicals in swimming pool water: When I did some work about 15 years ago in relation to COSHH and water treatment systems at my employer's swimming pools I was told that the pool treatment chemicals are not the direct cause of eye irritation for swimmers. It is the compounds they form with significant amounts of substances introduced by pool users. These substances include sweat, cosmetics and notably urine: Apparently some pool users think that, because the water is treated, there's no problem if they widdle while in the pool instead of getting out and going to the loo if the need arises. If you're thinking "yuck" when you read this, that was my response when I heard it. According to experienced staff at pools the remedy would be an ongoing campaign to try and educate people about the need to shower BEFORE getting into a pool so as to wash off as much sweat and cosmetics, etc. as possible, and not to widdle while in the pool. Have others who deal with swimming pools come across the same theme? As others have pointed out, goggles tend to make swimming more comfortable for people than having water directly in contact with their eyes. For some people this may remain the case even when swimming in reasonably clean pools. As an aside about pool cleanliness, it seems from my experiences in a number of European countries that their pools have notably better hygiene standards than those in the UK. This includes greater emphasis on showering properly beforehand and making everybody, blokes included, wear caps over their hair. In some cases, users have to remove outdoor footwear at changing room entrances in order to keep the changing room floors reasonably clean. How many pools in the UK bother with this? By contrast, it seems that municipal and commercially run pools in the UK are generally better than pools abroad as regards safety standards for supervision and lifeguarding. However, this is just my impression. What have others found from their experiences? 2) People who normally wear spectacles or contact lenses to correct their eyesight should have the option when swimming of being able to wear goggles with optical plastic lenses if they wish, irrespective of pool water quality.

Posted By Andy Petrie "The 'letemwearem' camp discussion above seem to base their arguments on a personal view of their experiences (bias???)" I base all my decisions on personal experience.

Posted By Steve M Granger Andy I have to disagree with you. Your experiences are limited to you. Fine - but isn't that rather narrow minded? I use my experience as a starting point but may have to 'borrow' other peoples experiences (including sorting out the wheat from the chaff due to 'personalisation' of the information given to me), statistical information, best practice and leading authority guidance. The latter particularly emphasises the drawback and self limiting approach in this example. Initially (using limited self experience ) I thought,'oh no - here we go again...' However looking at this a bit more holistically I think there is sense in the approach - and for once it seems to say 'take off the PPE as its not always necessary and sometimes actually elevates the risk'.

Posted By Andrew Murdy I would have thought encouraging kids to swim in pools was much better than in canals or ponds or rivers. No rats, no cars, no shopping trolleys ... The number of kids potentially injured is low and certainly not in the same bracket as kids affected by hippos, water born parasites or raw sewage around the world. Sometimes risk assessment becomes risk avoidance to satisfy someone somewhere. It isn´t helpful or sensible and certainly costs us all.

Posted By f5refresh Is it April 1st already?? I cannot beleive some of the comments on here from so-called health and safety professionals. Again is it really any wonder why our profession has become a laughing stock. Get a grip people, its about time we all stood up against this incessant banning of everything that could harm or injure....what happened to a sensible pragmatic approach to safety?? What next: school forced to use sponge footballs because real ones could injure someone - if it's up to some of you this might be the headline next year. I am sorry but anyone who remotely agrees with this ban IMHO needs to find themselves another profession because your not doing ours any favours There is one flaw in the linked document - http://www.afpe.org.uk/p...ic/downloads/goggles.doc - the very first sentence states "Goggles or masks should only be worn in exceptional circumstances when chemicals in the water may adversely affect pupils’ eyes". Is this to say that all pools should be checked prior to use? Who does the checking? Are they competent? Can they decide what level of chemicals could affect the eyes? What if they get it wrong? Who is liable? This is exactly the statement which indicates the document was produced by someone who has no clue of risk management. I could go on but....am off home to take the kids swimming. I look forward to some of your insane responses!

Posted By C. Wright The pool the local kids here use smells so strongly of the chemicals, nearly all the kids use goggles, I'm not in the know as to who has shown them how to put them on or take them off. The coment of they are not in the water long enough to be affected could you please tell us all what the exposure time is to become affected by the addatives in the pool water for a young person. Dont mock the safe football, when I went to school we still had heavy leather balls with rubber bladders, you try headding one of those when they're a bit low on air and sodden wet. I had great respect for the pro footballers of my youth who could get power behind the ball off their heads. The balls used now are a great improvement

Posted By Simon Shaw Ruth, I don't normally comment on letters issued by IOSH - but here goes..... How was this official response to this story decided on? Was it decided on by a committee who discussed the pros and cons, settling on a considered opinion? Or was it simply the personal opinion of one or two people at IOSH? Were the swimming/ physical education organisations (who issued this guidance) contacted to hear their reasoning behind the guidance?

Posted By Zorro I thought sensitivity to chemicals etc. was individual to us all.

Posted By Steve M Granger ok - I guess as you are reading this Luna has successfully got you into the coral. Now all I have to do is get you to jump in the dip....... ba...baaaaaaaaaaa...baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa This is poached from a reputable swimming organisation; Goggle Policy 1. In line with recommendations from the STA (Swimming Teacher's Association) & the ASA (Amateur Swimming Association), children are not encouraged to wear goggles. This helps to promote water confidence and enables them to swim without goggles, which is important for safety. It also reduces the time spent adjusting goggles which can take up valuable lesson time. If however your child has become dependent on goggles we can help to reduce this dependency. View the STA/ASA Goggle Policy on the STA website. Nothing to do with litigation, lots to do with education and life saving skills. I thought as a profession we would encourage this rather than adopt a cotton wool approach. I for one support what our fellow professionals are trying to do in the interests of the children. I am disapointed that the media have again successfully managed to sabotage and distrort what is common sense, especially when looking at the uptake of support here of all places. .... and I thought the sheep needed a dose of tonic.... NEXT... splash!...

Posted By AHS IMHO an embarrassing decision frankly every pool I have swum lengths in hurts your eyes due to urine and various disinfectants.