I really think Crocs are the ugliest piece of footware, casual or formal, that I’ve seen in many a moon, combining the grace of Dutch wooden clogs with the subtle elegance of flip-flops. For folks looking for something just to wear to the beach or the store or in the yard, fine, but I remain apalled by the number of ugly, plastic, fluorescent foot footballs I see peeping out from, for example, acolyte robes at church on Sunday. (At least the ugly, dirty, worn tennis shoes that are the alternative aren’t quite as eye-catching).
But at least one place has formally banned the footware — a hospital in Sweden, which claims the static electricity they create zorches hospital equipment.
A Swedish hospital wants to ban its staff from wearing Crocs plastic clogs, saying they generate static electricity that can knock out medical equipment. Blekinge hospital in southern Sweden suspects the slip-on shoes, made by US firm Crocs Inc, are to blame for at least three incidents in which respirators and other machines malfunctioned. The mishaps caused no injuries.
Hospital spokesman Bjorn Lofqvist said staff wearing the clogs could turn into “a cloud of lighting” because of the static electricity. He said there were similar problems with other shoes not designed for hospital use, but the popularity of the Crocs had raised the issue to a new level.
I just thought they were a menace to taste, but knowing that they are a menace to life and limb is even better.
(And, yes, Katherine has a pair. But she doesn’t wear them to church.)
(via BoingBoing)
I mean technically, they’re not generating electricity unless they contain piezoelectric components and storage capacitors. But if they have a high enough dilectric value, they turn the moving person into a living van-de-graff generator. As the person moves through the air, they pick up a charge and there’s no way for it to discharge. So hard to convince inexperienced computer techs that they’re carrying 20kv just from walking across the room, and that they need to remember to discharge it before picking up that CPU chip.
It would be so trivially simple to make these shoes in muted colors and dope the plastic with something conductive.
It also surprises me that hospital equipment isn’t more resistant to static shock.
Um, they’re available in 27 different colors, some of which are what I would call muted (e.g. “Sage” and “Charcoal”). I imagine adding a conductive doping agent would be more expensive, and it occurs to me to wonder if anyone likes the fact that they are insulating.
Sounds to me like the problem isn’t the shoes or their manufacture, but the uncouth heathens who wear brightly colored pairs in places they shouldn’t. Or maybe the problem is the old codgers who don’t like the new-fangled shoes the kids are wearing these days.
Dave, you should complain loud and long about how horrible Crocs are whenever Katherine is around. Then, when she becomes old enough to rebel, she might think that wearing brightly-colored Crocs is sufficiently rebellious, and you might avoid some more serious forms of rebellion.
Sometimes, being “tasteful” or “attractive” or even “tidy” is not the top priority. Even in church. Especially in church. On the other hand, “slovenly” often goes along with “not really paying attention.” Personally, if I end up in a church, I just try not to piss off the natives, but there you go.
Sadly, there’s a reason we have to dress up to go to church or to look professional, and it has very little to do with what’s in your heart or how well you do your job. Jump through the hoop and be saved forever 🙂
I gladly accept the premise that dressing nicely does not equal true reverence, let alone salvation. Heck, I’d go so far as to say that it’s better for one to participate in corporate worship even if in jeans cutoffs and a raggedy tank top than to not do so at all.
On the other hand, laziness (dis)counts, too, and I think a lot of folks underdress for church (and other ostensibly formal occasions) because they can’t be bothered.
Why be bothered by it? Part of it’s social (which is not necessarily a dirty word). Looking like you treat the situation seriously doesn’t mean you actually do so (cf. whited sepulchres), and looking like you don’t doesn’t mean you actually don’t — but it does convey a message (accurately interpreted or not), which is a reason people do it.
Going to church isn’t about how you dress, but how you dress can create a mindset about churchgoing, just as it can about work.
Plus — well, dammit, I had to get dressed up (to some level) for church when I was growing up, so, dagnabbit, these damned kids need to the same!
A conductive dopant would cost next to nothing. All you need for static control (which most people prefer if only for comfort) is something in the megohm range, which is nearly an insulator but allows gradual discharge.
I don’t think they look that bad, nor are they slovenly given the right choice of colors. The footwear I will never comprehend is high heels.
Well of course I was pulling your chain a little bit (DOF’s too), and I agree that dressing apropriately is generally a good thing. I guess I was just a little surprised at how strongly you felt about them.
I’ll take DOF’s word on the cost and the technical aspects of reducing the static problem. If it’s that cheap and that easy, perhaps Crocs will soon be appropriately doped. I think they’r pretty popular among Nurses, so if the danger reported is real, that might be a good thing for the manufacturer to do and to use in their marketing.
I see Crocs frequently at school. College students like them a lot, though their popularity seems to have gone down a bit from the peak. My impression is that Flip-flops are more popular at the moment. When I first saw them, I thought they looked kind of goofy, but I didn’t have as strong a reaction as you apparently did. Of course I’m not seeing them in such an inappropriate situation, and I’m used to strange fads among college students that may or may not get out into the general population.
Corporate worship?!? (Keep in mind, I dislike church for many reasons, not just the clothing thing. Nevertheless, a sore spot.)
Who decides what’s appropriate? And why is dressing up for church/work appropriate? Does a casual Friday increase or decrease productivity? Why is “casual dress” considered a benefit when considering a workplace if professional dress is actually appropriate? Why do churches sometimes find themselves losing attendence until they start holding a blue-jeans-and-guitar service?
What are the values espoused by a professional dress code? Are they about hard work? Honesty? Integrity? Creativity? Win-win situations? No. Sweat, play, snuggling — they do bad things to professional clothing. Professional dress is about compromise (a low-level lose-lose situation), rule-following, conformity, and management. Image. While this may be appropriate if you’re actually *in* a position where that’s your goal, I don’t think most people who have to wear professional dress — or most people at church — need to dress for those priorities.
Would Jesus have said, “You’re wearing crocs, for Christ’s sake…go home!” or would he have got on with it, just happy to have you around?
Point well-taken.
And they can cost you a toe, too!