Roller Coasters and Brain Injury:Fact or Fiction

Still doesn't prove your "Zero risk" assertion. What Dr. Henry is asserting is that the risk to public health is so low that it is of no concern. But there is STILL a small risk, especially to those with an existing condition.

We've explained this to you over and over and you're still not getting it. Even 1 case in 3.1 billion constitues a risk, no matter how minute that may be. I agree with you that the risk is extremely low and your chances of getting a brain injury on a coaster is highly unlikely.

But the chances of it happening are NOT zero.

Yet another coasterbuzz thread turns into a multi-page pissing match. Zip up and move along already.

I am, RGB...I seem to be talking to a wall here.

Mamoosh:

The dude said there was not a public health risk. Intepret it anyway you like, but your not talking to a wall. I find that offensive considering my credentials, grades, work experience, etc. I am sure I mention stuff about those on other threads.

I told you a while ago that your just arguing over semantics and stuff. Now that I have a quote from an expert that clearly says there is not a risk, you seem to be manipulating his words to what you want them to mean. Your assuming that when he says there is not a risk, that he means the risk is so small that it is not something to be concerned with. No where does he make mention of such, and I feel your putting words into people's mouth to validate your point.

I think the main point is that whether you call it a risk or not, the probability of suffering brain injury is so small. So small that he says that there is no risk involved. Your implying that it is so small that the risk is not of concern.

Either way riding a roller coaster is really safe, and the chances of injury are small. Also you have to consider that brain injury is most definately not the most common injury due to a roller coaster. I could look it up the percentages for each, but the majority are shoulder or arm injuries. I for one am done discussing the subject.

Are you sure you're done? Because "so small" and "no risk" aren't the same thing. That's just as bad as Markey reversing the statistics to indicate that, per traveled mile, a coaster is more dangerous than an airplane. You're playing the same game, just for the other team.

Jeff:

Well I have some more arguments left in me, so keep trying to defend your weak position, and I am sure I will come with more stuff to knock you down. So not done if you keep on bringing up the issue that your right and I am wrong.

Well I probably am working for the other team. I am not unbias, since I worked in the industry and hope to work in the future as an engineer. So of course it is quite obvious which side I am on. And I did the research and thought that 9 plausible cases was not something that would make it a risk.

There is a point when so small of a risk means that for all intensive purposes the risk is so small it can be ignored and consider not a risk. That is what the panel concluded, and is what Dr. Henry stated very clearly. If he said it was no public health risk, why do you keep arguing the fact that there is a risk?

And why should I believe you? You just run a roller coaster webpage. You don't have any expertise in this area. I believe the experts, and the experts said there was no risk, case closed. Perhaps that is why after these two independent studies, no further studies were done. There was no risk, thus no need to provide further funding to perform such studies.

Markey and critics of the industry are the reason the studies were done in the first place. His action initiated all of this. Six Flags funded a study to prove him wrong, and the Blue Ribbon Panel was another study that came to the same conclusion. There is no correlation between roller coasters and injury in the brain. A few freak events that were not entirely determined what the cause was, but did not rule out that the roller coaster was the cause, does not substantiate a risk in my book. The Panel's that did the research studies felt the same way. You can keep thinking that there is a risk.

Now I have a question, if there were no reportable brain injuries due to roller coasters, would that equate to no risk? These 9 out of 20 cases were just plausible, so that does not necessarly mean that the roller coaster was the cause. So does that also mean that as I type this response, am I at risk of brain injury. I mean the ceiling could collaspe due to structural failure and I could suffer a head injury. So is there a risk of brain injury by just being in your house typing? I would say probably not, but interested in your opinion of that. I would think the odds are probably in the same order of magnitude.

You aren't knocking anybody down, and if anybody's argument is weak, it is you. Stop already! There is a risk. Very little risk doesn't equal NO RISK. That isn't 'arguing semantics', it is fact!

Gosh! Are you really this thick skulled?

Just...Stop...Already!

Now I have a question, if there were no reportable brain injuries due to roller coasters, would that equate to no risk?

I'll answer your question with a question:

Just because there were not reported Cat. 4 storms to hit the Gulf Coast in your life time to cause the damage Katrina did, would that equate that there is no risk it will ever happen? Huh? Is it?

Blah blah blah. Not gonna read it. Knew he wasn't really finished. :)

And I'm sure he still isn't, Jeff ;).

---

"There is a point when so small of a risk means that for all intensive purposes the risk is so small it can be ignored and consider not a risk."

"And why should I believe you? You just run a roller coaster webpage. You don't have any expertise in this area."

---

Hey Mr. I've-got-so-many-credentials-and-good-grades-I'm-better-than-you:

First, I'd like to question if those "good grades" were indeed earned in a fair and honest manner. At least in English class. What exactly is an 'intensive purpose'? The expression is "for all intents and purposes". (braces for the "you're just splitting hairs, English doesn't really matter. I knew what I was saying so you should assume I meant it the way I mean it, even if I don't know how to use proper words" rebuttal.. with possibly looking up big words on webster.com just so he can impress me with how knowledgeable he really is)

Second, your logic is faulty. You can say that the risk is 'minimal' or 'negligible', but not that it is nonexistant. Even if there's a possibility of one case being attributed to roller coasters, then that means there is a risk of brain injury. It doesn't mean it's likely. Heck, the odds could be better to win the lottery 4 times and be struck by lightning 3 times than to get brain injury.

Third, please do mention your supposed expertise.. it should be interesting to hear how pontificating you can be. Further, the "experts" whom you so blindly trust aren't infallible.

Fourth, never, ever, EVER assume you are more qualified to "know what you're talking about" in a debate. The moment you do, you'll meet your match. So Jeff runs "a roller coaster webpage." Your point? It's one of the most respected websites in the industry, if not also one of the largest. He isn't some kewl 16yo haxor hoo luvs 2 ride coasterz and wants a kewl webpage. He's got a lot of knowledge, and connections within the industry. You have no idea just how qualified Jeff is.

Fifth, you have one quote from "Dr. Henry" and you're holding onto it like the original stone tablets of the Ten Commandments. Last time I checked, Dr. Henry wasn't God and can't control what does and doesn't cause brain injuries. If I really cared (which I don't) I could probably find quotes from so-called experts decrying the dangers of riding roller coasters relating to brain injury. Just look at the whole cell-phones-cause-cancer argument. Some experts have "conclusive evidence" (and precious quotes) that it does/can, others say it's "too circumstantial to pose a significant health risk."

*** Edited 9/21/2005 4:28:11 AM UTC by dannerman***

Wait, here you go. From your own precious article that I googled:

""Our panel concluded that there is no proof that roller coasters cause neurological injury and there is no significant public health risk associated with amusement park attendance," said Dr. Robert Harbaugh, of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons"

See the word significant? It doesn't mean there's no risk. I means there's really really low risk, and it's not worth worrying about.

Also from the article (to add some humor):

"...Other common activities, like being spun in a swing or sneezing created g-forces that are comparable to roller coasters..."

New! Coming to a park near you - Sneeze:The Ride.

---

There is a point when so small of a risk means that for all intensive purposes the risk is so small it can be ignored and consider not a risk.

---

Dannerman already hit you on the "intensive purposes" so I am not going to hit you on that one...

Your own words sink your argument though. Small risk=RISK. You're trying to say 1=0...last time I checked that's not the case.

Even if the odds/risk of something happening is 1 in 175,000,000 there is still a chance of it happening. In fact it does happen, quite regularly...

Dannerman: I can hear the radio spots now:

"You never know when it's gonna come...
A force of nature you can never resist...
Launching missiles at a speed of up to 50 miles an hour...

'CHOO FORCE!"

But the real question: Will the seats have OTSRs?

-CO

*** Edited 9/21/2005 2:41:51 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***

Say the risk of your head popping like a balloon while posting nonsense on a roller coaster message board is 1 in 50 trillion gazillion billion jajillion. I'd call that a very small risk. A statistically insignificant risk even. Dr. Henry might even say that it's not a public health risk - and he'd be right.

Now try to explain to the 50 trillion gazillion billion jajillionth person to do it why he's not really injured...

...oh wait, you couldn't. His head popped like a balloon.

This is how something can be proclaimed "statistically inisgnificant" or "not a public health risk", yet still be potentially dangerous to do. Most people will post nonsense their entire lives on a daily basis and never have a single thing happen, but someone will unfortunately be that anomoly. The risk of it affecting any single person is so low that there's not even a reason to be concerned, but in the end it will affect someone.

I have no grades, credentials or work experience to back that up. Just logic and common sense. :)

*** Edited 9/21/2005 8:18:42 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

See, though, Gonch. That's the problem nowadays. The things that were common before (common sense, common courtesy, common decency) are not that common anymore. :(

Anyone else imaginging Beast Fan with fingers in his ears screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!" ?? ;)

Well all my grades were earned in a honest manner. I never cheat, since I never had the need. I can set the curve without the need, so why bother. And I help others with work, but don't let them copy.

Basically I would be the person to cheat off of, and I don't let them use me. I do have great grades, and that is something to be proud of. However I also had a great co-op quarter this spring and summer, and a good evaluation from my supervisor.

Well Dr. Henry was just one of the people who stated that. I don't have time to find each and everyone that stated it.

And finally I am an engineer. I only took 2 quarters of college english, since that is what the circulum calls for. I am taking vibrations, heat transfer, etc now, and mostly just take engineering courses. The first year or so is all the calculus, physics, chemistry, diff. eq, classes that are the foundations for the engineering courses.

Also my research paper on this topic was for my second english class, and received an A in this class. Most engineers are not great spellers or writers. I did get A's in both english classes, but I am not great in those subject matters. I also spend more time looking over my work for school, compared to a message board.

What I am trying to say is that I am not that well rounded of a student. My math ability way exceeds my verbal/english skills. Maybe that is why I scored a 770 on math SAT and a 590 on Verbal. I majored in something that interest me and also uses my math and science skills. I don't like personal attacks, so again stop. I don't discuss what I think of Jeff and his intelligence. If I did, I think I would be kicked off anyway, since he runs this site.

I think Beast Fan is equating 'insignifigant' to 'nothing'.

Beast Fan, In my Expert opinion, you are insignifigant. Does that mean that you don't exist?

Did you also take Contradiction 101?

First, you say: I don't like personal attacks...

and you follow it with: I don't discuss what I think of Jeff and his intelligence.

But then you pull a 180 and say: If I did, I think I would be kicked off anyway, since he runs this site.

Hey Tek, Gonch...doesn't that look like a personal attack to you?

You want to know what it really looks like? A high school kid. Didn't he attack you and say you were a high school drop out?

But, of course, he's already an engineer, even though he is still in school, right? Brett is an engineer, mOOSh has a highly lucrative street corner in L.A., and Gonch doesn't do anything but make coaster videos. Yet everyone I just mentioned seems to have better reasoning and comprehension skills than Beast Fan.

I bet they make more money too...