Smoking on QM2 after UK ban

[Dorchester]

Don't you think this has gone on long enough This thread was started by a sensble question by Colwell asking for information. It has now turned into a load of back-biting sillyness.

 

OK, cigerette smoke can be most unpleasant, but if you don't like it, don't sit next to a smoker in a smoking area (when there are usually plenty of non-smoking tables or seats available), and then wave your arms around like a windmill. Just use some common sense, grow up, and enjoy your holiday - after all, you have paid for it! Somebody lighting a cigerette will be a annoying for a few minutes, but the loud-mouths who insist on verbally advertising their presence to the whole dining room, bar or deck area can be there for hours, driving poeple to room service for meals (a common problem). Loud-mouths on an adjacent balcony can likewise destroy the peace and tranquility as you admire the beautiful passing view, or are trying to delve deeply into a good book, thus making your balcony virtually un-useable. Such intrusive noise can persist for much longer than it takes to smoke a cigarette.

 

Other annoyances can be the unwashesd, who think that strong stale scent covers everything. Likewise the jeans and dirty T-shirt wearer on formal nights (we had one on a previous cruise who wore the same ones all day all every day). Bad language is also annoying, as are people who suddenly stop immediately they exit a lift, so that no one else can get out until they have finished their protracted discussion as to whether they should turn to the right or to the left.

 

These ships may be huge, but in reallity there are often a lot of people crammed together much more tightly than they would be in their usual normal environment.

 

We all have to get on with it or stay at home, on our own, where there is no one but ourselves to annoy us.

[DON M.]

Thats terrible, but also lets not forget the amounts of deaths caused in fires started by Cigarettes, even on cruise ships (star princess ) where the person who died wasn,t even the smoker ! :(

 

Passive smoking ? :mad:

 

And lets not forget about the 25,000 deaths per year(they say) from lung cancer because of Radon Gas. Have you had your home tested recently?

[transat_jon]

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

They are in the process of renovating the Savannah, probably going to be another few years yet (details are a bit scarce on this).

 

I am so looking forward to viewing her.

[SamanthasDad]

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.

So I'm an Idiot for thinking that my daughter can have a meaningful discussion? you don't know many two year olds do you.

 

Yes she is wonderful, and has better manners than most adults that I come into contact with. Just ask the staff in the playzone on the QM2.

 

I think that this thread has now run its course, maybe we should all put our energy's into other subjects. maybe the validity of highland kilts as formal wear?:)

[travel-to-go]

 

OK, cigerette smoke can be most unpleasant, but if you don't like it, don't sit next to a smoker in a smoking area (when there are usually plenty of non-smoking tables or seats available), and then wave your arms around like a windmill. Just use some common sense, grow up, and enjoy your holiday - after all, you have paid for it! Somebody lighting a cigerette will be a annoying for a few minutes, but the loud-mouths who insist on verbally advertising their presence to the whole dining room, bar or deck area can be there for hours, driving poeple to room service for meals (a common problem). Loud-mouths on an adjacent balcony can likewise destroy the peace and tranquility as you admire the beautiful passing view, or are trying to delve deeply into a good book, thus making your balcony virtually un-useable. Such intrusive noise can persist for much longer than it takes to smoke a cigarette.

 

Other annoyances can be the unwashesd, who think that strong stale scent covers everything. Likewise the jeans and dirty T-shirt wearer on formal nights (we had one on a previous cruise who wore the same ones all day all every day). Bad language is also annoying, as are people who suddenly stop immediately they exit a lift, so that no one else can get out until they have finished their protracted discussion as to whether they should turn to the right or to the left.

 

These ships may be huge, but in reallity there are often a lot of people crammed together much more tightly than they would be in their usual normal environment.

 

We all have to get on with it or stay at home, on our own, where there is no one but ourselves to annoy us.

 

Wait Dorch!

I want to see this person waving their arms like a windmill! (Actually, the most arm waving I saw if I sat at the smoking table in the Golden Lion Pub during trivia was my good friend and courteous smoker Maria, my partner in crime at trivia. The first time I sat at the table I had no idea it was smoking section. I apologized. from that point on, we sat there (to be able to hear the questions and watch for late-arrivers in our trivia group.) But I would not have asked my friend to not smoke, as I was in smoking section. OTOH, she would try to wave the smoke away from me and exhale out of the side of her mouth away from me. There are days that my breathing would not stand up to even that. If smoke is hanging in the air (and sometimes it is) I can have problems. But I might just stick around and hold my breath to see the human windmill!

 

As for the human gasbag-verbal variety- (Yeah, I resemble that remark sometimes) I would NEVER betray my presence on the balcony. I'd just be quiet and listen to what interesting things they might be saying when they think they can't be heard! <EG> Or answer their questions or statements, which is usually enough to annoy the living hell out of them, but also make them realize that their conversation is not private. they usually take it inside or pipe down! OTOH, I've made good friends poking my head around to introduce myself. I think many people don't realize just how much voices carry in such a situation. I don't think many are intentionally rude, though some undoubtedly are. I can't stand folks yelling on cell phones. They can't hear, so they assume they can't be heard, which is seldom the case. Then I listened to myself, and realized that I do it do- unintentionally. People think they have to shout over cell phones! (Then too, people think- I KNOW I had a good signal. I was only calling next door. Which has NO bearing on how far they are to the nearest cell site!)

 

Just think how miserable people are who feel they need to talk loudly and grab attention. Those people have major self-esteem issues. Tell yourself you are glad that you are not like that. Sometimes that can lessen your annoyance long enough that they will eventually move and you will not suffer as badly. I say this for your own self preservation. It does you no good to stew, nor does it change their behaviour. So rationalize it in your mind. I can't change others behavior usually. I can only change my reaction to it.

 

BTW, I finally got it through my thick skull the third day into our Panama cruise last January why one fellow was wearing the same T-Shirt (with cute noticeable and memorable saying on it) for the third day running. His luggage (due to an ice storm that made quite a few planes late) did not make it on board the ship. They held the ship for some flights, but the luggage did not make it on board. The luggage joined us three days later in St Thomas. The shirt did not look dirty, so I assume he washed it every night. So before you judge, make sure you know all of the facts! Yes, I know, he could take room service, but face it! Part of what you are paying for is the wonderful food and atmosphere. Why should he have to miss out because of a luggage problem?

 

Sometimes it wouldn't hurt us to be more tolerant and less judgmental. It's hard to think of being intolerant of someone's dress while expecting others to tolerate second hand smoke which can be very much an asthma and allergy trigger, therefore more intrusive than someone's attire.

 

Karie,

stirring up the pot some more.

 

P.S. cigarette smoke can linger long after the smoker has left or extinguished it.

[pnhmrk]

So I'm an Idiot for thinking that my daughter can have a meaningful discussion?

 

Did I say that? I said that I was astonished that she could hold a meaningful discussion but did not say anything about your mental state!

 

You don't know many two year olds do you.

 

Not one

 

I think that this thread has now run its course, maybe we should all put our energy's into other subjects

 

While people are still throwing insults

 

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

 

I don't see why I should back down.

[guernseyguy]

And lets not forget about...deaths from lung cancer because of Radon Gas.

 

Absolutely! Lets keep things in perspective.

 

In the UK, deaths per year from:

 

Radon: 1,000

Smoking: 114,000

 

Sources:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4113765.stm

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact02.html

"Deaths caused by smoking are five times higher than the 22,833 deaths arising from: traffic accidents (3,439); poisoning and overdose (881); alcoholic liver disease (5,121); other accidental deaths (8,579); murder and manslaughter (513); suicide (4,066); and HIV infection (234) in the UK during 2002" (ibid)

 

And those are just the ones directly attributable to smoking.

[pnhmrk]

Smoking: 114,000

 

Sources:

http://www.ash.org.uk/

And those are just the ones directly attributable to smoking.

 

Could it be that Ash is slightly biased?

[transat_jon]

Come on everyone, don't be so hard on smokers : they pay loads of tax and die before they get their pensions. A bonus for the rest of us.

 

You can't even use the strain on the health service argument because they do pay all that tax!

 

God bless 'em.

 

 

Is ash biased? A lot less so than the tobacco companies!

One is motivated by caring about people's health and well being, the other by the mighty dollar.

 

 

(Almost 300 posts in ten days).

[DON M.]

Absolutely! Lets keep things in perspective.

 

In the UK, deaths per year from:

 

Radon: 1,000

Smoking: 114,000

 

Sources:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4113765.stm

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact02.html

"Deaths caused by smoking are five times higher than the 22,833 deaths arising from: traffic accidents (3,439); poisoning and overdose (881); alcoholic liver disease (5,121); other accidental deaths (8,579); murder and manslaughter (513); suicide (4,066); and HIV infection (234) in the UK during 2002" (ibid)

 

And those are just the ones directly attributable to smoking.

 

ASH- Another great sourse of information without an agenda.

[guernseyguy]

Could it be that Ash is slightly biased?

 

Malcolm,

 

Pay attention dear chap! Read the footnotes. ASH were quoting:

 

Peto, R. et al Mortality from smoking in developed countries 1950-2000 (2nd edition) Oxford University Press, Oxford.

 

If you want the detail:

 

http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~tobacco/

 

There you go, peer reviewed scientific research. Not 'Scientists for Hire by Big Tobacco'

 

Peter

[guernseyguy]

ASH- Another great sourse of information without an agenda.

 

And another one who needs to read the footnotes......

[DON M.]

And another one who needs to read the footnotes......

 

Could you provide a link that proves that of the 114,000 deaths caused by smoking, that there could not have been any other factors involved ie. weight, diet, stress, genes, etc. etc. etc. Unlike yourself, I do not believe every study printed. If you read 10,000 people will die of second-hand smoke, another study says 30,000, another sudy says 50,000, you will believe what you want to believe.

[guernseyguy]

Could you provide a link that proves that of the 114,000 deaths caused by smoking

 

Page 496 of the attached:

 

http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~tobacco/C4308.pdf

 

Based on:

 

Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J, Thun M and Heath Jr C. Mortality from tobacco in developed countries: indirect estimation from national vital statistics.

Lancet 1992; 339:1268-78

Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J, Thun M and Heath Jr C. Mortality from Smoking in Developed Countries 1950-2000. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994.

World Population Prospects: The 1992 Revision: ST/ESA/SER.A/135, United Nations, New York, 1993; p.139.

World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision: ST/ESA/SER.A/244, United Nations, New York, 2005.

 

However, I wonder whether this will persuade you as there seems to be a strain of thought that 'peer reviewed science' is not a level of proof that will meet your needs.

[GAV BOY]

Page 496 of the attached:

 

http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~tobacco/C4308.pdf

 

Based on:

 

Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J, Thun M and Heath Jr C. Mortality from tobacco in developed countries: indirect estimation from national vital statistics.

Lancet 1992; 339:1268-78

 

Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J, Thun M and Heath Jr C. Mortality from Smoking in Developed Countries 1950-2000. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, 1994.

 

World Population Prospects: The 1992 Revision: ST/ESA/SER.A/135, United Nations, New York, 1993; p.139.

 

World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision: ST/ESA/SER.A/244, United Nations, New York, 2005.

 

However, I wonder whether this will persuade you as there seems to be a strain of thought that 'peer reviewed science' is not a level of proof that will meet your needs.

 

Well done Peter, excellent research, your winning the arguement far better than i was ! :D

 

regards,

 

Gavin :cool:

[DON M.]

Page 496 of the attached:

 

http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~tobacco/C4308.pdf

 

Based on:

 

Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J, Thun M and Heath Jr C. Mortality from tobacco in developed countries: indirect estimation from national vital statistics.

Lancet 1992; 339:1268-78

Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J, Thun M and Heath Jr C. Mortality from Smoking in Developed Countries 1950-2000. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994.

World Population Prospects: The 1992 Revision: ST/ESA/SER.A/135, United Nations, New York, 1993; p.139.

World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision: ST/ESA/SER.A/244, United Nations, New York, 2005.

 

However, I wonder whether this will persuade you as there seems to be a strain of thought that 'peer reviewed science' is not a level of proof that will meet your needs.

 

Have you come across any studies written by doctors or medical schools that show that second -hand smoke (and only second hand smoke) does NOT cause lung cancer. If not, let me know and I will help you. Of course these were probably people the tobacco industry paidoff.

[guernseyguy]

Have you come across any studies written by doctors or medical schools that show that second -hand smoke (and only second hand smoke) does NOT cause lung cancer. If not, let me know and I will help you. Of course these were probably people the tobacco industry paidoff.

 

Who said it had to cause Lung cancer? Harm is enough. So, 'peer reviewed' studies that show environmental tobacco smoke is harmless would be fascinating. Post away!

[DON M.]

Who said it had to cause Lung cancer? Harm is enough. So, 'peer reviewed' studies that show environmental tobacco smoke is harmless would be fascinating. Post away!

I agree, smoke COULD be harmful. In fact a 1998 review in the Journal of the American Medical Ass. of 100 studies did find 63 studies where there was some harm from ETS. Also causing harm, asbestos, silica dust, fiberglass, radon, bensene, exhaust fumes, fossil fuels, paints and solvents etc. etc.

In 1998, a North Carolina federal judge ruled that the EPA had made serious procedural errors and worse had "cherry-picked" its data to reach a preordained conclusion. But like most zealot non-smokers you will only search out the articles and studies that support your position and if they dont, they must be puppets of the tobacco industry.

[SamanthasDad]

But like most zealot non-smokers you will only search out the articles and studies that support your position and if they dont, they must be puppets of the tobacco industry.

 

So far I have seen ONE link posted to a report that second-hand smoke was NOT harmful, and a heck of a lot more saying that it is. If we are ignoring the ones that don't agree with our point, why can't you even find them?

Don't they print them on the side of your cigarette packs? like the ones about smoking being harmful?

 

Also no one has put up any facts against the point that even if we sit in a non smoking area we are still breathing in your smoke.

 

You are always saying that it is the non smokers sitting in the smoking section when there are non-smoking seats available. As a non smoker I never sit in smoking section.

 

Smokers (in the majority) are an antisocial minority group who will soon be extinct. (either by legislation or death)

[DON M.]

So far I have seen ONE link posted to a report that second-hand smoke was NOT harmful, and a heck of a lot more saying that it is.

 

So if this is not a one sided argument, why are their not the same number of links being posted? having trouble finding them? Don't they print them on the side of your cigarette packs? like the ones about smoking being harmful?

 

Also no one has put up any facts against the point that even if we sit in a non smoking area we are still breathing in your smoke.

 

You are always saying that it is the non smokers sitting in the smoking section when there are non-smoking seats available. As a non smoker I never sit in smoking section.

 

Smokers (in the majority) are an antisocial group who will soon be extinct. (either by legislation or death)

 

I said smoke can be harmful, there is probably no link that says it isn't. Smokers will become extinct about the same time drinkers will be.

[travel-to-go]

Have you come across any studies written by doctors or medical schools that show that second -hand smoke (and only second hand smoke) does NOT cause lung cancer. If not, let me know and I will help you. Of course these were probably people the tobacco industry paidoff.

Don,

I do not have cancer. However, I am sure that many folks who have been around a while can tell you the tale of how I took my first cruise after recovering from a COMPLETE RESPIRATORY FAILURE. READ: Almost died, Came as close as I have ever been to finding out if there really IS a God!

 

Unless you have lain helpless, a respirator doing your breathing for you, and it going into hissy fits if you try to move, bells clanging and loud whooshing noises at your least twitch, If you have gasped for breath trying not to panic, but feeling the most horrible compression on your chest, feeling as though your are drowning and suffocating at once, then I suppose I might find your opinions on second hand smoke to be as valid from experience as my own. and I might add Marc's point of view, if you have sat sobbing next to your most precious loved one as an anesthesiologist forces a tube down your nose and throat, absolutely certain that they are going to die before the night is out- And before that, as he rushed to meet the ambulance at the hospital along with my pulmonologist who was a already there, on call, but the ambulance never showed up.l They turned and went to a different hospital, knowing I would never make it to the one I was headed for. I would die before I got there. I certainly feel that I have a valid objection to second hand smoke. I try to be considerate of my smoking friends. And I certainly have a vested interest. How difficult would it be for you, who has nothing to lose but a bit might have to suffer a bit of temporary inconvenience, to be equally considerate of those of us who have no choices, but the ones that life has thrust upon them. I can go on about the ravages to my body, and what the drugs they had to use, repeatedly, to keep me alive have done to me, I now take over 18 different drugs a day, Many of them counteracting the side effects of the other ones, and I now live with TWO chronic illnesses from the damage the life-saving drugs did.

 

So you honestly think your need for unfettered access to unlimited and instantaneous satisfaction of a cigarette trumps my selfish desire to breathe?

 

Think now. Make sure you pick the right answer.

 

P.S. Marc's mother died of lung cancer not too long ago.

[HAMBURGCruiser]

The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke

Gio Batta Gori

Special to washingtonpost.com

Tuesday, January 30, 2007; 12:00 AM

 

Smoking cigarettes is a clear health risk, as most everyone knows. But lately, people have begun to worry about the health risks of secondhand smoke. Some policymakers and activists are even claiming that the government should crack down on secondhand smoke exposure, given what "the science" indicates about such exposure.

Last July, introducing his office's latest report on secondhand smoke, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona asserted that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure," that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion," and that children exposed to secondhand smoke will "eventually . . . develop cardiovascular disease and cancers over time."

Such claims are certainly alarming. But do the studies Carmona references support his claims, and are their findings as sound as he suggests?

Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location.

In an effort to circumvent this capital obstacle, all secondhand smoke studies have estimated risk using a misleading marker of "lifetime exposure." Yet, instant exposures also vary uncontrollably over time, so lifetime summations of exposure could not be, and were not, measured.

Typically, the studies asked 60--70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures.

In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory.

Adding confusion, people with lung cancer or cardiovascular disease are prone to amplify their recall of secondhand smoke exposure. Others will fib about being nonsmokers and will contaminate the results. More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. Thus, the claimed risks are doubly deceptive because of interferences that could not be calculated and corrected.

In addition, results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and ¿ astoundingly ¿ some show a reduction of risk.

Some prominent anti-smokers have been quietly forthcoming on what "the science" does and does not show. Asked to quantify secondhand smoke risks at a 2006 hearing at the UK House of Lords, Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto ¿ a leader of the secondhand smoke crusade ¿ replied, "I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers..., but what does one make of them? ...These hazards cannot be directly measured."

It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are.

By any sensible account, the anachronism of tobacco use should eventually vanish in an advancing civilization. Why must we promote this process under the tyranny of deception?

Presumably, we are grown-up people, with a civilized sense of fair play, and dedicated to disciplined and rational discourse. We are fortunate enough to live in a free country that is respectful of individual choices and rights, including the right to honest public policies. Still, while much is voiced about the merits of forceful advocacy, not enough is said about the fundamental requisite of advancing public health with sustainable evidence, rather than by dangerous, wanton conjectures.

A frank discussion is needed to restore straight thinking in the legitimate uses of "the science" of epidemiology -- uses that go well beyond secondhand smoke issues. Today, health rights command high priority on many agendas, as they should. It is not admissible to presume that people expect those rights to be served less than truthfully.

Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologist, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Gori's article "The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion" will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine.

[SamanthasDad]

I said smoke can be harmful, there is probably no link that says it isn't. Smokers will become extinct about the same time drinkers will be.

No drinkers are a majority.

Moderate drinking actually has the opposite effect. Discussed somewhere in the previous 300 odd posts)

[SamanthasDad]

So you honestly think your need for unfettered access to unlimited and instantaneous satisfaction of a cigarette trumps my selfish desire to breathe?

 

Think now. Make sure you pick the right answer.

Well put.

[transat_jon]

300 posts in ten days.

 

A contentious subject.