Smoking on QM2 after UK ban

[pnhmrk]

I have prayed for redemption. I have Penny's wise words coursing through my brain. I am about to handcuff myself to a radiator away from the keyboard. I will NOT reply to this....I will NOT reply to this.... I will NOT reply to this..........................

 

We are both such sinners - you for starting it and me for replying. We really should let it drop (but then it is quite fun:D ).

[Kindlychap]

I'd be quite happy to see them banned. Excepting that some people enjoy using them so why not introduce "quiet zones" where they cant be used like there is on some trains. Better yet let's restrict their use to only a very few places:)

 

You cannot use the tube without this tinny annoyance. Why do people need "music" all day?

 

Matthew

[travel-to-go]

Or if she'd felt able to smoke in her car:D

 

(I agree with you about feeling for the victim etc)

We have no ban on smokin gin cars here yet. The reason she got out was the 22 yr old daughter and the 8 month old grandchild.

Still no clue as to why she was shot. Doesn't seem to be a targetted shooting. I suspect her car probably looked lke someone they were gunning for's car.

So very sad. We've had a lot of these types of incidents. shooting into a crowd, durg and gang rivalries where they shoot the wrong person. a few chidlren in cars or out playing have gotten killed or horribly maimed by gunfire like this.

 

Well, I think we've exhausted smoking. Maybe we could bring up gun control! <G>

 

NO please, let's not!

Although I will say that I don't know WHY they stopped doing skeet shooting off the back of ships (yes, I admit, I have done it) but I am glad, I suppose. It's probably not a very eco-friendly thing to be putting lead pellets into the oceans that can get eaten by fish and sea mammals. Then again, that's what most folks use for sinkers when fishing.

Hmmm, Of course nowadays. I cannot imagine a ships officer handing a loaded shotgun to a passenger! Although I suppose it might be cheaper than those sonic devices for thwarting piracy! Can you imagine some Yahoo (Carnival) passenger shooting at approaching ships- thought they were pirates- Or God forbid, approaching Grand Cayman during the Pirate Days festival where they have authentic looking pirate ships booming cannon smoking and noise across the bay- They'll chase you out of town! It's great fun!

 

Karie,

who has been chased out of Cayman- But that was by the authorities (Just kidding! It was the pirates!)

[boaterette]

Cruise Ships: Cruising for Trouble in our Ocean and Ports

Cruise ships - the largest of which carry more than 5,000 passengers and crew - are floating cities that produce enormous volumes of waste. A typical cruise ship on a one-week voyage generates more than 50 tons of garbage, one million gallons of graywater (waste water from sinks, showers, galleys, and laundry facilities), 210,000 gallons of sewage, and 35,000 gallons of oil-contaminated water. Most of this waste is dumped directly into the ocean, some treated, some not. In addition, luxury liners spew a range of pollutants into the air that can lead to acid rain and contribute to global warming. They can also spread invasive species by dumping untreated ballast water in coastal zones.

The rapidly expanding size and number of cruise ships in US waters has triggered a national cruise ship pollution crisis. Environmental laws have not kept pace with growth of the industry.

Complaining about smoking on a cruise ship while contributing to the problem of pollution just doesn't garner any sympathy from me.

[travel-to-go]

I won't quote the "cruise ship-polluting" post, so as to not have a large post re-posted. Yes, I am certain this is all true, though hopefully less so than in the past, although I am sure many ships get away with stuff they shouldn't do.

 

I don't know how much of that "grey water", solid waste, etc has just been transplanted to one compact locale temporarily. After all, these people would be taking baths, washing dishes, etc on land, and eating somewhere. Maybe with less regulation and less attention paid to how that waste is handled. I'm not saying it is any better. I hate to go to the grocery store and see how much extra needless packaging is done, how people usually take plastic bags and don't reuse them- (They are not REALLY biodegradable- unless you spread them out and leave them in the sun and air- Which, looking at some trees near highways, it almost appears some people have done) plastics are made from petrochemicals. at least trees (paper) can be replaced by thoughtful responsible paper companies (and if they want to assure the continuity of their companies, they DO replant and replace)

 

As for the pollution of diesel engines? True- and it isn't as though we HAVE to be riding around in these behemoths. Although, at home we are using electricity, usually created through the burning of one fossil fuel or another. And of course, for the vast majority of shipping, cargo, there aren't too many alternatives, unless we only use products made only on our own land masses. Then they get transported via rail or trucks. Equally polluting, at times. I'm not perfect. I use too many resources, and believe me I feel guilty about that. I buy stuff which is entirely wasteful. Buying a salad in a plastic bag already cut up for four times the price of a head of romaine lettuce is just plain stupid. And yes, I do it. I buy boxes of stuff with individually wrapped stuff inside the boxes. They do serve a purpose. And I drive a polluting car. I paid special attention to mileage and stuff when I bought it, but that's just me. and yes, I take my paper bags back to the store and reuse them.

 

I'm not sure the discussion was really about pollution, but you certainly have a valid point. We are willing to turn our backs on the harm we present to others if it pleases us to do so, and we are in denial about how everything we do in this is interrelated. OTOH, When you smoke in a place (along with a number of others at the same time) and my breathing is particularly impaired.I have NO choice. I cannot enter that place. That choice has been taken from me. I do not live next to a highway or plant spewing smoke either. And I don't think it is right that the poor are forced to live near these things and garbage dumps and other polluters. and I don't like what some factions of our government have come up with to allow polluters to continue to pollute. However, (as I sit here hacking up a lung) since I cannot fight all polluters and all irresponsible people and businesses doesn't mean I am going to say it should be a free-for all. Because some shameful idiot throws trash out his car window doesn't mean I am giving up and we should all be slobs. Because one company pollutes with their output, let's just remove all regulations meant to protect us from ourselves and others, who might not be cognizant (or in the case of profits or selfishness, might not care!) of the harm they are doing to me.

 

And if I felt that I was just a horrible person for everything I do which furthers waste, pollution, or promotes excess in a world where those in places like Darfur are having unspeakably hideous abuses heaped upon them, and people re starving, then I should just have to kill myself.

 

goodbye, it's been nice knowing y'all!

[HAMBURGCruiser]

as smoking is discussed again it might be worthwhile to discuss whether to stop cruising and flying in general as well.

 

Ships are fast becoming the biggest source of air pollution in the EU. Unless more action is taken they are set to emit more than all land sources combined by 2020 Source: Clean Air for Europe impact assessment, p31 (2005).

 

In 2000 EU-flagged ships also emitted almost 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. This is significantly more than emissions from EU aviation. Source: Ship emissions assignment report, p160 (2005).

 

In November 2002, the European Commission adopted a European Union strategy to reduce atmospheric emissions from seagoing ships. The strategy reports on the magnitude and impact of ship emissions in the EU and sets out a number of actions to reduce the contribution of shipping to acidification, ground-level ozone, eutrophication, health, climate change and ozone depletion. See the right hand side of this page for links to all related policy documents. Click on Background information for links to the studies and consultations which have informed policy development in this field.

Air pollutant emissions from ships are also covered by Annex VI of the Marine Pollution Convention, MARPOL 73/78, of the International Maritime Organization. This contains provisions on Sulphur Oxide Emission Control Areas (Baltic Sea, North Sea & English Channel) and nitrogen oxide emissions standards for ships' engines. The EU strategy seeks to implement the SOx Emission Control Areas set out in Annex VI, and to press for tighter NOx standards. The Commission also urges Member States to bring forward ratification of this important international instrument.

 

The Bluewater Network, a San Francisco-based marine environmental organization, predicts that global commercial vessel traffic and the related emissions are expected to double or triple in the next 20 years. The California Air Resources Board expects smog from ships to represent 20–25 percent of the total pollution in Los Angeles by 2020. And marine sources are projected to be the largest contributor to "smog-forming pollutants" by 2015, according to a June 2004 study produced by the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia.

[GAV BOY]

Cruise Ships: Cruising for Trouble in our Ocean and Ports

 

Cruise ships - the largest of which carry more than 5,000 passengers and crew - are floating cities that produce enormous volumes of waste. A typical cruise ship on a one-week voyage generates more than 50 tons of garbage, one million gallons of graywater (waste water from sinks, showers, galleys, and laundry facilities), 210,000 gallons of sewage, and 35,000 gallons of oil-contaminated water. Most of this waste is dumped directly into the ocean, some treated, some not. In addition, luxury liners spew a range of pollutants into the air that can lead to acid rain and contribute to global warming. They can also spread invasive species by dumping untreated ballast water in coastal zones.

The rapidly expanding size and number of cruise ships in US waters has triggered a national cruise ship pollution crisis. Environmental laws have not kept pace with growth of the industry.

 

Complaining about smoking on a cruise ship while contributing to the problem of pollution just doesn't garner any sympathy from me.

 

This thread was nothing to do with the above subject !:confused:

[pnhmrk]

This thread was nothing to do with the above subject !:confused:

 

No - But it is possibly more relevant to a thread about Cunard and the QM2 than the ringing of cell phones in New York!:)

[GAV BOY]

No - But it is possibly more relevant to a thread about Cunard and the QM2 than the ringing of cell phones in New York!:)

 

You right Malcolm ,anyway i,ve started another arguement about Kilts now ! :D

 

regards,

 

Gavin :cool:

[SamanthasDad]

No - But it is possibly more relevant to a thread about Cunard and the QM2 than the ringing of cell phones in New York!:)

This thread was about the new UK Legislation on Smoking and how it will effect the QM2.

smoking has been banned for a long time in New York and other states.

If New York does ban cell phones / iPods, then the UK will undoubtedly follow, since the UK follows the US on most things (Legislation, illegal wars etc...:))

and then we will be asking how this effects the QM2 as a British registered ship.

This has more to do with the thread than pollution. Maybe you should start a new thread up for that important topic. Are you for or against? because surely it is within the ships rights to discard toxic fumes where ever it likes as it is not currently against the law. :)

[pnhmrk]

You right Malcolm ,anyway i,ve started another arguement about Kilts now ! :D

 

I was thinking that I might steer clear of that discussion - only thinking though;)

 

Are you for or against? because surely it is within the ships rights to discard toxic fumes where ever it likes as it is not currently against the law. :)

 

Are we back onto the question of is second hand smoke harmful? I am fairly sure though that there is some form of restriction on ships that prevents them discharging what they like where they like.

[SamanthasDad]

Are we back onto the question of is second hand smoke harmful?

I didn't think that there was any question;):)

 

I am fairly sure though that there is some form of restriction on ships that prevents them discharging what they like where they like.

Ok point taken, but the post was about what they currently discharge within the law.

[boaterette]

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of nonsmokers complaining about what the smokers are doing to their health while the nonsmokers are voluntarily sailing on cruiseships contributing to the pollution problem that is damaging to everyone's health. I was amazed at the amount of sludge that is dumped in the ocean just for our vacationing pleasure.

[guernseyguy]

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of nonsmokers complaining about what the smokers are doing to their health while the nonsmokers are voluntarily sailing on cruiseships contributing to the pollution problem that is damaging to everyone's health. I was amazed at the amount of sludge that is dumped in the ocean just for our vacationing pleasure.

 

Aren't both smokers and non-smokers sailing on cruise ships? And why does an illustration of the sand stirred up by a departing cruise ship accompany an article on pollution? Do you really think they are so stupid as to do all those nasty evil things right in front of the pier? I take it you will not be taking any cruises?

 

Peter

[pnhmrk]

Aren't both smokers and non-smokers sailing on cruise ships?

 

Yes but only a few non-smokers are saying that the problem is smoking and trying to ignore anything else.:)

[guernseyguy]

Yes but only a few non-smokers are saying that the problem is smoking and trying to ignore anything else.:)

 

Oh god...do you want me to post links to the

• WHO
  
• CDC
  
• BMA

again.....are you sure its me ignoring the 'problem' with smoking on a thread about smoking? By all means, post a picture of a ship disturbing sand on a thread about 'pollution' - I was trying to stay on topic...what are you trying to do?

 

Peter

[SeaFlint]

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of nonsmokers complaining about what the smokers are doing to their health while the nonsmokers are voluntarily sailing on cruiseships contributing to the pollution problem that is damaging to everyone's health. I was amazed at the amount of sludge that is dumped in the ocean just for our vacationing pleasure.

 

The QM2 is "Entirely Green" in the sense that she is not allowed (pronounced allow-ed by one of the constructing engineers) to discharge ANYTHING into the sea. Now, the smoke from the diesel is another matter, but even that is about as limited as it can be.

 

The ultimate alternative is, of course, that we all go back to sitting outside our caves discussing the quality of our loinclothes. But, in the context of how best to find a productive yet "clean" option, I think the QM2 is probably right on the mark.

 

When I was young (14) we sailed into Lisbon and we actually knew we were on-course while still pretty far out at sea by the discoloration of the water due to the river. Not just silt, but, well, you get the picture. On QM2 last June/July I was pleasantly surprised to find that is no longer the case.

[SeaFlint]

By all means, post a picture of a ship disturbing sand on a thread about 'pollution' - I was trying to stay on topic...what are you trying to do?

 

Peter

 

Stirring up sand/dirt is pollution?

[SamanthasDad]

Yes but only a few non-smokers are saying that the problem is smoking and trying to ignore anything else.:)

This sort of remark just proves the saying.

 

"Never argue with an Idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

 

I'm off to have a debate with my two year old. At least she is able to listen and understand. And more often than not is able to use facts when she is arguing her point.

[guernseyguy]

Stirring up sand/dirt is pollution?

 

No, of course it isn't - but that, I fear, is the quality of debate on the 'pollution' discussion (as you point out) as on others one could think of.....

 

Peter

[SeaFlint]

No, of course it isn't - but that, I fear, is the quality of debate on the 'pollution' discussion (as you point out) as on others one could think of.....

 

Peter

 

Whew! That's good to hear. I always figure churning the rot at the bottom of every port is actually good for "recycling". :o

 

If we're ever on-board together, remind me to tell you about the water in Genoa harbor back in the late 70s and early 80s. :eek:

[pnhmrk]

I'm off to have a debate with my two year old.

 

I am astonished that you can have a meaningful debate with your two year old. She must be a wonderful child. It does make me wonder who the "idiot" you refer to could be.

[guernseyguy]

It does make me wonder who the "idiot" you refer to could be.

 

Aha!

 

I have it!

 

Malcolm clearly is a Vampire - he obviously does not have a reflection in a mirror! ;)

 

Perhaps the Environmental Tobacco Smoke is to ward off the garlic fumes!:eek:

 

Mystery solved!:D

 

Peter

[mufi]

Now, the smoke from the diesel is another matter, but even that is about as limited as it can be.

 

[/quote

 

let's here it for the first NUCLEAR POWERED cruise ship.

 

David.

[travel-to-go]

Stirring up sand/dirt is pollution?

 

Depends. I wouldn't want to stir up too much in the Hudson, (or most other older ports for that matter) First, we still haven't found Jimmy Hoffa (and who knows how many other bodies from the gangland era of the bootleg twenties and thirties) Secondly, the Hudson, and most older ports usually had a history of raw sewage being disgorged into them, either from land or from ships. This has always been an argument against dredging channels. You don't know what you might expose. The Housatonic, here in CT is full of PCBs from GE transformers made way back when, I don't even want to think about the Thames here in CT, near Electric Boat Shipyards where the Nuclear Navy was born.

 

Especially, one would not want to dredge up asbestos and PCBs that have long lain dormant and covered with tons of mud. I was a little concerned with what might be dredged up in Manhattan when they moved the (aw heck, what is the name of the ship?) aircraft carrier museum.

 

let's here it for the first NUCLEAR POWERED cruise ship.

 

David.

Actually, there was one, and exactly one Nuclear powered cruise ship. It went over like... well. like jeans on formal night on the QE2.

It was actually a cargo/passenger ship.

 

The N.S. Savannah had well-appointed state rooms. There were 30 of them each with individual baths, dining room with a capacity of 100, swimming pool, library, lounge, No casino, though!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

http://www.atomicengines.com/ships.html

 

Karie,

Now about that Oak Ridge Labs study...

Here's where we could combine threads!