Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

airships.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 223 posts

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#51

Post by flopsamjetsam »

Espressosaurus wrote: post #40
-warren wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Story time. Last summer I flew from ATL to SFO on a brand new Airbus. Pretty cool plane! Halfway across the count I had the obligatory restroom break. In the head, I noticed an ashtray. I was confused -- "smoking has been banned in planes doe decades. Why is there an ashtray here?" I flagged down a flight attendant and asked them. Their answer was that yes smoking is banned, and it's a $250 fine. But EVERY SINGLE TRI…

If you're wealthy enough $250 is just the price of smoking (especially for someone that can afford a 1st class seat). I wonder why they don't have escalating non-monetary punishments?

You'd think they'd just ban repeat offenders.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#52

Post by margalabargala »

paulpauper wrote: post #46
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #6

When I was a kid, back eons ago, smoking was everywhere . People who didn't smoke had ashtrays for guests. Telling people to not smoke was simply not a thing. When I was about 16, some family friends put a small sign on their front door requesting people not smoke inside their house. I was shocked. I liked the idea, but I'd never seen that before, never even considered it. I recall wondering how many people would be…

It makes you wonder how accurate the smoking cancer stats are. IF everyone smoked, presumably this means a lot of people who are not recorded in the stats despite smoking or former smokers, lowering the mortality rate or risk factor, although obvious smoking is still bad.

I would expect it to be the other way around.

If nearly everyone smoked, then even nonsmokers were constantly getting a fair amount of secondhand smoke.

This would raise the background rate of cancer, making it appear that smoking raises your risk by less than it actually does.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#53

Post by rjsw »

margalabargala wrote: post #52
paulpauper wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes you wonder how accurate the smoking cancer stats are. IF everyone smoked, presumably this means a lot of people who are not recorded in the stats despite smoking or former smokers, lowering the mortality rate or risk factor, although obvious smoking is still bad.

I would expect it to be the other way around. If nearly everyone smoked, then even nonsmokers were constantly getting a fair amount of secondhand smoke. This would raise the background rate of cancer, making it appear that smoking raises your risk by less than it actually does.

Non smokers did get lung cancer [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Castle#Illness_and_death

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#54

Post by c22 »

sublinear wrote: post #27
hnlmorg wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately we aren’t getting a handle on it because those friendly tobacco companies instead just pushed people to vaping instead.

There are now vaping bans that have pushed people to pouches. The pouches are a totally different level of nicotine addiction. People will fall asleep with one in.

And unlike cigarette butts, they stick to the parking lot. Lovely!

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#55

Post by margalabargala »

rjsw wrote: post #53
margalabargala wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would expect it to be the other way around. If nearly everyone smoked, then even nonsmokers were constantly getting a fair amount of secondhand smoke. This would raise the background rate of cancer, making it appear that smoking raises your risk by less than it actually does.

Non smokers did get lung cancer [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Castle#Illness_and_death

Yes, exactly my point.

If the "normal" rate of lung cancer is X, the observed rate in nonsmokers who get secondhand smoke is X+Y, and the observed rate in smokers is X+Y+Z, if you compare nonsmokers and smokers it looks like smoking increases your rate by Z when it's actually Y+Z.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#56

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #6

When I was a kid, back eons ago, smoking was everywhere . People who didn't smoke had ashtrays for guests. Telling people to not smoke was simply not a thing. When I was about 16, some family friends put a small sign on their front door requesting people not smoke inside their house. I was shocked. I liked the idea, but I'd never seen that before, never even considered it. I recall wondering how many people would be…

Yeah, I'm just barely old enough to remember flying when you could smoke on planes.

It was everywhere. The smell of stale cigarette smoke was in nearly every public space. This was in the 80s in the US, so smoking was already in decline, but the smell was still this constant background presence.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#57

Post by dangus »

kortilla wrote: post #25
hnlmorg wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately we aren’t getting a handle on it because those friendly tobacco companies instead just pushed people to vaping instead.

That’s still getting a handle on it. Vaping is not good but it’s significantly better than the tar that comes from burning cigarettes

In the context of the alternative which was “nobody really smokes or vapes” it’s not really a good outcome.

Sure, smoking rates cratered. It was great. But now vaping rates have gone up and it just didn’t have to happen that way at all.

Go back a few years and less people vaped with similarly low smoking rates. Vaping didn’t replace smoking, its net new usage.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#58

Post by paulryanrogers »

-warren wrote: post #33
Waterluvian wrote: post #5

It’s really amazing just what extent people went to in order to smoke. Apparently people smoked on submarines for a while. And planes. And everywhere else. Smoking is just such a disease and it feels like only now are we kind of getting a handle on it.

Story time. Last summer I flew from ATL to SFO on a brand new Airbus. Pretty cool plane! Halfway across the count I had the obligatory restroom break. In the head, I noticed an ashtray. I was confused -- "smoking has been banned in planes doe decades. Why is there an ashtray here?" I flagged down a flight attendant and asked them. Their answer was that yes smoking is banned, and it's a $250 fine. But EVERY SINGLE TRI…

Amazing that lighters are allowed in the cabin

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#60

Post by [deleted] »

roysting wrote: post #45
Waterluvian wrote: post #5

It’s really amazing just what extent people went to in order to smoke. Apparently people smoked on submarines for a while. And planes. And everywhere else. Smoking is just such a disease and it feels like only now are we kind of getting a handle on it.

It was one of my first thoughts too, but related to that somewhat is that it also amazes me how people used to be a lot more “daring” or “pragmatic” (the quotes indicating that I’m not quite sure what to call it) in a way that did not scare them to consider and weigh the risks and conclude that it was not only feasible and possible, but that it was also worth adding a smoking room to a hydrogen filled balloon. There…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN