New Smoking Policy ruins Cruise

[The Sunset Glow]

As others have already pointed out, sister line Celebrity does not allow smoking in the casino. And the fact that the casino is such a money maker is precisely why I think you WILL see smoking banned there soon. Smokers using it as a smoking lounge without gambling and driving away non-smoking gamblers will drive down the revenue significantly, and THAT will drive the change.

 

Agreed:D

[Adayatatime]

Non-smokers BE HONEST now.

 

You don't want smokers on the same ship as you, right?

 

 

Well if there weren't any smokers on board it would be something else to complain about. I am a none smoker, but I think a lot of none smokers don't have a clue, have done very little research, and just repeat what the tabloids say. We all know, smokers included, that smoking is bad for you. What we don't seem to care about are all the other things that are bad or us, and those around us, too. We just like to,latch on to one thing we think we know so much about.

 

It makes me cross that lots of these people will be driving their 4x4s, buying clothes from environments where people are treated like dirt, eating food that is prepared by those who cannot feed their families. Those who do none of these things, great, good for you, and I mean that genuinely. Those who don't live like that, stop being so hypocritical.

 

So next time someone moans about clothes smelling of smoke, do you know r sure under what conditions those clothes were made?

Edited June 26, 2014 by Adayatatime

[LetsGetWet!]

Check facts before posting

Cellphones are detrimental to my health and yours.

 

Cell phones emit radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, which can be absorbed by tissues closest to where the phone is held.

The amount of radiofrequency energy a cell phone user is exposed to depends on the technology of the phone, the distance between the phone’s antenna and the user, the extent and type of use, and the user’s distance from cell phone towers.

Studies thus far have shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck. More research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly.

 

And you cannot see the radio frequencies!! To avoid them, you can see the smoke, which you can avoid.

 

Anyways. Let's all watch USA v Germany in a proper football game. Live on ESPN.

Guess we will be wanting football banned on ships as well.. Real football that is.

Yep, SOMEONE better check their facts before posting, I agree. Here's a pretty good laundry list of well-known organizations/agencies, all of whom say there's no demonstrated causal link between cellphone radiation and any detriment to health.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) states that the weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for regulating the safety of machines and devices that emit radiation (including cell phones), notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency energy have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phones and health problems.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that, although some studies have raised concerns about the possible risks of cell phone use, scientific research as a whole does not support a statistically significant association between cell phone use and health effects.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concludes that there is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone use can lead to cancer or to other health problems, including headaches, dizziness, or memory loss.

[Adayatatime]

Yep, SOMEONE better check their facts before posting, I agree. Here's a pretty good laundry list of well-known organizations/agencies, all of whom say there's no demonstrated causal link between cellphone radiation and any detriment to health.

 

 

I like to not take everything at face value. There are lots of things we don't understand yet.

[LetsGetWet!]

Haha! First you say:

And if you want to keep showing a lack of research, that's fine by me too :rolleyes: times 10!

So I supplied the research results:

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) states that the weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for regulating the safety of machines and devices that emit radiation (including cell phones), notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency energy have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phones and health problems.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that, although some studies have raised concerns about the possible risks of cell phone use, scientific research as a whole does not support a statistically significant association between cell phone use and health effects.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concludes that there is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone use can lead to cancer or to other health problems, including headaches, dizziness, or memory loss.

To which you then reply:

I like to not take everything at face value. There are lots of things we don't understand yet.

Its abundantly clear that what you REALLY don't like is research and the resulting facts that contradict your agenda. :rolleyes:

[Sitzmark]

Yep, SOMEONE better check their facts before posting, I agree. Here's a pretty good laundry list of well-known organizations/agencies, all of whom say there's no demonstrated causal link between cellphone radiation and any detriment to health.

 

 

In addition to this, these other things are just a smokescreen (no pun intended) for the debate about smoking. If someone truly believes that cellphones are dangerous, then they should lobby to ban cellphones, not argue that the danger of RF emissions means smoking is ok.

[PompeySailor]

Yep, SOMEONE better check their facts before posting, I agree. Here's a pretty good laundry list of well-known organizations/agencies, all of whom say there's no demonstrated causal link between cellphone radiation and any detriment to health.

 

 

You been busy on google.

Took them years to get the facts for smoking, will take a few more years for cellphones.

Great debate. And always will be an interesting one with Pros and Cons.

The laundry list was compiled by the cellphone companies.. $$$$$ talking.

Once we are all chipped and implanted with free wifi, and do not have to worry about cellphones, we can then see the side effects.. People going crazy talking to themselves;)

[Adayatatime]

Haha! First you say:

 

So I supplied the research results:

 

To which you then reply:

 

Its abundantly clear that what you REALLY don't like is research and the resulting facts that contradict your agenda. :rolleyes:

 

There are no facts in your research. :rolleyes::rolleyes: all your research shows is that there is yet no concrete specific evidence. In fact it helpfully shows that more research is needed, and admits as such.

 

Roll back 50 years and there was o evidence that smoking was bad for you either. No one is saying they haven't proven that.

 

Just use that same suggestion in your research.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Adayatatime

[Adayatatime]

You been busy on google.

Took them years to get the facts for smoking, will take a few more years for cellphones.

Great debate. And always will be an interesting one with Pros and Cons.

The laundry list was compiled by the cellphone companies.. $$$$$ talking.

Once we are all chipped and implanted with free wifi, and do not have to worry about cellphones, we can then see the side effects.. People going crazy talking to themselves;)

 

Then we will have to find space on cruise ships for people talking to themselves. And no one will be able to talk to themselves on balconies!! That's where my luck runs out :D

[PompeySailor]

Then we will have to find space on cruise ships for people talking to themselves. And no one will be able to talk to themselves on balconies!! That's where my luck runs out :D

 

We are doomed:)

At least Suarez got a nice lengthy ban!

[Adayatatime]

We are doomed:)

At least Suarez got a nice lengthy ban!

 

Yippee. Now that is anti social.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Adayatatime

[LetsGetWet!]

In addition to this, these other things are just a smokescreen (no pun intended) for the debate about smoking. If someone truly believes that cellphones are dangerous, then they should lobby to ban cellphones, not argue that the danger of RF emissions means smoking is ok.

Yep, very good point - just a transparent attempt to change the subject.

You been busy on google.

Took them years to get the facts for smoking, will take a few more years for cellphones.

Great debate. And always will be an interesting one with Pros and Cons.

The laundry list was compiled by the cellphone companies.. $$$$$ talking.

Once we are all chipped and implanted with free wifi, and do not have to worry about cellphones, we can then see the side effects.. People going crazy talking to themselves;)

There are no facts in your research. :rolleyes::rolleyes: all your research shows is that there is yet no concrete specific evidence.

 

Roll back 50 years and there was o evidence that smoking was bad for you either. No one is saying they haven't proven that.

 

Just use that same suggestion in your research.

Wow, just wow. Between the two of you, you claim that "the laundry list was compiled by the cell phone companies" and "there are no facts in your research" when I've supplied information (and links) to studies and conclusions by no less than the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the FDA, the CDC and the FCC. At least the last 3 of those 4 get their funding from we taxpayers, certainly not from the cell phone companies. And if studies from 4 different agencies like that who all happen to agree don't constitute facts, then again its obvious that someone is defining "facts" as "any opinions that I can throw out there that fit my agenda."

 

Yeah, I was busy on google, for all of about 2 minutes. I haven't seen anyone else present such a list of "facts" contradicting what those four agencies have concluded - just a whole lot of "gee, I don't really take everything at face value" and "we really don't know yet."

 

Yes, we really do know - over 30 years of cell phone usage in the United States provides a whole lot of data, and that data has been analyzed and re-analyzed over and over again - with the scientific analyses pretty much all concluding the same thing - see the four referenced studies.

 

Oh, and the "cell phones cause cancer" diatribes all refer to those actually using them, holding them directly against their heads. I don't think ANYONE has ever even remotely tried to claim that there could be any effect on the people around a cellphone user.

Edited June 26, 2014 by LetsGetWet!

[FLACRUISER99]

Non-smokers BE HONEST now.

 

You don't want smokers on the same ship as you, right?

You are correct.

[comxkid]

Roll back 50 years and there was no evidence that smoking was bad for you either. No one is saying they haven't proven that.

 

Au contraire mon ami….per a 1964 report from the Surgeon General of the United States:

 

“No single issue has preoccupied the Surgeons General of the past four decades more than smoking. The reports of the Surgeon General have alerted the nation to the health risk of smoking, and have transformed the issue from one of individual and consumer choice, to one of epidemiology, public health, and risk for smokers and non-smokers alike.

Evidence of the ill effects of smoking accumulated during the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's. Epidemiologists used statistics and large-scale, long-term, case-control surveys to link the increase in lung cancer mortality to smoking. Pathologists and laboratory scientists confirmed the statistical relationship of smoking to lung cancer as well as to other serious diseases, such as bronchitis, emphysema, and coronary heart disease. Smoking, these studies suggested, and not air pollution, asbestos contamination, or radioactive materials, was the chief cause of the epidemic rise of lung cancer in the twentieth century. On June 12, 1957, Surgeon General Leroy E. Burney declared it the official position of the U.S. Public Health Service that the evidence pointed to a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer."

[NolaFireLI]

Here's a GREAT idea, How about we ban EVERYTHING on board!!! :eek:

 

Lock the cell phones/cigars/cigarettes/slot machines in a giant locker at the port!!!

you get it all back AFTER your vacation where you have to actually TALK and have a conversation with your family members and loved ones, not to mention you MUST get along with everyone else on board!

 

Is that fair??

[bigque]

I swear I will never understand for the life of me why people who don't smoke and is allergic to smoke and really like to use the casino and areas around the casino would continuously book cruises on a ship that allows this and then come on CC to complain about it when there are cruiselines that don't allow it. Talking about how it ruined cruises but yet will still have more cruises booked to go through the same experience again! In other words If I am allergic to the smell of horse manure I'm not going to keep going back and forth into the barn!

[Adayatatime]

Yep, very good point - just a transparent attempt to change the subject.

 

 

Wow, just wow. Between the two of you, you claim that "the laundry list was compiled by the cell phone companies" and "there are no facts in your research" when I've supplied information (and links) to studies and conclusions by no less than the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the FDA, the CDC and the FCC. At least the last 3 of those 4 get their funding from we taxpayers, certainly not from the cell phone companies. And if studies from 4 different agencies like that who all happen to agree don't constitute facts, then again its obvious that someone is defining "facts" as "any opinions that I can throw out there that fit my agenda."

 

Yeah, I was busy on google, for all of about 2 minutes. I haven't seen anyone else present such a list of "facts" contradicting what those four agencies have concluded - just a whole lot of "gee, I don't really take everything at face value" and "we really don't know yet."

 

Yes, we really do know - over 30 years of cell phone usage in the United States provides a whole lot of data, and that data has been analyzed and re-analyzed over and over again - with the scientific analyses pretty much all concluding the same thing - see the four referenced studies.

 

Oh, and the "cell phones cause cancer" diatribes all refer to those actually using them, holding them directly against their heads. I don't think ANYONE has ever even remotely tried to claim that there could be any effect on the people around a cellphone user.

 

Ok then I just interpret the research differently from you. Your research categorically states that more research is needed.

 

All I am really saying is that yes, we know about the dangers of smoking, but no, we don't know he full impact of more recent recreational stuff, and one of those is technology.

 

I keep an open mind to these things, and whereas there are dangers associated with smoking, there are other dangers lurking around the corner that we don't quite know the impact of yet.

 

That's why I can't penalise one group of people.

[Constance331]

This thread is beginning to sound like a debate on climate change.

[Adayatatime]

This thread is beginning to sound like a debate on climate change.

 

Ohhhhhhhhh let's do that one!

[comxkid]

This thread is beginning to sound like a debate on climate change.

 

Don't even open the door for that. :)

 

Although 97% of scientists agree with one position and the remaining 3% and one news network agree with the other. ;)

[PompeySailor]

This thread is beginning to sound like a debate on climate change.

 

As with climate change, which is inevitable, smoking will always be an issue.

People have choices and if smoke is not for them don't go into smokey places.

 

I am allergic to celery, so guess what I don't eat it:)

[bouhunter]

No need to read the 120 posts that have piled up here already.

 

Blah blah blah blah blah...........:rolleyes:

[m*u*g*]

No overdramatic at all. Some people are severely allergic or have health issues where smoke affects breathing, so yes, it can ruin a trip in their eyes.

[comxkid]

No need to read the 120 posts that have piled up here already.

 

Blah blah blah blah blah...........:rolleyes:

 

Some of them have been interesting....but thanks for your contribution.

[PompeySailor]

Yep, very good point - just a transparent attempt to change the subject.

 

 

Wow, just wow. Between the two of you, you claim that "the laundry list was compiled by the cell phone companies" and "there are no facts in your research" when I've supplied information (and links) to studies and conclusions by no less than the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the FDA, the CDC and the FCC. At least the last 3 of those 4 get their funding from we taxpayers, certainly not from the cell phone companies. And if studies from 4 different agencies like that who all happen to agree don't constitute facts, then again its obvious that someone is defining "facts" as "any opinions that I can throw out there that fit my agenda."

 

Yeah, I was busy on google, for all of about 2 minutes. I haven't seen anyone else present such a list of "facts" contradicting what those four agencies have concluded - just a whole lot of "gee, I don't really take everything at face value" and "we really don't know yet."

 

Yes, we really do know - over 30 years of cell phone usage in the United States provides a whole lot of data, and that data has been analyzed and re-analyzed over and over again - with the scientific analyses pretty much all concluding the same thing - see the four referenced studies.

 

Oh, and the "cell phones cause cancer" diatribes all refer to those actually using them, holding them directly against their heads. I don't think ANYONE has ever even remotely tried to claim that there could be any effect on the people around a cellphone user.

 

 

From the WHO

Listed as a Carcinogenic.. This is from the WORLD governing body, not just the USA.

 

Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established.

A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

What that means is they found some evidence of increase in glioma and acoustic neuroma brain cancer for mobile phone users, but have not been able to draw conclusions for other types of cancers

"The biggest problem we have is that we know most environmental factors take several decades of exposure before we really see the consequences," said Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

Is your cell phone safe? Dr. Gupta explores cell phone safety How to use your cell phone safely Can ce