Smoking on balcony

[pdmlynek]

1 hour ago, gerryuk said:

You could also argue that it would be a kindness for cruise lines to ban alcohol to save peoples livers. Alcohol causes far more problems than smoking has ever done, but it is not happening.  

😄😄😄

You are correct, of course. 

 

Even worse than that is overeating. Overeating and eating unhealthy foods leads to heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc. Heart disease is the number killer. If the cruise lines should ban smoking because of health concerns, then they should ban drinking, fatty foods, large portions, etc.😄😄😄

 

The cruise lines should also make people exercise by banning the use of elevators, not providing the bus shuttles at ports, etc. 😄😄

 

Finally, we should just cruise lines, because they pollute, are harmful to the environment, waste people's money, are unhealthy way of spending one's time, etc.  😄😄😄

[Cruzaholic41]

9 hours ago, pdmlynek said:

Well, it may have taken that long to put into place the necessary protocols to ban smoking on balconies. 

You really need to stop making stuff up. Princess did not ban smoking on balconies because of a fire that occurred 6 years prior and that was never proven to be because of smoking. Balcony smoking was banned on Princess and most other lines because it was one of the most common complaints made by passengers in post cruise surveys. 

[navybankerteacher]

7 hours ago, gerryuk said:

You could also argue that it would be a kindness for cruise lines to ban alcohol to save peoples livers. Alcohol causes far more problems than smoking has ever done, but it is not happening.  

The over-use of alcohol is what causes those problems.  No one really thinks that smoking in moderation is OK for your health.

[Charles4515]

2 hours ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

You really need to stop making stuff up. Princess did not ban smoking on balconies because of a fire that occurred 6 years prior and that was never proven to be because of smoking. Balcony smoking was banned on Princess and most other lines because it was one of the most common complaints made by passengers in post cruise surveys. 

And that is why I will keep complaining about smoking in the casinos. Someday other lines may see the light like Celebrity has and ban smoking in the casino. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Charles4515

[ldubs]

14 hours ago, pdmlynek said:

For example, some US states still issue driver licenses that do not comply with REAL ID laws. 

 

 

 

Don't most states still issue DL's that are not real IDs?  Not to confuse with facts, but there are no states out of compliance with "REAL ID laws".   Real ID is not required until May 2025.  Those few states that currently do not issue Real IDs state that they will be in compliance by the deadline.  

 

[ldubs]

11 hours ago, gerryuk said:

You could also argue that it would be a kindness for cruise lines to ban alcohol to save peoples livers. Alcohol causes far more problems than smoking has ever done, but it is not happening.  

 

Difference is the hazard presented to others by second-hand smoke.  

[navybankerteacher]

3 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

Don't most states still issue DL's that are not real IDs?  Not to confuse with facts, but there are no states out of compliance with "REAL ID laws".   Real ID is not required until May 2025.  Those few states that currently do not issue Real IDs state that they will be in compliance by the deadline.  

 

Which they will only be able to do if the required date had not been continually pushed back.  

[ldubs]

1 minute ago, navybankerteacher said:

Which they will only be able to do if the required date had not been continually pushed back.  

 

Yeah.   I think "required" to do is more accurate.   

[Charles4515]

36 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

Don't most states still issue DL's that are not real IDs?  Not to confuse with facts, but there are no states out of compliance with "REAL ID laws".   Real ID is not required until May 2025.  Those few states that currently do not issue Real IDs state that they will be in compliance by the deadline.  

 

Actually all states are now issuing Real ID DL’s. Not everyone had one because they either have not gone through the renewal process or they choose not to get one. Because of Covid the DMV was not doing in person renewals in many states. That is why the date was extended again. In some states Real ID is optional. Then it will be on the individual if they choose not to get a Real ID license for other ID to fly assuming that using a Real ID license as a ID for domestic flights ever does go in effect. 

[ldubs]

Just now, Charles4515 said:

Actually all states are now issuing Real ID DL’s. Not everyone had one because they either have not gone through the renewal process or they choose not to get one. Because of Covid the DMV was not doing in person renewals in many states. That is why the date was extended again. In some states Real ID is optional. Then it will be on the individual if they choose not to get a Real ID license for other ID to fly assuming that using a Real ID license as a ID for domestic flights ever does go in effect. 

 

Aw thanks.  I thought there were still a few holdouts.  And yes, that was my intended point. Where one does not have to get a Real ID, using that as an example of noncompliance is wrong.  My state allows the option.  I opted not to because it would require a DMV visit and, for unrelated reasons, a test.  While otherwise, I could simply renew my DL online.   

[pdmlynek]

1 hour ago, ldubs said:

 

Don't most states still issue DL's that are not real IDs?  Not to confuse with facts, but there are no states out of compliance with "REAL ID laws".   Real ID is not required until May 2025.  Those few states that currently do not issue Real IDs state that they will be in compliance by the deadline.  

 

The saga of the how the implementation of the provisions of REAL ID act has been continuously kicked down the road is well known.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act#Implementation . It seems pretty weird to me that it would be so difficult to implement it, but maybe there are some legitimate reasons.

 

My point is that it is taking many, many years to implement REAL ID.  Heck, implementation of the metric system in the US has taken 50 years, and we are not getting any closer to adopting it, then we were in 1979.

 

The reason why I wrote about the long time that it takes for some things to be implemented, is to illustrate the implementations of "no smoking on balconies" rule may have indeed taken 6 years after the 2006 Star Princess fire.  Based on what I've read, there appears to be a nexus between fire and he ban on smoking on balconies.

[pdmlynek]

6 hours ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

You really need to stop making stuff up. Princess did not ban smoking on balconies because of a fire that occurred 6 years prior and that was never proven to be because of smoking. Balcony smoking was banned on Princess and most other lines because it was one of the most common complaints made by passengers in post cruise surveys. 

I am not making stuff up.  I was not on board of the ship when it caught fire, nor did I participate in the investigation.  I thus rely on what was published.  A few points:

 

(1) What was published is that a thrown cigarette was tossed onto a balcony caused the fire.  I am just going based on what the investigators found.  While various reports use adjectives like "allegedly", or "likely", or "suspected", it is clear that for all purposes it has been determined that it was a cigarette, and not arson or electrical fire, or like.  We've debated this point on this website ad nauseum.  

 

If you have a better explanation, and have superior information to what investigators into the incident had, I am prepared to listen.

 

(2) Pretty much all of the trade publications and news organizations see a link between the Star Princess fire and the banning of smoking six years later.  Again, I am going by what is published.

 

If you have an explanation why all the publications are wrong, and have some evidence that why Princess banned smoking on balconies is unrelated to the fire, again, I am prepared to listen. 

[Charles4515]

1 minute ago, pdmlynek said:

If you have an explanation why all the publications are wrong, and have some evidence that why Princess banned smoking on balconies is unrelated to the fire, again, I am prepared to listen. 

I don't know why Princess banned smoking on balcanies but you are wrong that investigators determined it was caused by a cigarette. There was speculation to that effect but the cause was never factually determined. 

[pdmlynek]

2 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

I don't know why Princess banned smoking on balcanies but you are wrong that investigators determined it was caused by a cigarette. There was speculation to that effect but the cause was never factually determined. 

I understand what you are saying, but that is not what the reports state.  Yes, they literally state that they do not have proof, but every knowledgeable person understands after reading a reports that it is clear that a thrown cigarette started the fire.  As a PhD scientist, many of my reports contained similar language.  As an attorney, much of my correspondence to clients is also written similarly. 

 

It is clear to me, that the reports on the fire state that it was a tossed lit cigarette.  Not an electrical short.  Not arson.  Not anything else.  Cigarettes tossed from higher balconies has been known to be a problem. 

 

If you have some sort of better explanation, or access to superior information than what the investigators had access to, I am prepared to listen.

 

[chengkp75]

27 minutes ago, pdmlynek said:

What was published is that a thrown cigarette was tossed onto a balcony caused the fire. 

From the MAIB report (the horse's mouth) on the Star Princess:

 

From the Synopsis:  "It was probably caused by a discarded cigarette"

 

From the Analysis:  "it is considered that the most likely source of ignition was a discarded cigarette end."

"the ignition of towelling material from Star Princess by a lighted cigarette end was not reproduced during the BRE tests"

 

From the Conclusions:  "probably ignited by a cigarette end"

 

So, don't know what you've seen published, but the official report of the incident, as assisted by, and in concurrence with the USCG and US NTSB, uses very conditional language.  Their findings were that in the absence of any other cause being detected, that a cigarette was likely the cause.  That's like saying, "we know you're guilty, but there is no evidence at all to prove it".

Edited February 15, 2023 by chengkp75

[pdmlynek]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

From the MAIB report (the horse's mouth) on the Star Princess:

 

From the Synopsis:  "It was probably caused by a discarded cigarette"

 

From the Analysis:  "it is considered that the most likely source of ignition was a discarded cigarette end."

"the ignition of towelling material from Star Princess by a lighted cigarette end was not reproduced during the BRE tests"

 

From the Conclusions:  "probably ignited by a cigarette end"

 

So, don't know what you've seen published, but the official report of the incident, as assisted by, and in concurrence with the USCG and US NTSB, uses very conditional language.

I've read the same report.

 

Do you understand what this report says?  The authors are saying, translated into a layman language: yeah, a tossed cigarette caused the fire.

 

Why do you think that all the trade publications and mass media interpreted this way?

 

Arguing that the report is not clear what caused the fire is like arguing about gravity, because it is merely a "gravitational theory".  

 

Decision makers have to make decision on incomplete data.  The decision makers at Princess and their holders had to make a decision on whether to ban smoking on balconies or not; whether the conclusion about the cause of fire used conditional language or definate language is secondary.

 

But if you have some sort of data that the investigators did not, that puts the cigarette theory in question, and think that it was something else, I am open to be corrected.

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, pdmlynek said:

The saga of the how the implementation of the provisions of REAL ID act has been continuously kicked down the road is well known.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act#Implementation . It seems pretty weird to me that it would be so difficult to implement it, but maybe there are some legitimate reasons.

 

My point is that it is taking many, many years to implement REAL ID.  Heck, implementation of the metric system in the US has taken 50 years, and we are not getting any closer to adopting it, then we were in 1979.

 

The reason why I wrote about the long time that it takes for some things to be implemented, is to illustrate the implementations of "no smoking on balconies" rule may have indeed taken 6 years after the 2006 Star Princess fire.  Based on what I've read, there appears to be a nexus between fire and he ban on smoking on balconies.

 

I suppose it could likely be among the reasons for the smoking ban on balconies.  And a good reason too.  I'm not of the opinion it was the main cause.    

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, pdmlynek said:

The decision makers at Princess and their holders had to make a decision on whether to ban smoking on balconies or not; whether the conclusion about the cause of fire used conditional language or definate language is secondary.

So, what were the "protocols" that needed to be put into place to ban smoking on balconies, that took Princess 6 years to implement?  Their ship, their rules.  As far as I know, there are no laws in Bermuda that restricts a business owner from designating non-smoking areas.

 

In the aftermath of the report, the International Council of Cruise Lines, the MAIB, and the IMO all issued safety notices or notices of amendments to requirements, none of which recommended banning smoking on balconies, which if they thought it was a root cause of the fire, they would have said something about it.  Instead, they are all focused on the structural fire protection of balconies, and the flammability of balcony furnishings.  And, Princess, in addition to complying with the above safety requirements and recommendations, implemented additional operational and training actions regarding fires on balconies, but not one mention of smoking being the root cause is mentioned.  Because smoking was not proved to be the cause, no action was taken against it.

 

There is still no "rule" (i.e. any legal requirement that would require lengthy implementation) against smoking on balconies, it is a cruise line policy.

Edited February 16, 2023 by chengkp75

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, pdmlynek said:

 

Decision makers have to make decision on incomplete data.  The decision makers at Princess and their holders had to make a decision on whether to ban smoking on balconies or not; whether the conclusion about the cause of fire used conditional language or definite language is secondary.

 

 

The problem you're having here is, you keep conflating two unrelated topics.  You keep saying smoking was banned from balconies because of the fire.  That is not true.  

 

[John Bull]

2 hours ago, pdmlynek said:

 

(1) What was published is that a thrown cigarette was tossed onto a balcony caused the fire. 

 

If you have a better explanation, and have superior information to what investigators into the incident had, I am prepared to listen.

 

(2) Pretty much all of the trade publications and news organizations see a link between the Star Princess fire and the banning of smoking six years later.  Again, I am going by what is published.

 

 

Far better to quote what the report actually said (and what trade publications etc actually said) rather than what you thought they said.

 

The actual report says "In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is considered that the most likely source of ignition was a discarded cigarette end."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c706ae5274a4290000097/Star_Princess.pdf

(Page 39).

 

The piecemeal moves towards cruise lines banning smoking on balconies followed the piecemeal ban on smoking in cabins, and was clearly due to complaints about second-hand smoke, witness HAL - which caters for an older demograph - being one of the last to do so.

It also followed similar moves from about the same time or earlier on aircraft, buses, trains, then in restaurants & public buildings & workplaces - all for the same reason

And following the Costa Concordia disaster it didn't take anything like 6 years for SOLAS regulations to require safety briefings on cruise ships to be conducted before or immediately after sailing, rather than within 24 hours of sailing.

 

JB 🙂

 

 

[Hlitner]

13 hours ago, John Bull said:

 

Far better to quote what the report actually said (and what trade publications etc actually said) rather than what you thought they said.

 

The actual report says "In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is considered that the most likely source of ignition was a discarded cigarette end."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c706ae5274a4290000097/Star_Princess.pdf

(Page 39).

 

The piecemeal moves towards cruise lines banning smoking on balconies followed the piecemeal ban on smoking in cabins, and was clearly due to complaints about second-hand smoke, witness HAL - which caters for an older demograph - being one of the last to do so.

It also followed similar moves from about the same time or earlier on aircraft, buses, trains, then in restaurants & public buildings & workplaces - all for the same reason

And following the Costa Concordia disaster it didn't take anything like 6 years for SOLAS regulations to require safety briefings on cruise ships to be conducted before or immediately after sailing, rather than within 24 hours of sailing.

 

JB 🙂

 

 

Another fall out from that incident is that Princess did a refit of all their ships and added both smoke detectors and sprinkler systems to all the balconies.  Of course, this extra cost was passed on to all cruisers.  

 

Hank

[MBP&O2/O]

I was on a ship that sank.

 

The root cause was a seawater cooling pipe disintegrating and flooding the engine room.

No physical evidence was available for the internal inquiry. This was the only inquiry.

It was determined that the pipe failure was more than likely caused by metal fatigue. No proof.

A bit like a fire that was more than likely caused by a cigarette. No proof.

 

Even without proof, the company chose to immediately drydock each and every ship of that class so as the approriate examinations could be conducted. As it happens they did find evidence of metal fatigue on a couple of ships.

They seemed to take the 'more than likely' as a serious option, as could Princess should they have chosen to do so.

 

Just a thought😏

 

[sparks1093]

On 2/15/2023 at 4:07 PM, pdmlynek said:

The saga of the how the implementation of the provisions of REAL ID act has been continuously kicked down the road is well known.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act#Implementation . It seems pretty weird to me that it would be so difficult to implement it, but maybe there are some legitimate reasons.

 

My point is that it is taking many, many years to implement REAL ID.  Heck, implementation of the metric system in the US has taken 50 years, and we are not getting any closer to adopting it, then we were in 1979.

 

The reason why I wrote about the long time that it takes for some things to be implemented, is to illustrate the implementations of "no smoking on balconies" rule may have indeed taken 6 years after the 2006 Star Princess fire.  Based on what I've read, there appears to be a nexus between fire and he ban on smoking on balconies.

Why would it take a private company so long to implement something? They don't need any outside permission, they can just implement it themselves. 

[sparks1093]

22 hours ago, pdmlynek said:

I've read the same report.

 

Do you understand what this report says?  The authors are saying, translated into a layman language: yeah, a tossed cigarette caused the fire.

 

Why do you think that all the trade publications and mass media interpreted this way?

 

Arguing that the report is not clear what caused the fire is like arguing about gravity, because it is merely a "gravitational theory".  

 

Decision makers have to make decision on incomplete data.  The decision makers at Princess and their holders had to make a decision on whether to ban smoking on balconies or not; whether the conclusion about the cause of fire used conditional language or definate language is secondary.

 

But if you have some sort of data that the investigators did not, that puts the cigarette theory in question, and think that it was something else, I am open to be corrected.

And yet scientists in controlled laboratory conditions could not replicate the fire, as pointed out earlier in this thread.

[pdmlynek]

4 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

And yet scientists in controlled laboratory conditions could not replicate the fire, as pointed out earlier in this thread.

I am a Ph.D. scientist, who has done product development for a large polymer ingredient supplier.  My job was to develop better platics.  The people on our team who were studying the effects of flame retardants, have always been frustrated how incredibly difficult it is to get reliable data from methods that tries to predict fire retardancy. Fire science is not like normal, deterministic science that we are used to.  It is much more stochastic, much more irreproducable. Thus, I am not at all surprised that in controlled conditioned the fire could not be replicated. 

 

The discrepency between the fire and the test has been addressed in MAIB Report https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/547c706ae5274a4290000097/Star_Princess.pdf, section 2.3.2: 
"Although the ignition of towelling material from Star Princess by a lighted cigarette end was not reproduced during the BRE tests (Annex E), possibly due to the small scale of the samples used and the difficulty in simulating the ambient conditions experienced on 23 March, other towelling samples did ignite in this manner." 

To me, this makes sense.

 

But if you think that there is a better explanation for the cause of the fire that the investigators have not considered, I am all ears.