Survey says: Michigan smoking ban res...

Survey says: Michigan smoking ban results in healthier bar employees, happier health officials

There are 27 comments on the MLive.com story from May 31, 2011, titled Survey says: Michigan smoking ban results in healthier bar employees, happier health officials. In it, MLive.com reports that:

Darlene Krause, the manager of Tipsy Toad Tavern, places glasses into the cooler to be frosted before being served.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at MLive.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Freedom

Niles, MI

#22 Jun 1, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you can show that a cancer occurs because the number of molecules interacting with the body achieves a size where the system is overwhelmed. That is CONTRARY to the science of cancer.
Granted that an increase in the number of cancer cells created increases the probability that one will get past the body's defenses and become a tumor, a tumor may STILL develop from a single mutated cell.
Provide cancer-specific science that disputes that, if you can. If you CAN'T, then stipulate that it is CORRECT.
Granted that an increase in the number of carcinogenic molecules present increases the likelihood that ONE of them WILL trigger a lethal mutation, it STILL requires only ONE to do the job.
Provide cancer-specific science to dispute that if you can. If you can't, then stipulate it as CORRECT.
IF it only takes ONE carcinogenic molecule to do the deed, and IF it only takes one mutation to do the deed, then any time ONE such molecule is present, there is the possibility of carcinogenesis.
Provide cancer-specific science to dispute that if you can. If you can't, then stipulate it as CORRECT. In this instance, even something RATIONAL to dispute it seems completely out of range.
IF this is true, then there is NO level of exposure to a carcinogen below which anyone can GUARANTEE that cancer will not result.
IF yo are so sure that it is NOT true, please provide cancer-specific science that shows one of the elements of this argument is incorrect.
Your mantra of the first law of toxicology is satisfied by the stipulations I made in my points. Increased dosage DOES increase likelihood of carcinogenesis. HOWEVER, there is no dose beneath which all is safe.
<quoted text>
The potential to cause harm does not imply the certainty of harm. Nor does the anecdotal escape from harm disprove the potential.
If only something would render your keyboard "mute".
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean you are being irrational when you demand proof that there is no safe level of SHS exposure?
<quoted text>
Science offers no proofs. Science deals in most likely explanations. Find a better than that provided above. Satisfy the requirements I laid out. Find a scientific reason for rejecting the concepts involved OR show how the concepts do NOT lead by direct and irrefutable logic to the statement that there is NO threshold for exposure to SHS (apart from the complete line of crap about there being no carcinogens in SHS to start with--the idea that THAT had anything to do with science was debunked long ago).
As noted earlier and often, virtually ANY carcinogenic molecule fits this model, so your constant strident shrieking about wanting a list is empty posturing.
You are a bore, boor.
Come back when you have the cancer-science refuting the specific points I raised. Or, if you'd rather, stay away even then. We won't mind.
Please provide the casual reader with any facts that are based on known science that proves your guess work.

One can not prove a negative you moron...so your entire post is an illogical joke.

Since you make these ridiculous claims...the burden of proof is on you.

Now prove it...or simply admit your entire premise is nothing but "faith based".

Keep in mind you are going against known science...such as the first rule of toxicology.

Your "religion" also defies the fact that there are many people who live into the 100 year range that do not develope cancers.

Try to expain that one with logic based on what you have "faith" in.

There is "no safe level"...really? LMAO

You are the one making illogical claims...so it is up to you to prove your position based on known science.

Perhaps it is time to admit your position is "religious" by nature?

If not...then quote the real science that proves your position.

You can't...can you.

*rolls eyes*
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#23 Jun 2, 2011
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide the casual reader with any facts that are based on known science that proves your guess work.
Please shove your idiotic classifications of accepted science as my "guess work" and come up with the requested scientific approach to refuting the approach. As noted, you need prove no negative so stop trying to beg off on that canard. It is entirely possible--when valid--to produce a rational and sound refutation without absolutely proving anything.

Here are some quotes relating to the concept--which originates neither with me nor with Carmona NOR with the assessment of secondhand smoke.

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed...

"all types of asbestos are known human carcinogens and no threshold has been identified for the carcinogenic risk of chrysotile asbestos that accounts for 95% of all uses of asbestos today "
http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~Benoit_R_Ro...
"Furthermore, there is not always a threshold below which there is no adverse health effect. For example, carcinogens always cause a risk no matter how low the dose is."

http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1...

"Levels initially thought to provide safety are often proven to cause more subtle effects when agents are well studied. The case of lead is an example where, as more data accrue, the likelihood of threshold for neurological effects has become less plausible. For induction of cancer the standard assumption is that there is no threshold. Although this assumption has been challenged, its critics have not offered a clear method to identify any hypothesized threshold with reliability. In contrast, a theoretical understanding of the molecular basis of carcinogenesis would argue in favor of the non-threshold assumption..."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

"Chemical mutagens are currently regulated and labelled on the basis of their hazardous properties defined in hazard classification schemes. The strength and type of experimental evidence is used as the only criterion for classification in categories which express different levels of concern for the possibility of adverse effects — notably transmissible genetic alterations — in humans. Differently from the classification of carcinogens, no consideration is given to potency, nor to the mechanism of action. The rationale of such hazard based classification is that the hazardous property of a chemical is an intrinsic feature, which is expressed independently of dosing. Changing of dose level results in a mere change in the probability to observe an adverse effect, but not in its potential occurrence. The lack of theoretical threshold underlying this approach can be envisaged, in principle, for stochastic processes such as DNA damage, which can be triggered by single molecular interactions."
puck falin

Albion, MI

#25 Jun 3, 2011
DETROIT (WWJ)– According to a state department, Michigan’s smoking ban is working.
A new survey from the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) shows nearly 1,500 violations have been issued since the smoke-free law took effect last May.
Of those 1,500 violations, 117 resulted in citations. Two establishments were also ordered to close their doors until compliance was reached.
James McCurtis, spokesman for the MDCH, believes the popularity of the law is a major reason why there have been so few violations.
“It shows us that local health departments are making sure that businesses are following the rules, making sure that citizens and residents in these different businesses are following theses rules. It also shows that businesses are receptive of the law and they are respecting the law,” McCurtis said.
Compliance with the law isn’t the only thing that’s improving.
A MDCH study released last month reported restaurant and bar employees have experienced decreased levels of secondhand smoke exposure in their system since the law’s inception.
puck falin

Albion, MI

#26 Jun 4, 2011
Freedom wrote:
What a complete piece of "progressive" propaganda. Love how they continually quote those who either support or actually helped to get this Fascistic ban passed.
Many folks like myself have been warning others for quite some time that this ban happy mentality would only lead to other bans that are "for your own good". Now we have salt bans, cooking oil bans, Happy Meal bans...ect.
Forget the slippery slope as this is a cliff we are all being pushed over.
I saw black helicopters and men in black suits. Pretty sure your house is surrounded as I type. You may want to sell everything you own, better yet, give it away because the world will end again soon. They really are coming to get you ! Check under your bed, the boogy man lives there. Dude, YOU ARE THE ONE ON THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF PARANOIA. You must be miserable.
sol

Jefferson City, MO

#27 Jun 4, 2011
Freedom wrote:
What a complete piece of "progressive" propaganda. Love how they continually quote those who either support or actually helped to get this Fascistic ban passed.
Many folks like myself have been warning others for quite some time that this ban happy mentality would only lead to other bans that are "for your own good". Now we have salt bans, cooking oil bans, Happy Meal bans...ect.
Forget the slippery slope as this is a cliff we are all being pushed over.
I couldn't have said it better. I am glad to see someone with good common sense. Great post
puck falin

Albion, MI

#28 Jun 4, 2011
sol wrote:
<quoted text> I couldn't have said it better. I am glad to see someone with good common sense. Great post
DETROIT (WWJ)– According to a state department, Michigan’s smoking ban is working.
A new survey from the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) shows nearly 1,500 violations have been issued since the smoke-free law took effect last May.
Of those 1,500 violations, 117 resulted in citations. Two establishments were also ordered to close their doors until compliance was reached.
James McCurtis, spokesman for the MDCH, believes the popularity of the law is a major reason why there have been so few violations.
“It shows us that local health departments are making sure that businesses are following the rules, making sure that citizens and residents in these different businesses are following theses rules. It also shows that businesses are receptive of the law and they are respecting the law,” McCurtis said.
Compliance with the law isn’t the only thing that’s improving.
A MDCH study released last month reported restaurant and bar employees have experienced decreased levels of secondhand smoke exposure in their system since the law’s inception.
puck falin

Albion, MI

#29 Jun 6, 2011
DETROIT (WWJ)– According to a state department, Michigan’s smoking ban is working.
A new survey from the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) shows nearly 1,500 violations have been issued since the smoke-free law took effect last May.
Of those 1,500 violations, 117 resulted in citations. Two establishments were also ordered to close their doors until compliance was reached.
James McCurtis, spokesman for the MDCH, believes the popularity of the law is a major reason why there have been so few violations.
“It shows us that local health departments are making sure that businesses are following the rules, making sure that citizens and residents in these different businesses are following theses rules. It also shows that businesses are receptive of the law and they are respecting the law,” McCurtis said.
Compliance with the law isn’t the only thing that’s improving.
A MDCH study released last month reported restaurant and bar employees have experienced decreased levels of secondhand smoke exposure in their system since the law’s inception.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Muskegon Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Muskegon Community College to auction off vans,... Mar '18 fuckMlive 1
Knee grow shoots parents on campus Mar '18 Poopybutt 1
News APNewsBreak: Consumers Energy to stop burning c... Feb '18 Solarman 1
Lotto folds? Feb '18 PlugMeIn 1
Teen Challenge Exposed! (May '07) Jan '18 Robert 238
Jennifer Poole Jan '18 Laughing Out Loud 1
New Mary Lawhon ?? Jan '18 Laughing Out Loud 1

Muskegon Jobs

Personal Finance

Muskegon Mortgages