Smoking & WDW theme parks

[Woody13]

Originally posted by objr
Again, I highly doubt that taking a small wiff of smoke, while walking in the park, is going to cause any severe problems...while I understand the concerns with second hand smoke, I don't think thats a problem at WDW...because it isn't really prolonged, and well it is a park.

I'll let the people with asthma and other respiratory problems answer that "...small wiff of smoke..." problem.

Originally posted by objr
As long as non-smokers stay out of the designated areas, and smokers smoke in the areas only, while at WDW...there shouldn't be a problem...

You are assuming, of course, that secondhand smoke dissipates to a "healthy" level after leaving a designated smoking area and then drifting to a non-designated area. Which of the 40 KNOWN cancer causing agents in secondhand smoke would you be willing to breathe (or have "a small wiff") at 10 feet?

Originally posted by objr
But hey there will always be obnoxious people, thankfully those people aren't the majority...atleast not yet anyway. Just some more thoughts...

If you've got your health, you've got everything!

 

[Ringo8n24]

This thread has got to end soon. Disney World is supposed to be a happy place and a happy topic. I love this website, but it is getting old with people making health decisions for people you never met. If I want to read this type of info, I will search another website, not Disney. You guys have got to get over the fact that there will be people who annoy you about something no matter where you go. Get over it and get on with the fun topics.

 

[Enderikari]

Originally posted by DisneyPhD
Where did you get this info? Everything I know goes against it (and I have a number of friends with very bad lungs and heavey smoking parents.) Not even going to the harms of a women who is prengnat smoking. I don't have the studies on hand, but I am sure I could find them on line. Do you work for phillip moris?

Hah, do i work for Philip Morris? Nope! I'm Disney-Bound! Anyway... with that out of the way...

According to the President of the American Council on Science and Health, Dr. Wheelen(Sp?),

The study in which the whole "Second-Hand Smoke" furor erupted was a study done by the EPA in 1993 called "The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders." This study was accepted quickly by the media as proof of the disasterous health effects of second-hand smoke. The report claimed that 3,000 deaths could be attributed to second-hand smoke.

This report was challenged in court in 1998, and found that the EPA testing used in the report was completely false, and, with the distribution of all of the notes used to write the report, showed that the EPA discarded all the data that did not fit with their pre-determined conclusion...
To quote Penn and Teller: "translation.... They faked it."

However, this report is cited as the catalyst in as many as 96% of smoking bans in this country.

Another study that helped back up this one was a study released by the WHO called... "Multi-center case control study of exposure to environmental smoke and lung cancer in Europe."
This study showed no link to adverse health effects of second-hand smoke, but, the AP released a story about the study which headlined " Passive smoke carries huge risk."

Anyway, I could go on... but I won't.
Sources cited if desired, just PM me..
Special thanks to Penn and Teller for helping me get a start.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

This is tiring

And after how many pages, what has been accomplished. Those that are against smoking are not going to settle for anything less that total bans. Those that smoke, may want to quit, but generally want to be left alone.

Is it appropriate to walk up to someone who is overweight and read a list of their risks?

Is it appropriate to point out lifestyle risks to a gay person?

Remember folks,

Smoking is LEGAL
Drinking is LEGAL
Eating meat is LEGAL

There are carcinogens in every meal you eat, every breath you take - stand around your shuttle buses.
There is no clear scientific proof of the impact of second hand smoke
We are all going to die, and the environment in one way or another will contribute to it.

Its always easier to tell others how to live their lives than to control your own. I suggest you enjoy your life the way you want to and leave others to their lives.

Now lets get back to Disney

 

[Woody13]

Originally posted by Enderikari
Hah, do i work for Philip Morris? Nope! I'm Disney-Bound! Anyway... with that out of the way...

According to the President of the American Council on Science and Health, Dr. Wheelen(Sp?),

The study in which the whole "Second-Hand Smoke" furor erupted was a study done by the EPA in 1993 called "The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders." This study was accepted quickly by the media as proof of the disasterous health effects of second-hand smoke. The report claimed that 3,000 deaths could be attributed to second-hand smoke.

This report was challenged in court in 1998, and found that the EPA testing used in the report was completely false, and, with the distribution of all of the notes used to write the report, showed that the EPA discarded all the data that did not fit with their pre-determined conclusion...
To quote Penn and Teller: "translation.... They faked it."

However, this report is cited as the catalyst in as many as 96% of smoking bans in this country.

Another study that helped back up this one was a study released by the WHO called... "Multi-center case control study of exposure to environmental smoke and lung cancer in Europe."
This study showed no link to adverse health effects of second-hand smoke, but, the AP released a story about the study which headlined " Passive smoke carries huge risk."

Anyway, I could go on... but I won't.
Sources cited if desired, just PM me..
Special thanks to Penn and Teller for helping me get a start.

*Cough* You didn't give a citation to any study, report or anything of value.

 

[Enderikari]

Originally posted by Woody13
*Cough* You didn't give a citation to any study, report or anything of value. [/QUOTE

Sorry.. Didnt realize that A) I was on trial or writing a research paper myself and B) My direct citations of the studies.
But hold on... I will try and get you some sources...

1998 THE WASHINGTON POST
"Secondhand Smoke Finding Struck Down, Local Cigarette Ordinances Could Be Imperiled"
By John Schwartz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 19, 1998; Page A01

The CATO Institute
September 28, 1998
The Second-Hand Smoke Charade
by Dominick Armentano

And I don't remember the court case number in 1998... but I remember the presiding judges name was Osteen...

Found the court decision on-line.. its available at Forces.org

 

[Woody13]

Re: This is tiring

Originally posted by ClemsonTigger
Remember folks,

Smoking is LEGAL
Drinking is LEGAL

You may only smoke or drink in accordance with the restrictions of the law.

Originally posted by ClemsonTigger
There are carcinogens in every meal you eat, every breath you take - stand around your shuttle buses.

That statement is false and is shallow fearmongering!

Originally posted by ClemsonTigger
There is no clear scientific proof of the impact of second hand smoke...

Experts on the subject disagree with your unscientific opinion.

 

[mwc1996]

*Cough* You didn't give a citation to any study, report or anything of value.


Did you read the post you are referring too?

If you are so worried about second hand smoke then live your life in a bubble. :hammer: :brick: :brick: :brick:

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Selective "Fearmongering"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ClemsonTigger
There are carcinogens in every meal you eat, every breath you take - stand around your shuttle buses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That statement is false and is shallow fearmongering!


Your other points have already been addressed. As for carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, naturally occurring environmental hormones (estrogens), and radioactive compounds, they are everywhere and always have been. I'm not talking about the end of the world like these stupid sensationalistic news sweeps stories. I am also in no way afraid of them, nor should anyone else be.

The statement is true, and is a fact of life.
It isn't good to argue your heart and ignore the science you don't like.

How did our forefathers survive with all those open fires and smoke in every home...I guess woodfire smoke is OK.

 

[Woody13]

Sorry. Here's some help:

http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu/guides/surgeongeneral.phtml

 

[Enderikari]

Ok.. So the Surgeon General says its bad for you to smoke.. No big deal.. Everyone knows that...

The only report about Second Hand Smoke in that list the 1986 report about involuntary smoking which issues a warning and states that further testing will be done...

Testing was done... EPA released report 1993... Said they found conclusive proof... Every Joe Schmoo starts panicking... Huge media outcry against second hand smoke... People easily fooled into believing what Dan Rather tells them... Judge finds 1993 report falsified... Never reported except with page 7 stories... People still fooled... Present Day

 

[Woody13]

Re: Selective "Fearmongering"

Originally posted by ClemsonTigger
How did our forefathers survive with all those open fires and smoke in every home...I guess woodfire smoke is OK.

They knew how to build a fireplace with the proper draft! It's a lost art today. Of course, most of our forebearers had very short lives due to lack of knowledge.

 

[Woody13]

Originally posted by Enderikari
Ok.. So the Surgeon General says its bad for you to smoke.. No big deal.. Everyone knows that...

So, we agree that it is bad to smoke. I'm making progress here!

 

[Enderikari]

Yeah, Woody.. I am not a smoker, and I find the practice pretty dispicable... We agree here! :sohappy:

The only small disagreement we have ever had is that second hand smoke is harmful... No study has ever proven that it is...

The only reason I fight so adamently about it is because I don't think that it is the gov't responsibility to legislate based on that EPA report like it has been doing. I love the fact that Disney has designated smoking areas, more power to them, its their park, they are doing what is best for them.

But I don't want Jeb to come in there and tell Disney to kick all the smokers out... That would hurt business for Disney and truthfully.. limit the magic...

 

[Woody13]

Originally posted by Enderikari
The only small disagreement we have ever had is that second hand smoke is harmful... No study has ever proven that it is...

Scientific investigation has confirmed that your statement is incorrect.
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsfs.html

Originally posted by Enderikari
The only reason I fight so adamently about it is because I don't think that it is the gov't responsibility to legislate based on that EPA report like it has been doing. I love the fact that Disney has designated smoking areas, more power to them, its their park, they are doing what is best for them.

Your personal opinion does not refute scientific evidence.

Originally posted by Enderikari


But I don't want Jeb to come in there and tell Disney to kick all the smokers out... That would hurt business for Disney and truthfully.. limit the magic...

That's politcal. We have been asked not to go there, so I won't!

 

[Enderikari]

Alright... I tried to end this peacefully but this just became a huge joke....

I spend multiple posts showing you how the only "proof" that people have to prove that second-hand smoke is dangerous is an EPA report that was PROVEN FALSE IN A COURT OF LAW. This report was released in 1993 and was disproven in 1998, showing that the EPA cherry-picked its data that it used and falsified information to come up with its pre-determined conclusion.

I spend all this time telling him that the one backing of information is completely false.. and he comes back with

Scientific investigation has confirmed that your statement is incorrect.

and sends me to the website where the EPA publishes the report that has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN FALSE.

My statement is not incorrect, and as to my other "personal" opinion, the only reason I don't spend the next hour telling you why that is wrong is because I simply do not feel that it is worth the effort and the destructive circular logic you use is simply aggravating to argue with.

Grrr.... sorry about this everybody, this thread has drifted far, far OT and this should be the last you hear of it, apparently proof has differing meanings for Woody and I. I require proof to be true

 

[Woody13]

So, we may conclude that secondhand smoke is good?:lol:

 

[Enderikari]

So... is that the depths of understanding? Something is either good or bad? Because, to me... this data means that secondhand has a very very very little to no effect on people, and any effect that it does have is entirely negligible (which are the findings the EPA found itself, the just covered it up, read the court case.)

 

[Woody13]

Originally posted by Enderikari
So... is that the depths of understanding? Something is either good or bad? Because, to me... this data means that secondhand has a very very very little to no effect on people, and any effect that it does have is entirely negligible (which are the findings the EPA found itself, the just covered it up, read the court case.)

The court case is 6 years old!:lol: I have a gut feeling that you can move forward.

 

[Enderikari]

Your report you cling to so dearly is 11 years old? Who cares, my statement stands, there has never been a scientific study (that didnt flat out lie) that has ever shown adverse health effects of secondhand smoke.