I Don't Appreciate Being Told Not To Cruise!!

8 reasons not to cruise!!

http://eluxemagazine.com/travel/reasons-to-never-take-a-cruise-holiday/

So what? Just don't read the article. Problem solved.:rolleyes:

You can't control other peoples' thoughts or opinions so just move on.

Just ignore the article.

Good article.

I look forward to the rest of the series - 8 spurious and grossly over-hyped reasons why you should never fly, why you should never stay at a beach hotel, why you should never stay in a city hotel, why you should never go camping, why you should never take a road-trip, why you should never visit a National Park or game reserve, and why you should never breathe. :rolleyes:

JB :)

While this is typical click bait for a slow news day for an e-magazine, and I wouldn't normally respond to the article, some new people may read the article, since it was posted here, and get the wrong idea. Most of what the article says is false:

1. No ship, whether a cruise ship, container ship, or tanker, is allowed to dump raw sewage into the ocean, and most cruise ships have what are called "Advanced Waste Water treatment plants" that treat all the waste water generated onboard to near drinking water levels.

3. While true that airplanes emit less particulates to the atmosphere than a cruise ship's fuel, that same airplane, to carry the same number of passengers the same distance, would burn many times the fuel as the ship, contributing far more to greenhouse gases than the ship. Ships have been known for decades as the most efficient means to move cargo (in this case the passengers), over air or any land form of transportation. Further, cruise ships account for about 3-5% of the world's total sea-going tonnage, and every single one of those ships burn the "nasty dirty diesel" (actually residual fuel oil, not diesel, another incorrect statement), yet the article does not go after the ships that bring the Ipads, TVs, and BMW's to us for pollution.

5. Cruise ships are by far the best at recycling, or at least disposing of garbage ashore of any ships around. While there are violators, the article makes it seem as if it is common practice, when in fact it is the exception. I'd love to see the "facts" by the restaurant owners who identified the garbage, since most of that would come from suppliers like Cisco, which most of those restaurant owners use themselves, so maybe it's them tossing the garbage?

6. Ballast water. Yes, ballast is used to "compensate for the cargo load on the ship", but a cruise ship changes "cargo" load (passengers, food, fuel) so little in comparison to the ship's actual weight, that most cruise ships don't carry much ballast water (it costs fuel to carry water around), and don't pump it in and out like a cargo ship does. In fact, many cruise ships use the treated waste water as "permanent ballast". And the recognized danger of ballast water is not toxicity, as implied, but invasive species. And ballast water treatments, while designed to kill off all life in the ballast tanks, is done in a way that the chemicals (mostly chlorine or UV light (sunlamps dangerous to the environment?) dissipates before it is discharged. The funny thing the article doesn't mention is that the ballast water treatment systems it condemns are approved by the IMO, and for US flag ships by the USCG. I guess they don't care about the environment.

7. Whales. Again, whales are killed by cargo ships as well as cruise ships, why not point that out? Does it mention the "whale restriction zones" that have been set up world wide, to limit vessel speeds in areas of known whale concentrations? Does it mention that the POA, while transiting the whale sanctuary in Hawaii, is required to have the officer of the watch equipped with night vision goggles to see if any whales are in the way? Does it mention that most necropsies of the dead whales show that the whale was suffering from a disease when it was killed, most likely the reason it didn't get out of the way.

I won't tell the OP not to cruise, but I would ask that crap articles like this not get posted on CC where the fallacies may be considered to be the truth to the uninitiated.

Okay, slow day for me too, just had to rant over something, and the OP provided the target.

While this is typical click bait for a slow news day for an e-magazine, and I wouldn't normally respond to the article, some new people may read the article, since it was posted here, and get the wrong idea. Most of what the article says is false:

 

1. No ship, whether a cruise ship, container ship, or tanker, is allowed to dump raw sewage into the ocean, and most cruise ships have what are called "Advanced Waste Water treatment plants" that treat all the waste water generated onboard to near drinking water levels.

 

3. While true that airplanes emit less particulates to the atmosphere than a cruise ship's fuel, that same airplane, to carry the same number of passengers the same distance, would burn many times the fuel as the ship, contributing far more to greenhouse gases than the ship. Ships have been known for decades as the most efficient means to move cargo (in this case the passengers), over air or any land form of transportation. Further, cruise ships account for about 3-5% of the world's total sea-going tonnage, and every single one of those ships burn the "nasty dirty diesel" (actually residual fuel oil, not diesel, another incorrect statement), yet the article does not go after the ships that bring the Ipads, TVs, and BMW's to us for pollution.

 

5. Cruise ships are by far the best at recycling, or at least disposing of garbage ashore of any ships around. While there are violators, the article makes it seem as if it is common practice, when in fact it is the exception. I'd love to see the "facts" by the restaurant owners who identified the garbage, since most of that would come from suppliers like Cisco, which most of those restaurant owners use themselves, so maybe it's them tossing the garbage?

 

6. Ballast water. Yes, ballast is used to "compensate for the cargo load on the ship", but a cruise ship changes "cargo" load (passengers, food, fuel) so little in comparison to the ship's actual weight, that most cruise ships don't carry much ballast water (it costs fuel to carry water around), and don't pump it in and out like a cargo ship does. In fact, many cruise ships use the treated waste water as "permanent ballast". And the recognized danger of ballast water is not toxicity, as implied, but invasive species. And ballast water treatments, while designed to kill off all life in the ballast tanks, is done in a way that the chemicals (mostly chlorine or UV light (sunlamps dangerous to the environment?) dissipates before it is discharged. The funny thing the article doesn't mention is that the ballast water treatment systems it condemns are approved by the IMO, and for US flag ships by the USCG. I guess they don't care about the environment.

 

7. Whales. Again, whales are killed by cargo ships as well as cruise ships, why not point that out? Does it mention the "whale restriction zones" that have been set up world wide, to limit vessel speeds in areas of known whale concentrations? Does it mention that the POA, while transiting the whale sanctuary in Hawaii, is required to have the officer of the watch equipped with night vision goggles to see if any whales are in the way? Does it mention that most necropsies of the dead whales show that the whale was suffering from a disease when it was killed, most likely the reason it didn't get out of the way.

 

I won't tell the OP not to cruise, but I would ask that crap articles like this not get posted on CC where the fallacies may be considered to be the truth to the uninitiated.

 

Okay, slow day for me too, just had to rant over something, and the OP provided the target.

chengkp75, don't you feel just a bit silly that you put more effort into writing your post than the article's author did in writing the piece in the first place? And she probably got paid $$ to write it!:eek:

Again, who cares what someone writes? And if I cared at all, it would be as a cruise passenger. As a cruise passenger and not an employee or shareholder, the more negative press the better!!!

We have to get demand and those cruise fares down some how.:D

How are they allowed to print an article that can easily be proved to be supplying false information?

If someone who had never cruised before came across this article it would certainly give them food for thought and the excuse not to cruise.

All in all a potentially damaging article. Maybe I shouldn't have posted it, but perhaps if and when someone mentions any of these points we will have an answer thanks to the post from chengkp75

And don't worry, I will continue cruising with a clear mind. :D

The article gives me more reasons to cruise than ever

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

The author seems to have synthesized all of the environmental activist anti-cruise ship rhetoric. Aside from some geographic anomalies like Norway, passenger ships today provide round trip pleasure cruising rather than practical A to B transportation. In their eyes cruise ships therefore have no right to exist. Alaska and Venice are the activists' starting points. If they can mount demonstrations that foul up sailing schedules then cruise lines won't stop there. Then they will extend their efforts to other ports. Of course they will claim that they're not against cruise ships per se, it's just that these environments are too fragile. Yet their posted literature states otherwise.

"Reasons to Never Take a Cruise Holiday" by eluxemagazine dot com? I won't read the article. I have trained myself not to click on sensational headlines published by unknown sources. I don't suppose you have to click through to see each of the reasons.

How are they allowed to print an article that can easily be proved to be supplying false information?

:D

Who is the "they" that is supposed to allow or not allow published content? Publications, whether in old fashioned paper or on the net, can print virtually any exaggeration, spin, falsehood, flight of fancy, crock or deliberate lie without consequence. If you treat every opinionated article with a jaundiced skepticism rather an attitude of "oh my, they couldn't print it if it wasn't true" then you won't be complicit in spreading this nonsense.

Alaska and Venice are the activists' starting points. If they can mount demonstrations that foul up sailing schedules then cruise lines won't stop there. Then they will extend their efforts to other ports. Of course they will claim that they're not against cruise ships per se, it's just that these environments are too fragile. Yet their posted literature states otherwise.

While I totally disagree with the article, some environmentally sensitive places like Alaska and Venice (and Key West) do have a valid argument against cruise ships, especially ever growing cruise ships.

While I totally disagree with the article, some environmentally sensitive places like Alaska and Venice (and Key West) do have a valid argument against cruise ships, especially ever growing cruise ships.

Yep, gotta agree 100% with you on this one, Paul.

While I totally disagree with the article, some environmentally sensitive places like Alaska and Venice (and Key West) do have a valid argument against cruise ships, especially ever growing cruise ships.

I agree with you, Aquahound.

Anyone can write an article for an e-mag. They aren't journalists, just someone writing something about something. And, many times, they aren't paid, just given the privilege of seeing their name on a "published" article.

If you applied the 'how could they print an article that can be easily proved to be supplying false information", Breitbart and RealPolitics would be out of business ;)

While I totally disagree with the article, some environmentally sensitive places like Alaska and Venice (and Key West) do have a valid argument against cruise ships, especially ever growing cruise ships.

Right - any self governing entity should be able to apply rational restrictions to prevent the destruction of what makes it worth seeing by having too many coming to see.

Of course the article was a hack piece full of misinformation and distorted facts. Comparable arguments can be made about car ownership (or the alternative Uber usage), having children (contributing to over-population), organic farming (inefficient use of agricultural acreage), building resort hotels (or, alternatively, restricting their construction).

Cheng -- thanks as always for the comprehensive lessons! I'm glad you were bored or at least had the time to refute the first seven points the blathering article made. (The last one, that cruiseships are an eyesore, reeked of sour grapes, methinks.)

chengkp75, don't you feel just a bit silly that you put more effort into writing your post than the article's author did in writing the piece in the first place? And she probably got paid $$ to write it!:eek:

Again, who cares what someone writes? And if I cared at all, it would be as a cruise passenger. As a cruise passenger and not an employee or shareholder, the more negative press the better!!!

 

We have to get demand and those cruise fares down some how.:D

I am please that chengkp75 took the time to correct the article's mis-representations. With so much fake news these days, and just as many inexperienced people reading that news and believing it is accurate, we need experts to speak up when blatantly false news is being published. Such misinformation can easily result in negative outcomes when people make poor decisions in response. For example, a recent election was stolen due to fake news. If only more experts had spoken up then. :mad:

Lies and deceits need to be called out whenever they happen.

Fake news ??!!

It was an ARTICLE, not NEWS. It's not journalism. No big deal. If someone reads that stuff and believes it, it's their fault.

As for the part about cruise ships being eyesores: ever been walking along the canal in Venice on a sunny day and all of a sudden, the sun disappears and darkness falls??? It's a cruise ship going up the canal... :eek:

It was an ARTICLE, not NEWS. It's not journalism. No big deal. If someone reads that stuff and believes it, it's their fault.

Exactly, an OPINION piece, not very well researched.

No one remembers the 40 million dollar fine? Princesses had a "magic pipe" dumping oily waste into the water. Dumping enough fresh water to fool the sensors. I'll give a link

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-12-01/carnivals-princess-line-to-pay-40m-fine-in-pollution-case

Remember when a cruise ship damaged the barrier

tp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4311558/UK-cruise-ship-damages-pristine-Indonesian-coral-reef.html

Don't know to what extent these kinds of issues are still going on.

The article cited in the OP is kind of slanted. Exaggerated. It's not 100 % wrong, made up.

They don't know much about dolphins. Ships (any sort) hit dolphins like they hit birds - not at all, if the dolphin/bird is healthy. Both dolphins and flying birds are pretty good at detecting something big coming towards them and getting out of the way, and they both move faster than the ship.

Two words - Fake news.

Lies and deceits need to be called out whenever they happen.

I agree with you about lies and deceits on important stuff, but it was just a fluff internet article about cruising . Why should anybody care if it was full of lies and deceits? If I am concerned at all, it is that they don’t lie and deceive enough in these articles!!! An example, if I'm interested in buying shares in a really good company, I want the short sellers to slam the company, that way the market might believe their lies and deceit and I can buy the shares cheaper.:D:D Same with cruises.;)

I agree with you about lies and deceits on important stuff, but it was just a fluff internet article about cruising . Why should anybody care if it was full of lies and deceits?.......

We know it was a "fluff article" because we are experienced cruisers and CC members and know better. People who have never cruised before and are trying to decide if cruising is right for them may read those lies and not understand what they are. Any inaccurate information that is published anywhere is problematic. Facts are always the most appropriate option in all situations.