Smoking on the Terrace

[Cap'n Grumpy]

and a bit of passive smoking never hurt anyone...

Roy Castle?

Very good piece of PR work by Roy before his sad death and the non-smoking brigade after, but the link was never proven, nor can it be (in that case).

I'm not saying his cancer was caused by passive smoking, or it wasn't.

Lung cancer is not one disease, but a number of different diseases, some of which are more closely linked with smoking than others, but there will be some who smoke lots for many years and do not succumb, and others who do not smoke at all who do succumb. That is the nature of the beast. What is undeniable is that smoking significantly increases your chances of developing cancer, but not smoking does not guarantee you won't get it. If people want to avoid passive smoking (or protect their kids from it) that is their right to do so, but to what extent the law and society in general should aid and enforce that is another matter for debate. I somehow doubt there will ever be agreement on smoking bans in open spaces, or even on what constitutes an open space.

[Ardglass2]

there's too much cotton-wooling off kids these days.

i mean, parents are frightened stiff that their precious little angel will scuff his/her knee and won't let him/her build ramps for their BMX, climb trees, etc etc.

how many tree houses built out of pallets in a back garden do you see these days?

the odd dose of germs helps build a kid's immune system, and a bit of passive smoking never hurt anyone...

With you all the way, although connecting house tress and germs is a bit of a stretch, until that last bit which is arid nonsense.

The difference between it and the rest of your observations is it is harm being done to an individualm by others, as oppossed to potential harm being perputrated by the individual themselves - a very different scenario.

[WhiteKnightoftheWeld]

only here to stir 5hit up
utterly nothing i post on here should be taken seriously. nothing whatsoever.

[Ardglass2]

No problem Weldy

I never take anything you say seriously

[backawaygoonahead]

and a bit of passive smoking never hurt anyone...

Roy Castle?

Very good piece of PR work by Roy before his sad death and the non-smoking brigade after, but the link was never proven, nor can it be (in that case).

I'm not saying his cancer was caused by passive smoking, or it wasn't.

Lung cancer is not one disease, but a number of different diseases, some of which are more closely linked with smoking than others, but there will be some who smoke lots for many years and do not succumb, and others who do not smoke at all who do succumb. That is the nature of the beast. What is undeniable is that smoking significantly increases your chances of developing cancer, but not smoking does not guarantee you won't get it. If people want to avoid passive smoking (or protect their kids from it) that is their right to do so, but to what extent the law and society in general should aid and enforce that is another matter for debate. I somehow doubt there will ever be agreement on smoking bans in open spaces, or even on what constitutes an open space.

What are you saying Grumps? You are going all round the houses saying what may or may not be, but its simple, the Cancer-Fearing People of Ulster need you to get off the fence. we need a definitive answer:

Was Roy Castle an unscrupulous lying cancerous bar steward or was he murdered by vicious smokers?

By the way signs at the Aviva say that if you leave the stadium to smoke you will not be allowed to re-enter. Clearly a fear of someone nipping back with a lung full and releasing it to some children.

[Ardglass2]

Well my mum knew Roy Castle and she said you could not meet a nicer more genuine human being.

If that helps

[backawaygoonahead]

Well my mum knew Roy Castle and she said you could not meet a nicer more genuine human being.

If that helps

I dare say he was, simply wondering at Grumpy's apparent doubting of the perception that passive smoking was the source of his cancer.

[pwrmoore]

I think that grumps is saying just what he says - it looks pretty straightforward to me and seems to be from an objective scientific standpoint.

It is not possible to show conclusively whether RC's cancer was or was not caused by passive smoking.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Well my mum knew Roy Castle and she said you could not meet a nicer more genuine human being.

If that helps

I dare say he was, simply wondering at Grumpy's apparent doubting of the perception that passive smoking was the source of his cancer.

Not intended as doubting it was caused by passive smoking, just that it wasn't proved one way or t'other.

Roy Castle himself was the source of the claim, not his medicos (as far as I'm aware). He may have been correct, he may have been incorrect, but just because it has been repeated oft times, does not necessarily make it so.

Approx 85% of lung cancers are in smokers, (obviously) approx 15% are in non smokers, and the reasons for those may be numerous. There are other other causes apart from smoking, sometimes connected with a specific type of cancer, (e.g, asbestos and mesothelioma - which strictly speaking isn't a lung cancer, it's a cancer of the pleura, the lining of the lungs, but in the layman's eyes is sometimes thrown in there with the others).

IIRC Castle spent a fair bit of his early musical career working in smokey bars and clubs and it is perhaps understandable that he blamed that on his later cancer - it may well have been, but equally there may have been (an)other cause(s). He may well just have been part of the 15% (although it could be argued that some of that 15% may well be victims of passive smoking)

Given that smoking is inextricably linked with causing lung cancer (and let's not forget mouth and throut cancers as well as other diseases), I would think people are well within their rights to be concerned about passive smoking, and there are many experts who believe the link is clear cut or proven (but as stated before, not SPECIFICALLY in the case of RC).

BTW, the anti-smoking ban lobby have tried to use other factors and influences in Roy castle's life to blame for his untimely disease and death, (e.g. some special effects from his filming career) but in my opinion, they are tenuous in the extreme and the passive smoking "theory" is much more plausible .............. just not proven IN HIS CASE ........ imo.

Of course, I may not be in possession of all the facts about RC, or I could just be wrong.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

PS

I did say it was a very GOOD piece of PR work done by him before his death.

Even if not proven in his own situation it did a very GOOD job of increasing awareness of passive smoking and stimulating the debate and further research.

Use of the term "PR" was not intended to cast doubt on the veracity of his claim - it was just a reference to his heightening of public awareness, which was for the public good.

[pwrmoore]

Co-incidentally there is an interesting article on the BBC website today about mesothelioma and a Turkish village which is being relocated in its entirity to move the people away from the the erionite which is the established cause of an abnormally high incidence of mesothelioma in its population.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11711136

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Interesting indeed Paul, and quite moving (no pun intended).

In a roundabout way, there could be some lessons learnt from our part of the world in how people react to finding out about asbestos in buildings. The natural and first raction of many is to demand action - have the asbestos stripped completely away, - but the safer option is simply to ensure proper maintenance - often all that is required is to ensure that it is completely and properly painted over or otherwise sealed to ensure that no fibres enter the air that we breath. Of course that requires long term planning.

In the natural world where this soft rock is exposed in Turkey, that may not be practicable though, but if covering the place were feasible it might provide a solution, as other areas with similar rock which is covered are not similarly blighted.

It is a big concern for all those who have already been exposed though, and are now potentially facing a horrible and aggressive disease later in life, even if they move away from the source of their problem now.

[backawaygoonahead]

Yes yes yes chaps this is all very well blah blah science science blah de fecking blah but I am more interested in getting an off the fence answer to my ludicrous question Grumps:

Roy Castle - Liar or Victim ?

[WhiteKnightoftheWeld]

backcrackandgonads - give it a rest.

or don't - either way i find randomly searching stuff on wikipedia much more interesting than this site when ulster haven't thrown away a match...

grrr... rest period for the players makes UAFC a dull place...

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Yes yes yes chaps this is all very well blah blah science science blah de fecking blah but I am more interested in getting an off the fence answer to my ludicrous question Grumps:

Roy Castle - Liar or Victim ?

Roy Castle - a small and simple thirteenth-century fortresses in Scotland so quite possibly a lair for victims .... or not.

Ask a ludicrous question, expect a ludicrous (but possibly accurate) answer.