Smoking on Nok Air

[Fookhaht]

Posted in error

Edited April 7, 2014 by Fookhaht

[draftvader]

Here is the new article discussing a serious security breach with this airline.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/717024-stranger-on-board-nok-air-flight-without-an-air-ticket-or-an-id-card/

This is exactly what I was talking about. It isn't so much the smoking as the breach of a safety regulation demonstrating a general disregard for regulations as has been demonstrated here.

[stevenl]

All the smokers attacking The Op for highlighting something serious,you pathetic narrow scum

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Why do you presume it is smokers attacking the OP, plus I think the word 'attack' is really over the top. You narrow minded scum.

[Ace of Pop]

Recon someone should change his avatar to Draft E Vader..Red Card Carrying Member.

[canopus1969]

Suppose the driver could always open his window and blow the smoke out as they do in cars

[evadgib]

What stopped the passengers joining in?

Edited April 7, 2014 by evadgib

[draftvader]

Recon someone should change his avatar to Draft E Vader..Red Card Carrying Member.

What was that?

[Ace of Pop]

Just my observation on Nurds.

[draftvader]

Just my observation on Nurds.

That's interesting. Why do you say that?

Sent from my HTC Desire using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[nisakiman]

You ARE joking, I presume? Nobody has EVER died from so-called 'second-hand smoke'. That is one of the biggest cons ever perpetrated on the world, and has been comprehensively demolished.

http://acsh.org/2013/12/two-stories-one-link-found-secondhand-smoke-lung-cancer-one-seems-care/

I read the article you linked to. Then I read the following:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/2289.aspx?categoryid=53&

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/passivesmoking/smoking-and-cancer-secondhand-smoke

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/effects-of-secondhand-smoke

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

My conclusion? There is a good chance I will survive being hit by a new car travelling below 30mph. Funnily enough I still look both ways before crossing the road and don't think "Oh, that's a lovely new 5 star NCAP rated car travelling below 30, here I go". Same here, I accept that the links might be "weak" but even this article still admits a link. I quit smoking 12 years ago and have looked after myself VERY well since then. If smokers want to ruin their lives they can but I don't want the "risk" of cancer from 2nd hand smoke.

Back on the point this pilot has a HUGE duty of responsibility, is paid accordingly and has demonstrated that he is not deserving. If the OP has decent evidence then I suggest he push this for the safety of the 100s of 1,000s of passengers who choose Nok Air each year.

Actually, the article that 'nisakiman' linked states that the risk could be lower than thought, it does not support that posters 'fact' that "Nobody has EVER died from so-called 'second-hand smoke'."

Kind of makes their post worthless, irrelevant and downright stupid.

totster

Ok then 'totster', since you seem to have knowledge that I don't, kindly find me one (and I'm only asking for one out of the allegedly hundreds of thousands) certified death, anywhere in the world, that has been attributed to so-called 'second-hand smoke'. That should be easy enough for you, should it not? Particularly given that you seem to be an 'expert' in these matters.

I read the article you linked to. Then I read the following:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/2289.aspx?categoryid=53&

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/passivesmoking/smoking-and-cancer-secondhand-smoke

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/effects-of-secondhand-smoke

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

All those 'studies' you link to, daftvader, have been commissioned by avowedly anti-smoking organisations. So the results were, of course, a foregone conclusion. And if you read them a little more closely, you will see that they are long on hyperbole and very short on verifiable fact. For the most part, they rely on 'meta-analyses' (read cherry picking) of previous research.

The largest and most recent study on SHS was commissioned by the WHO in 1998, and was conducted in seven European countries with strict controls. Rather unfortunately for the health zealots at the WHO, they didn't quite get the results they expected, so the report was rapidly buried. However, you will be pleased to know that I have a link to the original for your perusal. But to summarise this, the World Health Organisation's own huge study (Boffetta et al) into second hand smoke, we have:

Workplace: Relative Risk 1.17. Result - INSIGNIFICANT

Spousal:.... Relative Risk 1.16. Result - INSIGNIFICANT

Childhood: Relative Risk 0.78. Result - SIGNIFICANT...children exposed to second hand smoke are 22% LESS LIKELY to get lung cancer in later life compared to children of non-smokers.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1440.full.pdf

In their own words..."The results of our study of the risk of lung cancer from ETS in several European countries showed a reduced risk for exposure during childhood and a measurable effect of exposure to ETS from the spouse and at the workplace, in particular when these two sources were combined to better represent total adult exposure. Statistically significant results were the reduced risk from childhood exposure and the increasing trend in risk for weighted duration of exposure to ETS from the spouse or at the workplace. Vehicles and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure."

They did actually try to spin it a bit for their paymasters at the WHO, but at the end of the day they were, unusually, too honest to actually fudge the figures.

So, the Relative Risk of second hand smoke is 1.17, which means an increase in risk of 17%. To put this into some sort of perspective, you've more chance of getting cancer from drinking water (RR 1.25), whole milk (RR 2.14), bacon (RR 3.00), and even keeping pet birds! (RR 6.00)

Would any sane person believe that a persons health can be seriously harmed by a glass of water? Of course not.

Robert E Madden,

Practicing chest surgeon, teacher and a former cancer researcher. Past president of the NY Cancer Society. USA

"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."

These anti-smoking campaigns are a political agenda. This is NOT about health.

[Ace of Pop]

I think its a lot to do with the Anti Persons Nature.As ive said to the point of Boredom im not a Smoker.I do have Cancer Free ears and have to listen to their Rants.They rant about anything, from Thais , Speed Limits to Visa Regs, in fact everything that us easy going folks just exept. Perhaps they need a Smoke more than us Non Smokers.

[Fookhaht]

Actually, the article that 'nisakiman' linked states that the risk could be lower than thought, it does not support that posters 'fact' that "Nobody has EVER died from so-called 'second-hand smoke'."

Kind of makes their post worthless, irrelevant and downright stupid.

totster

Ok then 'totster', since you seem to have knowledge that I don't, kindly find me one (and I'm only asking for one out of the allegedly hundreds of thousands) certified death, anywhere in the world, that has been attributed to so-called 'second-hand smoke'. That should be easy enough for you, should it not? Particularly given that you seem to be an 'expert' in these matters.

I read the article you linked to. Then I read the following:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/2289.aspx?categoryid=53&

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/passivesmoking/smoking-and-cancer-secondhand-smoke

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/effects-of-secondhand-smoke

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

All those 'studies' you link to, daftvader, have been commissioned by avowedly anti-smoking organisations. So the results were, of course, a foregone conclusion. And if you read them a little more closely, you will see that they are long on hyperbole and very short on verifiable fact. For the most part, they rely on 'meta-analyses' (read cherry picking) of previous research.

The largest and most recent study on SHS was commissioned by the WHO in 1998, and was conducted in seven European countries with strict controls. Rather unfortunately for the health zealots at the WHO, they didn't quite get the results they expected, so the report was rapidly buried. However, you will be pleased to know that I have a link to the original for your perusal. But to summarise this, the World Health Organisation's own huge study (Boffetta et al) into second hand smoke, we have:

Workplace: Relative Risk 1.17. Result - INSIGNIFICANT

Spousal:.... Relative Risk 1.16. Result - INSIGNIFICANT

Childhood: Relative Risk 0.78. Result - SIGNIFICANT...children exposed to second hand smoke are 22% LESS LIKELY to get lung cancer in later life compared to children of non-smokers.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1440.full.pdf

In their own words..."The results of our study of the risk of lung cancer from ETS in several European countries showed a reduced risk for exposure during childhood and a measurable effect of exposure to ETS from the spouse and at the workplace, in particular when these two sources were combined to better represent total adult exposure. Statistically significant results were the reduced risk from childhood exposure and the increasing trend in risk for weighted duration of exposure to ETS from the spouse or at the workplace. Vehicles and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure."

They did actually try to spin it a bit for their paymasters at the WHO, but at the end of the day they were, unusually, too honest to actually fudge the figures.

So, the Relative Risk of second hand smoke is 1.17, which means an increase in risk of 17%. To put this into some sort of perspective, you've more chance of getting cancer from drinking water (RR 1.25), whole milk (RR 2.14), bacon (RR 3.00), and even keeping pet birds! (RR 6.00)

Would any sane person believe that a persons health can be seriously harmed by a glass of water? Of course not.

Robert E Madden,

Practicing chest surgeon, teacher and a former cancer researcher. Past president of the NY Cancer Society. USA

"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."

These anti-smoking campaigns are a political agenda. This is NOT about health.

Despite these gallons and gallons of spilled cyber-ink, my nose still runs, my eyes get red and run, my throat tightens up, and I cough and sneeze--when around second-hand smoke. And I'm not the only one.

Doesn't that count for anything?

[Robby nz]

Interesting to see the small minority of smokers trying to defend their filthy addiction by attacking the OP.

You have no idea how much your smoke effects others, you cant smell it, in fact its doubtful if you can smell very much at all, always remember an good friend of mine saying after he had given up smoking "You know I can smell again".

A pilot smoking is reprehensible if he cant go without the need to smoke during a flight he shouldn't be flying a plane.

[Scottythai]

Epic thought. Pilot runs out of smokes just after takeoff. " Attention Ladies and Gents we are having some technical issues and must turn around. Sorry for any inconvenience" Aww yea

[stevenl]

Interesting to see the small minority of smokers trying to defend their filthy addiction by attacking the OP.

You have no idea how much your smoke effects others, you cant smell it, in fact its doubtful if you can smell very much at all, always remember an good friend of mine saying after he had given up smoking "You know I can smell again".

A pilot smoking is reprehensible if he cant go without the need to smoke during a flight he shouldn't be flying a plane.

Why do you presume it is smokers 'defending' the captain? Maybe just people who have views different from yours?

I'm not a smoker, but as far as I am concerned the captain can smoke in the cockpit.

[yermanee]

Interesting to see the small minority of smokers trying to defend their filthy addiction by attacking the OP.

You have no idea how much your smoke effects others, you cant smell it, in fact its doubtful if you can smell very much at all, always remember an good friend of mine saying after he had given up smoking "You know I can smell again".

A pilot smoking is reprehensible if he cant go without the need to smoke during a flight he shouldn't be flying a plane.

Why do you presume it is smokers 'defending' the captain? Maybe just people who have views different from yours?

I'm not a smoker, but as far as I am concerned the captain can smoke in the cockpit.

Not only that but in the original post the OP shows all the characteristics of a snitch and I hate snitches.

Yermanee

[Fookhaht]

Interesting to see the small minority of smokers trying to defend their filthy addiction by attacking the OP.

You have no idea how much your smoke effects others, you cant smell it, in fact its doubtful if you can smell very much at all, always remember an good friend of mine saying after he had given up smoking "You know I can smell again".

A pilot smoking is reprehensible if he cant go without the need to smoke during a flight he shouldn't be flying a plane.

Why do you presume it is smokers 'defending' the captain? Maybe just people who have views different from yours?

I'm not a smoker, but as far as I am concerned the captain can smoke in the cockpit.

Not only that but in the original post the OP shows all the characteristics of a snitch and I hate snitches.

Yermanee

What if a "snitch" points out a genuine problem or danger? Would that change your view?

For example, if I see the handle of a pistol sticking out of the back pocket of a student walking into a classroom: If I tell the security guard, then have I fallen into your disfavor? What about having the knowledge that young teens are spreading drugs through your neighborhood, and you have young kids? What about knowing that your fellow passengers are sickened or discomforted by someone who is addicted to a nasty habit?

Being an anti-snitch-holier-than-thou "angel" doesn't work in the real world. The vast majority of good law enforcement relies on the good intentions and feedback from citizens who do their duty and alert authorities of problems or threats. The tips are followed up, and potential problems/threats are averted. THAT works in the real world.

At a higher and more extreme level: "Evil reigns when good men do nothing." That might even include telling someone with the power or authority who can prevent problems or danger for others.

[yermanee]

Not only that but in the original post the OP shows all the characteristics of a snitch and I hate snitches.

Yermanee

What if a "snitch" points out a genuine problem or danger? Would that change your view?

For example, if I see the handle of a pistol sticking out of the back pocket of a student walking into a classroom: If I tell the security guard, then have I fallen into your disfavor? What about having the knowledge that young teens are spreading drugs through your neighborhood, and you have young kids? What about knowing that your fellow passengers are sickened or discomforted by someone who is addicted to a nasty habit?

Being an anti-snitch-holier-than-thou "angel" doesn't work in the real world. The vast majority of good law enforcement relies on the good intentions and feedback from citizens who do their duty and alert authorities of problems or threats. The tips are followed up, and potential problems/threats are averted. THAT works in the real world.

At a higher and more extreme level: "Evil reigns when good men do nothing." That might even include telling someone with the power or authority who can prevent problems or danger for others.

Seems you don't know the difference between a snitch and an informant.

From the urban dictionary :

quote :Someone who gives up incriminating evidence to people they have no business talking to in the first place. Some snitch because they need attention others snitch because they are scared. Unquote

Oh and BTW I'm not an angel by any means.

I do have sympathy for your allergy against cigarette smoke, but just because you have this rare condition doesn't mean you have to blame all the smokers in this world.

Yermanee

[draftvader]

Not only that but in the original post the OP shows all the characteristics of a snitch and I hate snitches.

Yermanee

What if a "snitch" points out a genuine problem or danger? Would that change your view?

For example, if I see the handle of a pistol sticking out of the back pocket of a student walking into a classroom: If I tell the security guard, then have I fallen into your disfavor? What about having the knowledge that young teens are spreading drugs through your neighborhood, and you have young kids? What about knowing that your fellow passengers are sickened or discomforted by someone who is addicted to a nasty habit?

Being an anti-snitch-holier-than-thou "angel" doesn't work in the real world. The vast majority of good law enforcement relies on the good intentions and feedback from citizens who do their duty and alert authorities of problems or threats. The tips are followed up, and potential problems/threats are averted. THAT works in the real world.

At a higher and more extreme level: "Evil reigns when good men do nothing." That might even include telling someone with the power or authority who can prevent problems or danger for others.

Seems you don't know the difference between a snitch and an informant.

From the urban dictionary :

quote :Someone who gives up incriminating evidence to people they have no business talking to in the first place. Some snitch because they need attention others snitch because they are scared. Unquote

Oh and BTW I'm not an angel by any means.

I do have sympathy for your allergy against cigarette smoke, but just because you have this rare condition doesn't mean you have to blame all the smokers in this world.

Yermanee

Being that this was a breach of regulations from a person whose job is controlled and dictated by regulations and policy, that are in place to ensure his safe passage, I guess that makes him a concerned party and, therefore, an informant.

This argument has been focused on the smoking aspect that has allowed it to be dragged into a smoking debate. The OP, unfortunately, started on that track without either seeing or understanding the bigger picture. Anybody who believes this isn't serious has obviously forgotten what happens to lives when a pilot starts making decisions to deviate from professionalism.

On a personal level I stopped smoking nearly 12 years ago. I do not evangelise this but do enjoy the freedom to decide not to share a smoker's smoke. Unfortunately in a closed environment that is not possible so it is fair to ensure that people do not smoke at all. I do not go into the smokers area at the airport and open up my 2.5 year old's used nappies....nor would you want me to...even though it has discernibly less ill effect than smoking.

However this really shouldn't be about the smoking and the concern for safety regulations in planes should be paramount for every person boarding a plane...particularly the pilot. Even if you felt this was "overacting" you can see, by the announcement that an un-ticketed passenger boarded one of their planes, that this is indicative of the poor enforcement of vital policies by this airline.

[draftvader]

I read the article you linked to. Then I read the following:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/2289.aspx?categoryid=53&

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/passivesmoking/smoking-and-cancer-secondhand-smoke

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/effects-of-secondhand-smoke

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

My conclusion? There is a good chance I will survive being hit by a new car travelling below 30mph. Funnily enough I still look both ways before crossing the road and don't think "Oh, that's a lovely new 5 star NCAP rated car travelling below 30, here I go". Same here, I accept that the links might be "weak" but even this article still admits a link. I quit smoking 12 years ago and have looked after myself VERY well since then. If smokers want to ruin their lives they can but I don't want the "risk" of cancer from 2nd hand smoke.

Back on the point this pilot has a HUGE duty of responsibility, is paid accordingly and has demonstrated that he is not deserving. If the OP has decent evidence then I suggest he push this for the safety of the 100s of 1,000s of passengers who choose Nok Air each year.

Actually, the article that 'nisakiman' linked states that the risk could be lower than thought, it does not support that posters 'fact' that "Nobody has EVER died from so-called 'second-hand smoke'."

Kind of makes their post worthless, irrelevant and downright stupid.

totster

Ok then 'totster', since you seem to have knowledge that I don't, kindly find me one (and I'm only asking for one out of the allegedly hundreds of thousands) certified death, anywhere in the world, that has been attributed to so-called 'second-hand smoke'. That should be easy enough for you, should it not? Particularly given that you seem to be an 'expert' in these matters.

I read the article you linked to. Then I read the following:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/2289.aspx?categoryid=53&

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/passivesmoking/smoking-and-cancer-secondhand-smoke

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/effects-of-secondhand-smoke

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

All those 'studies' you link to, daftvader, have been commissioned by avowedly anti-smoking organisations. So the results were, of course, a foregone conclusion. And if you read them a little more closely, you will see that they are long on hyperbole and very short on verifiable fact. For the most part, they rely on 'meta-analyses' (read cherry picking) of previous research.

The largest and most recent study on SHS was commissioned by the WHO in 1998, and was conducted in seven European countries with strict controls. Rather unfortunately for the health zealots at the WHO, they didn't quite get the results they expected, so the report was rapidly buried. However, you will be pleased to know that I have a link to the original for your perusal. But to summarise this, the World Health Organisation's own huge study (Boffetta et al) into second hand smoke, we have:

Workplace: Relative Risk 1.17. Result - INSIGNIFICANT

Spousal:.... Relative Risk 1.16. Result - INSIGNIFICANT

Childhood: Relative Risk 0.78. Result - SIGNIFICANT...children exposed to second hand smoke are 22% LESS LIKELY to get lung cancer in later life compared to children of non-smokers.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1440.full.pdf

In their own words..."The results of our study of the risk of lung cancer from ETS in several European countries showed a reduced risk for exposure during childhood and a measurable effect of exposure to ETS from the spouse and at the workplace, in particular when these two sources were combined to better represent total adult exposure. Statistically significant results were the reduced risk from childhood exposure and the increasing trend in risk for weighted duration of exposure to ETS from the spouse or at the workplace. Vehicles and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure."

They did actually try to spin it a bit for their paymasters at the WHO, but at the end of the day they were, unusually, too honest to actually fudge the figures.

So, the Relative Risk of second hand smoke is 1.17, which means an increase in risk of 17%. To put this into some sort of perspective, you've more chance of getting cancer from drinking water (RR 1.25), whole milk (RR 2.14), bacon (RR 3.00), and even keeping pet birds! (RR 6.00)

Would any sane person believe that a persons health can be seriously harmed by a glass of water? Of course not.

Robert E Madden,

Practicing chest surgeon, teacher and a former cancer researcher. Past president of the NY Cancer Society. USA

"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."

These anti-smoking campaigns are a political agenda. This is NOT about health.

I do hope your misspelling of my name was unintentional. We can move backwards and forwards finding quotes from numerous people supporting our side of the argument. Did you not think it was possible that the doctors you are quoting have been lobbied by the HUGE tobacco industry?

[stevenl]

Not only that but in the original post the OP shows all the characteristics of a snitch and I hate snitches.

Yermanee

What if a "snitch" points out a genuine problem or danger? Would that change your view?

For example, if I see the handle of a pistol sticking out of the back pocket of a student walking into a classroom: If I tell the security guard, then have I fallen into your disfavor? What about having the knowledge that young teens are spreading drugs through your neighborhood, and you have young kids? What about knowing that your fellow passengers are sickened or discomforted by someone who is addicted to a nasty habit?

Being an anti-snitch-holier-than-thou "angel" doesn't work in the real world. The vast majority of good law enforcement relies on the good intentions and feedback from citizens who do their duty and alert authorities of problems or threats. The tips are followed up, and potential problems/threats are averted. THAT works in the real world.

At a higher and more extreme level: "Evil reigns when good men do nothing." That might even include telling someone with the power or authority who can prevent problems or danger for others.

Seems you don't know the difference between a snitch and an informant.

From the urban dictionary :

quote :Someone who gives up incriminating evidence to people they have no business talking to in the first place. Some snitch because they need attention others snitch because they are scared. Unquote

Oh and BTW I'm not an angel by any means.

I do have sympathy for your allergy against cigarette smoke, but just because you have this rare condition doesn't mean you have to blame all the smokers in this world.

Yermanee

Being that this was a breach of regulations from a person whose job is controlled and dictated by regulations and policy, that are in place to ensure his safe passage, I guess that makes him a concerned party and, therefore, an informant.

This argument has been focused on the smoking aspect that has allowed it to be dragged into a smoking debate. The OP, unfortunately, started on that track without either seeing or understanding the bigger picture. Anybody who believes this isn't serious has obviously forgotten what happens to lives when a pilot starts making decisions to deviate from professionalism.

On a personal level I stopped smoking nearly 12 years ago. I do not evangelise this but do enjoy the freedom to decide not to share a smoker's smoke. Unfortunately in a closed environment that is not possible so it is fair to ensure that people do not smoke at all. I do not go into the smokers area at the airport and open up my 2.5 year old's used nappies....nor would you want me to...even though it has discernibly less ill effect than smoking.

However this really shouldn't be about the smoking and the concern for safety regulations in planes should be paramount for every person boarding a plane...particularly the pilot. Even if you felt this was "overacting" you can see, by the announcement that an un-ticketed passenger boarded one of their planes, that this is indicative of the poor enforcement of vital policies by this airline.

Agree with you that safety regulations should be followed. Smoking though may be presented as a safety regulation, but it is not.

[agavrilescu]

I am a flight attendant who quit smoking 2 years ago and I wanted share my experience in this matter with you, the people who are so concerned about the safety regulations in aviation.

In the first place, I have news for you, in aviation, rules are being constantly broken because there are just so many rules and so many people involved in the daily operations ( think airport staff, catering, security, ATC, pilots and cabin crew each one with there set of rules) that if we would all to follow these rules to the letter I bet more than 80% of the flights would suffer big delays or even worse, being canceled. Think that just a food cart that is not braking could mean an hour or more of delay...

I can guarantee that every pilot from every single airline in the world is braking at least a few rule every flight so do the ATC guys and so do we the flight attendants, it's just the way it is, we all know it, the companies we work for know it and condone with this practices because saves time and money

Also if I remember correctly from my basic training almost 10 years ago IATA only gives guidelines not rules so it is up to every country aviation authority to apply or disregard the IATA guidelines therefor writing to IATA will don't help with anything

Also smoking in flight deck and not only there is very common in most airlines, not trying to defend the pilots but that's the way it is

To end I would like to know how many of you guys never broken rules at work an what good will do to the op if he makes the complain and the guy will loose his job? Also the op has never brake any rules? How would he or he like if someone else would do this to him?

I will add I never worked or even travel with Nok Air, but I wouldn't rush to judge an airline for an incident like this as there are major companies in Europe that ask you 10 times more money than Nok Air for a ticket and the pilots smoke in the flight deck as well but you just don't know it.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[nisakiman]

Actually, the article that 'nisakiman' linked states that the risk could be lower than thought, it does not support that posters 'fact' that "Nobody has EVER died from so-called 'second-hand smoke'."

Kind of makes their post worthless, irrelevant and downright stupid.

totster

Ok then 'totster', since you seem to have knowledge that I don't, kindly find me one (and I'm only asking for one out of the allegedly hundreds of thousands) certified death, anywhere in the world, that has been attributed to so-called 'second-hand smoke'. That should be easy enough for you, should it not? Particularly given that you seem to be an 'expert' in these matters.

I read the article you linked to. Then I read the following:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/2289.aspx?categoryid=53&

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/passivesmoking/smoking-and-cancer-secondhand-smoke

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/effects-of-secondhand-smoke

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

All those 'studies' you link to, daftvader, have been commissioned by avowedly anti-smoking organisations. So the results were, of course, a foregone conclusion. And if you read them a little more closely, you will see that they are long on hyperbole and very short on verifiable fact. For the most part, they rely on 'meta-analyses' (read cherry picking) of previous research.

The largest and most recent study on SHS was commissioned by the WHO in 1998, and was conducted in seven European countries with strict controls. Rather unfortunately for the health zealots at the WHO, they didn't quite get the results they expected, so the report was rapidly buried. However, you will be pleased to know that I have a link to the original for your perusal. But to summarise this, the World Health Organisation's own huge study (Boffetta et al) into second hand smoke, we have:

Workplace: Relative Risk 1.17. Result - INSIGNIFICANT

Spousal:.... Relative Risk 1.16. Result - INSIGNIFICANT

Childhood: Relative Risk 0.78. Result - SIGNIFICANT...children exposed to second hand smoke are 22% LESS LIKELY to get lung cancer in later life compared to children of non-smokers.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1440.full.pdf

In their own words..."The results of our study of the risk of lung cancer from ETS in several European countries showed a reduced risk for exposure during childhood and a measurable effect of exposure to ETS from the spouse and at the workplace, in particular when these two sources were combined to better represent total adult exposure. Statistically significant results were the reduced risk from childhood exposure and the increasing trend in risk for weighted duration of exposure to ETS from the spouse or at the workplace. Vehicles and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure."

They did actually try to spin it a bit for their paymasters at the WHO, but at the end of the day they were, unusually, too honest to actually fudge the figures.

So, the Relative Risk of second hand smoke is 1.17, which means an increase in risk of 17%. To put this into some sort of perspective, you've more chance of getting cancer from drinking water (RR 1.25), whole milk (RR 2.14), bacon (RR 3.00), and even keeping pet birds! (RR 6.00)

Would any sane person believe that a persons health can be seriously harmed by a glass of water? Of course not.

Robert E Madden,

Practicing chest surgeon, teacher and a former cancer researcher. Past president of the NY Cancer Society. USA

"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."

These anti-smoking campaigns are a political agenda. This is NOT about health.

Despite these gallons and gallons of spilled cyber-ink, my nose still runs, my eyes get red and run, my throat tightens up, and I cough and sneeze--when around second-hand smoke. And I'm not the only one.

Doesn't that count for anything?

Yes, of course that counts for something. I have the same reaction when I come in close proximity to someone who has slathered on certain perfumes and after-shaves, so I do sympathise. However, I know that the smell of over-perfumed people, although anathema to me, is not going to kill me, and I know also that if I want relief from the olfactory onslaught, I have only to move away. It certainly wouldn't occur to me to contemplate banning people from wearing perfumes, or insisting that bars and restaurants be 'perfume-free', just because the smell makes my nose itch, my eyes run and puts me off my food. I merely try to avoid those situations. It's called 'live and let live'.

And to return to the OP, the fact that the pilot was smoking should not be a problem to anyone. Back in the day, most pilots smoked, and I don't recollect planes falling out of the sky as a result.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, a smoking pilot will have higher levels of concentration, greater cognitive ability and greater mental endurance than a non-smoking pilot. That seems like a good reason to make smoking mandatory for pilots rather than the other way round.

This is a post from a Danish blogger, but contains links to all the original research results, so is not an opinion piece, just a summary of the research:

Nicotine boosts attention,

precision, motor skills,

speed and memory

http://dengulenegl.dk/English/Nicotine.html

[Fookhaht]

This is a post from a Danish blogger, but contains links to all the original research results, so is not an opinion piece, just a summary of the research:

Nicotine boosts attention,

precision, motor skills,

speed and memory

http://dengulenegl.dk/English/Nicotine.html

Well, there you go folks.

In only one thread, we've gone from a complaint that a pilot is breaking company rules to EVERY pilot SHOULD smoke to avoid being branded as a dullard, uncoordinated, slow and absent-minded.

The lengths to which some go to to support a filthy, anti-social habit that kills millions worldwide.

Who'd a thunk it?

Edited April 8, 2014 by Fookhaht

[55Jay]

Despite these gallons and gallons of spilled cyber-ink, my nose still runs, my eyes get red and run, my throat tightens up, and I cough and sneeze--when around second-hand smoke. And I'm not the only one.

Doesn't that count for anything?

Yes, of course that counts for something. I have the same reaction when I come in close proximity to someone who has slathered on certain perfumes and after-shaves, so I do sympathise. However, I know that the smell of over-perfumed people, although anathema to me, is not going to kill me, and I know also that if I want relief from the olfactory onslaught, I have only to move away. It certainly wouldn't occur to me to contemplate banning people from wearing perfumes, or insisting that bars and restaurants be 'perfume-free', just because the smell makes my nose itch, my eyes run and puts me off my food. I merely try to avoid those situations. It's called 'live and let live'.

And to return to the OP, the fact that the pilot was smoking should not be a problem to anyone. Back in the day, most pilots smoked, and I don't recollect planes falling out of the sky as a result.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, a smoking pilot will have higher levels of concentration, greater cognitive ability and greater mental endurance than a non-smoking pilot. That seems like a good reason to make smoking mandatory for pilots rather than the other way round.

This is a post from a Danish blogger, but contains links to all the original research results, so is not an opinion piece, just a summary of the research:

Nicotine boosts attention,

precision, motor skills,

speed and memory

http://dengulenegl.dk/English/Nicotine.html

I'm all for arguing the other side just because of the nasty, social engineering campaign carried out in the last 2 decades by the groups of perpetual offense. I think that's what's on here, just having a go at "them".

I reject the crap assertion re: the Captain's professional ability. I was a smoker who would occasionally sneak one in an undesignated area but this did not make me less of a competent professional, or that somehow it made me more apt to break other procedures. Like I need a superior, non-smoking class to pass wide judgement over the lessor, dirty, filthy smoking class. Piss off.

However, the part about "moving away" if you have an unpleasant olfactory experience, isn't always a viable option at altitude and didn't quite work in this context.

We have to deal with all sorts of nasty stuff when we trap ourselves in a tube with 200 or more of our new, closest friends, but cigarettes are completely unnecessary and avoidable. They are banned because they stink, are offensive and disturbing in close, confined spaces.

I am, however, with you when zealots attempt to bolster the no smoking position with other stuff.

They shouldn't do that because no smoking on planes stands on its own merits, without need of additional health and safety justification, or imaginary security issues. Sorta like Durian in Thai hotels.

[wolf5370]

I would rather have a pilot who smoked in the cockpit, than one with nicotine deprivation rage.

But that's just me.

Yermanee

Would you also rather a pilot that drunk the whole flight than one going through DTs? How about a junkie pilot - OK as long as he is not withdrawling?

How about one that follows the rules and doesn't smoke in the air - millions of passengers each day across the globe cope with it, why can't he?

[nisakiman]

This is a post from a Danish blogger, but contains links to all the original research results, so is not an opinion piece, just a summary of the research:

Nicotine boosts attention,

precision, motor skills,

speed and memory

http://dengulenegl.dk/English/Nicotine.html

Well, there you go folks.

In only one thread, we've gone from a complaint that a pilot is breaking company rules to EVERY pilot SHOULD smoke to avoid being branded as a dullard, uncoordinated, slow and absent-minded.

The lengths to which some go to to support a filthy, anti-social habit that kills millions worldwide.

Who'd a thunk it?

You obviously have an irony gland malfunction.

[Ace of Pop]

Jeremy Clarkson is the O.P.s Hero.

[yermanee]

Being that this was a breach of regulations from a person whose job is controlled and dictated by regulations and policy, that are in place to ensure his safe passage, I guess that makes him a concerned party and, therefore, an informant.

This argument has been focused on the smoking aspect that has allowed it to be dragged into a smoking debate. The OP, unfortunately, started on that track without either seeing or understanding the bigger picture. Anybody who believes this isn't serious has obviously forgotten what happens to lives when a pilot starts making decisions to deviate from professionalism.

On a personal level I stopped smoking nearly 12 years ago. I do not evangelise this but do enjoy the freedom to decide not to share a smoker's smoke. Unfortunately in a closed environment that is not possible so it is fair to ensure that people do not smoke at all. I do not go into the smokers area at the airport and open up my 2.5 year old's used nappies....nor would you want me to...even though it has discernibly less ill effect than smoking.

However this really shouldn't be about the smoking and the concern for safety regulations in planes should be paramount for every person boarding a plane...particularly the pilot. Even if you felt this was "overacting" you can see, by the announcement that an un-ticketed passenger boarded one of their planes, that this is indicative of the poor enforcement of vital policies by this airline.

Well reasoned post, however with a few flaws.

There is no FAA regulation regarding smoking in the cockpit, there may be an internal rule by Nok Air that regulates this but nor you nor I know this for sure.

So OP states that the pilot broke the law, which he didn't because there is no such law

He then threatens to inform all the instances mentioned about the pilots behavior. That in my book is snitching.

Anyway I do wonder whatever happened to tolerance.

Yermanee

[Ace of Pop]

I find the Intolerance factor towards Human Frailty keeps me returning. If you read the O.P. other Posts you will find he is a Wind n String Fan. Now Yachties have a history of protesting.Powerboats being the main target. A GPS in one Hand and Protest Flag at the Ready.Just observing as they say.!!. Bloody Hot today , so I let my smoking Friends inside today. Should i be REPORTED to The Headmaster. . A New Apartment Block has been opened by the Swiss today,for people with sad problems.