nisakiman

Locating the bus station on the edge of town makes good sense from the points of view that a.) the requisite sized piece of land will be much easier to find and cheaper to buy and develop, and b.) because the departing buses won't have to battle their way through city traffic to get to the highways they need.

However, if it is located out of town, then it is essential that it is serviced by either sky train or metro, (or even by a dedicated rail link, although going by my experiences of the time trains take to get from DM to Hualamphong, I'm not sure that would work) so that bus passengers have easy and immediate access to other parts of the city. If it's stuck out on its own with only taxi access, then it will be a chaotic mess.

You forget that the south bus terminal is far away without mass transit links and that works.

The south bus terminal is a pain to get to, and is a chaotic mess.

Locating the bus station on the edge of town makes good sense from the points of view that a.) the requisite sized piece of land will be much easier to find and cheaper to buy and develop, and b.) because the departing buses won't have to battle their way through city traffic to get to the highways they need.

However, if it is located out of town, then it is essential that it is serviced by either sky train or metro, (or even by a dedicated rail link, although going by my experiences of the time trains take to get from DM to Hualamphong, I'm not sure that would work) so that bus passengers have easy and immediate access to other parts of the city. If it's stuck out on its own with only taxi access, then it will be a chaotic mess.

Yes, I'd agree. Malaysia is one of the better airlines. Personally, I'd have no problem flying with them again. They've been incredibly unlucky to have lost two aircraft, both in highly unusual circumstances.

Edit to add:

I flew with Malaysia about 15 years ago from Bangkok to Adelaide and back, and on the return leg, before the plane departed, the Captain, a very dapper Sikh in his 50s, actually came into the passenger section at the head of the plane and introduced himself over the PA, greeting the passengers and welcoming them on board, and suggesting that we don't drink too much alcohol to avoid dehydration. It was a lovely touch, and something that I've never experienced on a flight before or since. It somehow inspired confidence in the man who was holding your life in his hands, actually knowing who he was.

Take a bus to Sisaket - easy

Take a taxi - O'Smech - 900 baht

Take a taxi to Siem Reap - 2000 baht

Don't talk to anyone at the border - it's easy.

ps - I'm giving you the maximum figures to pay - I got it cheaper after haggling.

The first fare I hit just now on google from Bangkok to Siem Reap was just over 9000 Baht return.

So your bus from Bangkok to Sisaket (maybe 500? Just a guess) plus 2900 for taxis works out about a thousand less than the air fare each way. Add in the hotels and food (not to mention the time) taken to get there, plus the aggravation factor with border touts, and the plane looks like a much better deal. And I'm sure if I spent more than 30 seconds looking, I could find a better air fare, too.

If I was younger, I might well do it the hard way, just for the sheer hell of it, but these days, really, I'd rather pay an extra 1000 and get there in a (relatively) comfortable hour on the plane.

I have a feeling that it might be worth looking at the prices on the Malaysian Airlines site to KL (then Air Asia to BKK). I think they may be struggling to fill their planes for a while.

I use skyscanner generally - it tends to find the best deals.

i have just flown in to Doha from Thailand and out to the UK in the last 12 hours and still had the bus ride on my flights!!

I arrived from LHR yesterday at Hamad, no buses to my flight, but a bloody long walk to my connecting gate!!

Apart from that Qatar was excellent

Do they have small baggage trolleys airside? Some airports do, and they're really handy when you've got a long walk with hand baggage, laptop, maybe duty free etc.

Waiting for our European members to blame this on America and start ranting as usual...

If anyone is to blame for the unrest in Ukraine it is the EU, provoking the Russians with their expansionist agenda into Russia's backyard. Russia merely reacted predictably to the political incursion.

Just search for Hamad International Airport on Youtube. There are a few short vids available that might give you a first impression.

Yermanee

Now why didn't I think of that? Doh!

Aha! Thanks for that nugget of info. So if I get a 90 day single entry non-O from the embassy here, then we fly from BKK to Hanoi, when we return I can pay 3800 Baht at the airport and my further travel problems are solved. Is that right? Or do I have to pay that money before I depart BKK? Do you know where in the airport one pays? The Hanoi trip would probably be with Air Asia, which means DM, the trips to Lao / Cambodia would be overland.

At the end of this year, my (Thai) wife and I will be coming to LOS for a couple of months. We intend to fly into BKK, where we'll stay for maybe a week, and then we'd like to fly to Hanoi (neither of us have been to Vietnam before) for maybe a week, then back to BKK, and then probably straight to Ubon to spend some time with Mum and Dad. While we're staying in Ubon, we'd like to do a side trip (a few days) to Siem Reap to see Angkor, and maybe another to Lao to go to the Bolaven Plateau.

So I call the Thai Embassy here, and they tell me I can only get a 60 day single entry tourist visa, or a 90 day single entry non-imm O (based on my marriage) for €55, or a double entry 90 day non-imm O for €110. And that's it. Which means that we won't be able to do what we had planned, as a double entry means just one trip outside Thailand and no more.

There must surely be a way we can do what we were planning? It seems crazy that our travel plans are to be dictated / restricted by the Thai visa system. We will, of course, have return tickets, so there is no question of my trying to overstay or anything like that. We are genuine, bona fide tourists visiting family.

Do any, more knowledgeable, minds have any suggestions as to the best way to achieve our ends without falling foul of the system? I would previously just have got visa exemptions each time I came back into Thailand, but it seems that door has been firmly closed.

Edit.

I would just add that I would prefer not to waste a couple of my days away hanging round a Thai embassy in PP or wherever getting visas so I can return, if I can help it.

Does anyone know if there are better maps of the new terminal than the ones provided on the airport website? The maps of the departure area show only the central shopping hub and one of the departure areas. A map of the whole floor would be useful for orientation.

Just as an afterthought, has anyone been through there yet? Any sage advice, tips, criticisms?

Haven't been through yet, but I've read that the businessclass lounges are still not ready and will take another 3 months or so.

Yermanee

Heh! That won't affect me. I seriously considered buying us business class tickets this time (as I get older, comfort becomes more important!), but in the end I couldn't justify the extra €3000 for a bit more comfort. So it's cattle class for us.

But I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's transited Hamad, and what their impressions were.

Does anyone know if there are better maps of the new terminal than the ones provided on the airport website? The maps of the departure area show only the central shopping hub and one of the departure areas. A map of the whole floor would be useful for orientation.

Just as an afterthought, has anyone been through there yet? Any sage advice, tips, criticisms?

The death penalty is a barbaric dark age punishment that should be abolished in any country wanting to be modern.

The many lives destroyed by drug's are the consequence of lenient drug laws, I'd just like to one day see Mr Big-shot on the table!

Funny how most are happy to see the "drug" dealers hang, but never ask the same for those that make billions and billions of dollars from selling the two "drugs" ... alcohol & tobacco ... that by far kill the most people world wide.

What about tobacco executives who purposely develop more addictive cigarettes ... and develop marketing/sales programs that deliberately target young kids (a la the camel cartoon character). These guys are making hundreds-of-millions of people addicted to tobacco and make billions of dollars doing it. Let's hang a few of those guys for a change.

"What about tobacco executives who purposely develop more addictive cigarettes..."

I take it you can provide proof of that statement? Or was it something you read in The Daily Rag and swallowed hook, line and sinker?

The nastiest chemical in cigarettes today is the 'fire retardant', which has not been subjected to proper testing for toxicity and has seen smokers coughing up blood after smoking them. This fire retardant additive was mandated by those nice folk in Tobacco Control. Well, so what if the stuff is poisonous? They're only disgusting smokers, untermenschen, after all.

A new hotel is almost complete. Wonder how it will be. http://hopinnhotel.com/en/our-hotel/#Ubonratchathani

The Hop Inn Mukdahan is open. Received positive reviews. Looks clean and fresh. Rooms could be a little small.

I wonder what kind of breakfast they serve for 550 baht?

http://www.agoda.com/hop-inn-mukdahan/hotel/mukdahan-th.html

A non-existent kind of breakfast if you read the Agoda link you posted Michael!

It is common for the new budget city "mansion"/block hotels to have very limited breakfast provision - often just an on-the-go coffee machine. Hop-Inn's Mukdahan Agoda listing offers no hint of there being any catering offer whatsoever.

I am myself a breakfast eater, but I still welcome this relatively recent sector of the Thai hotel industry - budget modern, clean, basically furnished, reasonably-sized (usually 15 sqm plus), no frills City centre block hotels with 20 to 50 almost identical rooms. Prices normally 500 to 750 baht for a king size or twin bed room with a basic 'shower-over-toilet' (not literally in most!) bathroom and no or very limited breakfast facilities. If they have spent a bit more money on the block they usually (mis-)call it a boutique hotel.I'd mostly rather make my own arrangements for a breakfast on-the-run when I'm travelling, rather than effectively having a 200 baht plus, disappointing buffet costed into the room rate. Many other people these days do not eat breakfast at all or not at an early time, so it seems to fit the modern way.

This new wave of mansion/block city centre offerings must be killing the "leesort" sector - or at least the ones that do not focus solely on short-time. Prices tend to be sharper than at resorts and many resorts are full of shabby non-functioning facilities, also often without any breakfast worth putting in yer mouth.

I'm staying in Chanthaburi while I write this in one of the few (one of only 2 I think) such mansion/modern block hotels to have opened here. The choice of hotel accommodation in Chanthaburi is appalling IMO and it's often difficult to find rooms centrally at late notice. The contrast with Ubon and some other Isaan towns could not be starker. Demand seems to exceed supply here, particulary at weekends, so the rooms are charged at 25 to 50% more than the equivalent room would be charged in Ubon (or Bangkok for that matter).

Not quite sure why I started what turned out to be morel like a rant!

You're right about the breakfast. I personally am a 'glass of fresh squeezed orange juice followed by good coffee' man. I never eat until mid-morning, when I'll have a snack, so paying for a room 'with breakfast included' is something I normally avoid.

police found 240 bars of dried marijuana, weighing one kilogram each, hidden under the hood.

Was there a motor under that hood as well ?

Seems the weed caught fire and the driver was so stoned that he'd lost control and drove into the police station.

Reminds me of a story of the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers back in the old days.

Musta been Fat Freddy at the wheel. He always screwed up.

Furry Freak Brothers was one of my favourite comic strips back in the day, closely followed by Crumb's stuff. I've still got a 'Fat Freddy's Cat' lapel badge stashed somewhere in the archives!

"The campaign was organised after it was found that there are about 80 per cent of smokers in the total population in Thailand"

If the above statement is true, their anti-smoking campaigns don't seem to working that well. Why don't they canvas the government (?) and make it illegal outright, as it should be, if all the facts about it being the cause of all the diseases it is claimed to be responsible for are true?

Or would the tax generated with the sales be stronger than the welfare and health of the population?

Anyway, we know this isn't going to happen.

At least the anti smoking people are sticking with the right ratios for a democratic country, the minority making decisions for the majority.

People die in cars. Should the govt outlaw them as well. My God the socialists in this country are the ones killing me.

Socialists? It was Hitler who wanted to ban smoking after the war.

NAZI - a shortened version of Nationalsozialismus, or National Socialism.

And yes, Hitler was a rabid anti-smoker. It was all a part of his eugenics program. Racial purity, healthism etc etc. Which is still the driving force behind the anti-smoking movement.

It has never been about health. It's a puritan ideology, and in pursuit of that ideology, the anti-smokers have adopted an 'end justifies the means' approach to the situation, which is why we are bombarded with lies and propaganda about the subject.

Don't believe me? Do some proper research. If you're one of the indoctrinated, you won't like what you find, because it will put your whole belief system in doubt.

Smokers and nonsmokers have similar lifetime risks for cardiovascular disease.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184016,00.html

First Lifetime Heart Disease Risk Assessment Developed

Monday , February 06, 2006

The researchers reviewed the medical records of 3,564 men and 4,362 women who did not have any record of cardiovascular disease at age 50.

The men and women were followed for several decades and all cases of heart attack, coronary heart disease, angina, stroke, claudication (pain in the legs caused by circulation problems), and death from cardiovascular disease were recorded.

When the researchers calculated the impact of modifiable risk factors such as body weight, smoking history, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure, they found that:

–Smokers and nonsmokers had similar lifetime risks for cardiovascular disease.

--------------------------------

"Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests. A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes. Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer. The figures were based on grilling four large steaks, four turkey cuts and eight large sausages."

-------------------------------

“For years the anti-tobacco crusaders, from Drs. Koop and Kessler to President Clinton, have claimed that “cigarette smoking is the greatest cause of preventable or premature deaths, causing 400,000 deaths a year, a number greater than auto accidents, homicide, suicide, and various other causes of death combined.

Those 400,000 Smoking Victims Live Longer Than The Rest of Us!”

http://www.forces.org/evidence/sammec/newproof.htm

THE FRAUD OF THE POTENTIAL YEARS OF LIFE LOST

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/pyll.htm

PASSIVE SMOKE FRAUD

“Mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it’s the dose that makes the poison”

Basic principle of toxicology

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

SMOKING AND ASTHMA

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/asthma.htm

THE ADDICTIVENESS OF NICOTINE

“The notion of addiction suffers from major conceptual, definitional and empirical problems. These problems have been detailed in the scientific literature but they remain almost totally ignored. If the criticism is misguided, the errors should be exposed. If the criticism is not misguided, it suggests the need for a radical revision in the way drug problems are approached. Instead of resolving these core issues in a rational and informed manner, addiction advocates simply cover their ears and press on. They convene consensus committees that attempt to legislate the truth. The addiction hypothesis is based on assertion and faith, not evidence and logic. The belief in addiction exists, not because of scientific information, but in spite of it. It is old-fashioned demonology, thinly disguised as science.”

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/addictiv.htm

SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/lung.htm

SMOKING AND BRAIN CANCER

“Some have suggested that cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use may increase the risk of brain tumors because tobacco product use is considered to be the greatest source for human exposure to N-nitroso compounds, which are potent nervous system carcinogens in animal studies. Our investigation, however, did not find a positive association between cigarette smoking, or with use of other tobacco products, and risk of brain cancer.”

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/brain.htm

SMOKING AND HEART/ATHEROSCLEROSIS

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/heart.htm

SMOKING AND EMPHYSEMA

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/colby.htm

SMOKING AND CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/copd.htm

THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS OF SMOKING AND NICOTINE

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm

…………………………

= Facts & Lies about Smoking =

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.319663114749521.73523.173802526002248&type=3

---------------------------------------------------

And this from a number-cruncher:

Numbers are curious critters that can look different from various views, much like the front or rear of an elephant.

From the rear of the elephant, Doll’s study tells us that non-smokers, per 1,000, had 0.17 lung cancer deaths per year and current smokers had 2.49 lung cancer deaths per year per 1,000.

2.49 divided by 0.17 is about 15.

Thus, Doll says that current smokers are 15 times as likely to die from lung cancer as non-smokers.

But, does that mean that non-smokers are 15 times as likely to NOT DIE from lung cancer?

For the answer, we have to go to the front end of the elephant.

Here we see that there are 999.83 non-smokers, per year, that did NOT DIE from lung cancer and there are 997.51 current smokers that did NOT DIE, per year, from lung cancer.

999.83 divided by 997.51 = 1.002

Non-smokers are ONLY 1.002 times more likely to NOT DIE from lung cancer as current smokers.

Current smokers have almost exactly the same chances of NOT DYING from lung cancer as non-smokers.

Back at the rear end of the elephant, we find that there are a total of 2.66 lung cancer deaths per 2,000 people.

0.17/1,000 + 2.49/1,000 = 2.66/2,000

2.66 divided by 2,000 = 0.0013 = 13/100th of 1%. of the people died from lung cancer.

Very, very rare occurences!!!

Back to the front of the elephant where we see that those not dying are 999.83 + 997.51 = 1,997.34/2,000

That means that 99.87% of the people DID NOT DIE from lung cancer per year.

The overwhelming vast majority of folks do not die from lung cancer every year!!!!

Doll is , of course, entitiled to the view that he prefers; but, that does not means his end of the elephant is more important.

Let’s look at the total deaths from the diseases said to be caused by smoking. Doll breaks them up into 8 groups.

At the rear of the elephant Doll says that non-smokers have 16.2 deaths per 1,000 and current smokers have 30.21 deaths per 1,000.

Thus, he says that smokers are almost twice as likely to die from those diseases that are caused by smoking.

This is a relative risk and tells us nothing about the actual risks of dying from those diseases.

The view from the front of the elephant tells us that non-smokers have 16.2 deaths from the smoking caused diseases out of a total of 19.38 deaths per year. 16.2/19.38 = 84%

About 84% of the non-smokers died from the diseases caused by smoking.

Current smokers had 30.21 deaths from those diseases out of a total of 35.4 deaths per year. 30.21/35.4 = 85%

85% of the current smokers died from the diseases caused by smoking.

85 divided by 84 = 1.01

Current smokers are ONLY 1.01 times more likely to die from the diseases caused by smoking as the non-smokers.

At no place in the 9 pages of this report is it mentioned that 84% of the never-smokers died from the diseases ‘claimed’ to be caused by smoking.

84 divided by 85 = 99%

Had the smokers never smoked, 99% of their deaths from the diseases caused by smoking would still have occurred!!!!

When you look at the antis studies about the harm from smoking, you will never see comparisons of the chances of not dying or the comparative actual rates of death.

In LA-LA Land, the antis claim that smoking is the biggest single cause of preventable pre-mature death.

In Doll’s study of Doctors, we showed that had the smokers never smoked, 99% of their deaths from the diseases caused by smoking would still have occurred!!!!

In America, it is claimed that smoking causes 400,000 preventable pre-mature deaths per year; but, 396.000 of those deaths would still have occurred if the smokers had never touched a cigarette!

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Doll and ischaemic heart disease(heart attack) deaths

In the summary on page 3, there is a table showing the death rate per 1,000 for never-smokers and for heavy(25+per day) smokers.

never-smokers = 6.19/1,000/year

heavy smokers = 11.11/1,000/year

Thus,antis claim, heavy smokers are almost twice as likely to die from heart attacks as are never-smokers.

We do not have to accept their math as the final statement.

In fact, never-smokers are 31% more likely to die from a heart attack as are heavy-smokers.

They don’t mention that an ‘incidence rate’ of deaths is not the same as a ‘percentage of total deaths’.

The total deaths/1,000/year are:

never-smokers = 19.38

heavy smokers = 45.34

Now we have this for heart attack deaths:

never-smokers = 6.19/19.38 = 32% of the total deaths.

heavy smokers = 11.11/45.34 = 24.5% of the total deaths.

32% is 31% greater than 24.5%

Never-smokers are 31% more likely to die from a heart attack as are heavy-smokers.

……………………………………….

Now, let’s look at cancers.

Heavy smokers do more often die from lung,mouth, and throat cancers.

But, those cancers are only about 1/4th of the cancer deaths.

incidence rates, for all other cancers, are:

never-smokers = 3.34/1,000

heavy smokers = 5.38/1,000

Looks bad for the heavy smokers; but, here are the total deaths:

never-smokers = 3.34/19.38 = 17%

heavy-smokers = 5.38/45.34 = 11.9%

17% is 43% greater than 11.9%

Never-smokers are 43% more likely to die from cancers of the brain, stomach, or rectum than are heavy-smokers.

------------------------------------

And veering from defence to looking at the positive aspects:

The brain works better when it gets nicotine - almost like an optimized computer. Nicotine is a "work-drug" that enables its consumers to focus better and think faster. The brain also becomes more enduring, especially in smokers: Nicotine experiments show that smokers in prolonged working situations are able to maintain concentration for many hours longer than non-smokers.

http://www.sott.net/article/235216-Science-is-conclusive-Tobacco-increases-work-capacity

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/2076418/smoking_could_reduce_risk_of_joint_replacement_surgery/?source=r_health

Epidemiological studies consistently demonstrate a reduced incidence of Parkinson's disease in smokers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2486261/

A history of smoking is associated with improved survival in patients treated with mild therapeutic hypothermia following cardiac arrest

http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572%2813%2900714-4/abstract

But back on topic, if you're in Ubon, a trip out to the river Mun is a nice day out. There are places on the river which provide mats and serve food and drink as you watch the river slide by. Very relaxing, and lovely surroundings. You can also nip over to Pakse - three hours on the bus from Ubon, including getting visa at the border. Pakse is somewhat quirky in itself. Not much to do apart from the market, but a great French restaurant there, just by the bridge. Highly recommended.

If you visit your GF's family the most important and interesting places (for them) plazas and gold shops.

LOL. I think they'd prefer the local market to a shopping mall - they're a bit old school. Never heard them mentioning gold shops either. Maybe you met the wrong type of girl if that's all her family want to do. Or maybe she's trying to fleece you. Has she mentioned the sick buffalo yet? You have my deepest sympathy.

Heh! My in-laws like me to take them to MK for a blow-out. That's ok - I'm quite keen on the duck myself, and it doesn't break the bank. Fortunately, they don't have any buffalo to get sick, so I'm spared that one.

In 1968 fourteen hundred British civil servants, all smokers, were divided into two similar groups. Half were encouraged and counselled to quit smoking. These formed the test group. The others, the control group, were left to their own devices. For ten years both groups were monitored with respect to their health and smoking status.So what were the results of the Whitehall study? They were contrary to all expectation. The quit group showed no improvement in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rates due to heart disease, lung cancer, or any other cause with one exception: certain other cancers were more than twice as common in the quit group. Later, after twenty years there was still no benefit in life expectancy for the quit group.

Over the next decade the results of other similar trials appeared. It had been argued that if an improvement in one life-style factor, smoking, were of benefit, then an improvement in several – eg smoking, diet and exercise – should produce even clearer benefits. And so appeared the results of the whimsically acronymed Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial or MRFIT, with its 12,886 American subjects. Similarly, in Europe 60,881 subjects in four countries took part in the WHO Collaborative Trial. In Sweden the Goteborg study had 30,022 subjects. These were enormously expensive, wide-spread and time-consuming experiments. In all, there were 6 such trials with a total of over a hundred thousand subjects each engaged for an average of 7.4 years, a grand total of nearly 800,000 subject-years. The results of all were uniform, forthright and unequivocal: giving up smoking, even when fortified by improved diet and exercise, produced no increase in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rate for heart disease or for cancer. A decade of expensive and protracted research had produced a quite unexpected result.

EPA Designates Passive Smoking a “Class A” or Known Human Carcinogen – 1993

http: //www.epa.gov/history/topics/smoke/01.html

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY

1993

“Mr. Chairman, I am testifying today in order to report to the Subcommittee the results of my extensive investigation of the EPA’s handling of the controversy surrounding environmental tobacco smoke or ‘ETS’.

AS you know. in the past the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of this Committee has conducted hearings on EPA’s abuses of government contracting requirements.

So pervasive is the level of abuse that Chairman Dincell has characterized EPA’s pattern of contract mismanagement as a ‘cesspool’. EPA’s Inspector General recently has confirmed that such abuses also have taken place in connection with a number of EPA contracts involving ETS, and the 0 and I Subcommittee’s own investigation is continuing.”

“EPA’s willingness to distort the science in order to justify it’s classification of ETS as a “Group A” or “known human” carcinogen seems to stem from the Agency’s determination early on to advocate smoking bans and restrictions as a socially desirable goal. EPA began promoting such policies in the mid-to late 1980′s, ostensibly as part of its efforts to provide information to the public on indoor air quality issues.”

“The risk assessment thus was never intended to be a neutral review and analysis of the ETS science. Rather, it was intended from the start to function as a prop for the Agency’s predetermind policy.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the process at every turn has been characterised by both scientific and procedural irregularities. In addition to the contracting violations mentioned at the outset, those irregularities include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in preparation of the risk assessment and the members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independant evaluation of the document.”

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=8BBAAF910BC5023749AD2368ADE155DE.tobacco03?tid=qpe42d00

Risks of smoking exaggerated

The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated Too much is made of the 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke. We're told these chemicals are so harmful that they are responsible for the deaths of millions worldwide. Untold in this "war on tobacco" is that each of the plants we consume consists of an equally daunting thousands of chemicals many of which are recognized poisons or suspected cancer-causing agents. Cayenne peppers, carrots and strawberries each contain six suspected carcinogens; onions, grapefruit and tomato each contain five -- some the same as the seven suspected carcinogens found in tobacco.High-heat cooking creates yet more dietary carcinogens from otherwise harmless chemical constituents. Sure, these plant chemicals are measured in infinitesimal amounts. An independent study calculated 222,000 smoking cigarettes would be needed to reach unacceptable levels of benzo(a)pyrene. One million smoking cigarettes would be needed to produce unacceptable levels of toluene. To reach these estimated danger levels, the cigarettes must be smoked simultaneously and completely in a sealed 20-square-foot room with a nine-foot ceiling. Many other chemicals in tobacco smoke can also be found in normal diets. Smoking 3,000 packages of cigarettes would supply the same amount of arsenic as a nutritious 200 gram serving of sole. Half a bottle of now healthy wine can supply 32 times the amount of lead as one pack of cigarettes. The same amount of cadmium obtained from smoking eight packs of cigarettes can be enjoyed in half a pound of crab. That's one problem with the anti-smoking crusade. The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated. So are the costs. An in-depth analysis of 400,000 U.S. smoking-related deaths by National Institute of Health mathematician Rosalind Marimont and senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute Robert Levy identified a disturbing number of flaws in the methodology used to estimate these deaths. Incorrectly classifying some diseases as smoking-related and choosing the wrong standard of comparison each overstated deaths by more than 65 per cent. Failure to control for confounding variables such as diet and exercise turned estimates more into a computerized shell game than reliable estimates of deaths. Marimont and Levy also found no adjustments were made to the costs of smoking resulting from the benefits of smoking -- reduced Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, less obesity, depression and breast cancer. If it were possible to estimate 45,000 smoking-related Canadian deaths as some health activists imagine -- and Marimont, Levy and other respected researchers think it is not -- then applying an identical methodology to other lifestyle choices would yield 57,000 Canadian deaths due to lack of exercise and 73,000 Canadian deaths blamed on poor diets. If both the chemical constituents of tobacco smoke and the numbers of smoking-related deaths are overstated -- and clearly they are -- how can we trust the claim that tobacco smoke is harmful to non-smokers? The 1993 bellwether study by the Environmental Protection Agency that selectively combined the results of a number of previous studies and found a small increase in lung cancer risk in those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke has been roundly criticized as severely flawed by fellow researchers and ultimately found invalid in a court of law. In 1998, the World Health Organization reported a small, but not statistically significant, increase in the risk of lung cancer in non-smoking women married to smokers. Despite these invalidating deficiencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and World Health Organization both concluded tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in non-smokers. One wonders whether the same conclusions would have been announced if scientific fraud were a criminal offence. When confronted with the scientific uncertainty, the inconsistency of results and the incredible misrepresentation of present-day knowledge, those seeking to abolish tobacco invoke a radical interpretation of the Precautionary Principle: "Where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activity should not proceed." This unreasonable exploitation of the ever-present risks of living infiltrates our schools to indoctrinate trusting and eager minds with the irrational fears of today. Instead of opening minds to the wondrous complexities of living, it opens the door to peer ridicule and intolerance while cultivating the trendy cynics of tomorrow. If we continue down this dangerous path of control and prohibition based on an unreliable or remote chance of harm, how many personal freedoms will remain seven generations from now?

I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent of smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.

I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.

To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those who choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize establishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to deny people of their rights.

-Respectfully,

Robert E. Madden, M.D.

Journal Of The National Cancer Institute, Vol 90, 1440-1450, Copyright © 1998 by Oxford University Press

“Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe.” Authors: P Boffetta et al.

BACKGROUND: An association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer risk has been suggested. To evaluate this possible association better, researchers need more precise estimates of risk, the relative contribution of different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different histologic types of lung cancer. To address these issues, we have conducted a case-control study of lung cancer and exposure to ETS in 12 centers from seven Euran countries. METHODS: A total of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects up to 74 years of age were interviewed about exposure to ETS. Neither case subjects nor control subjects had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime. RESULTS: ETS EXPOSURE DURING CHILDHOOD WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AN INCREASED RISK OF LUNG CANCER (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64- 0.96). The OR for ever exposure to Spouse ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93- 1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative Spouse ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to Spouse or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to Spouse and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to Spouse and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

Copyright © 1998 Oxford University Press.

(Note that the capitalization in “RESULTS: ETS EXPOSURE DURING CHILDHOOD WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AN INCREASED RISK OF LUNG CANCER (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64- 0.96).” was added by me for emphasis. Note also that while the “author’s interpretation” of the childhood figures was simply “no association”, these WERE in fact the only SCIENTIFICALLY SIGNIFICANT (i.e. with a confidence interval not including 1.0) results found. Imagine the publicity this study would have received if the results had been in the opposite direction! Note also that exposure from “other sources” {e.g. BARS AND RESTAURANTS!} also showed no association!)

Thanks for that Nisakiman....yes, nice voice. Enchanting. I do wonder if it is electronically enhanced though.

My favourite so far is Lanna Commins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip8_eqPSkVE

Yes, my wife is familiar with her. Tells me that she has a farang dad and that her mother was a singer too.

I'd never considered the possibility that Waranuch's voice had been electronically enhanced. I wouldn't have thought so (a bit risky in live shows), but I guess it's possible.

The wife and I went there about six years ago - took the Chao Phraya Express up to Nonthaburi and then hired a small longtail there for the afternoon. I think we paid 600 baht, and the guy took us over to Koh Kret and waited while we wandered for an hour or two, then round to the dessert place close to where there's an airplane parked in a field (<deleted>?) and then on to a couple of other places. I guess we had the boat for about four hours. It was a really nice afternoon, and we enjoyed it immensely. And although it seemed like a lot to pay for the boat, it was great to have that flexibility of being able to go where we liked when we liked. Definitely recommended if you're at a loose end in Bangkok one day. Very peaceful, very serene.