Conference kernel::csguk_systems

    
    I know there are lots of other conferences elsewhere on the merits
    or otherwise of non-smoking, but what is decided for DecPark, may
    not be implemented in Viables.
    
    Did anyone see the "World in Action" program last night ? Opinion
    seemed to be divided on the subject of whether "Passive Smoking"
    was harmful or not.
    
    Consider the case of the bus driver (a non-smoker) who contracted
    "smokers cancer" equivalent to smoking 40 per day,merely by driving
    a bus full of smokers.He has successfully sued his employers for
    the damage to his health.Fortunately for him, the cancer is now
    in regression and he stands a chance of a reasonable life in
    retirement. The point was made by the presenter, that companies
    have a legal requirement to ensure a clean and safe air environment
    for their workers.No longer can they insist that it is not their
    problem, without leaving themselves open to prosecution.
    
    The point was also made that the most dangerous aspect of smoking
    was the smoke coming from the cigarette itself, rather than 
    exhaled smoke (this has presumably had it's harmful content filtered
    by the smokers lungs.)
    
    Personally, I'm in favour of non smoking at work (and other public
    places, such as restaurants,theatres,public transport etc), and
    I think it is about time that Digital management stop sitting on
    the fence and make a decision. Certain areas could be set aside
    to allow those who must smoke, to do so without annoying others.
    Incidentally our "Health and Safety" committee insist that this is
    a 'non-issue' and are convinced that our representative (Theo) has
    a bee in his bonnet on the this subject.
    
    Maybe opinions expressed here and/or in the Newsletter might help
    them to re-consider.
    

    
    How about a CSG vote ?. I as a confirmed non-smoker would be willing
    to abide by the result, would the smokers ??. Who knows they may
    even win the vote.

    I would pefer to work in an environment where nobody smoked. However,
    I realise that for some people that cracking the habit may be
    difficult. Is it practical to ask smoker's to go and hide away for
    ten minutes when they want a puff? Will the new Air Conditioning
    make the situation any better? This is not a trivial matter,
    particularly when our health is involved. We need to consider the
    needs of everyone, even though non-smokers are now the majority.
    
    Norman B

    AS A DEDICATED ASH FANATIC I HATE A "SMOKEY" ATMOSPHERE...I HAVE
    FREQUENTLY SUGGESTED AN ADEQUATE "EXTRACTION SYSTEM"...PEOPLE DONT
    GENERALLY OBJECT TO ME SMOKING "ROLLUPS" THEY DO OBJECT TO "SECONDHAND"
    SMOKE !!!!
    PERHAPS "EXTRACTORS" COULD BE INCLUDED IN THE REFURBISHMENT ???????

    I agree with Norm [-2].., the fact is everyone has a right to smoke
    if they so wish. However, those of us who have decided we don't
    want to, shouldn't have to.

    I accept that I have to breathe humanoid exhaust gases most
    of the time (carbon dioxide or methane) but smoking is a deliberate
    pollutant of my air supply and no amount of air-conditioning is
    going to remove the harmful effects it has. 
    
    It's my opinion that smoking should be banned in the general office
    area and only allowed in a special room (enclosed with it's own
    ventilation). This action in itself is a compromise...how many other
    addictions do we make allowances for ?? 
    
    
    
	Bob
    
    

    	
    	Come on all you smokers, why are you so quiet??
                                               
    	Give us all (non-smokers that is), good reasons for letting
    	you continue with your stinkin' habit.
    
    	Brian

    The following article appeared in last Friday's "Basingstoke Gazette"
    under the headline of "Firms Get Tough on the Smokers".
    
  " Smokers are facing a tough time with their employers as Wednesday's
    National No Smoking Day approaches.
    More and more firms are operating bans in their buildings or asking
    workers to keep their habit to themselves in specially designated
    rooms.
                            ........
    The AA operates a policy of 'discouraging' staff from lighting up
    in public places and IBM which employs over 2,000 people in Basingstoke
    is running a concerted campaign to 're-educate' its employees.In
    most of its buildings, it is confining smokers to special rooms.
    The AA's 2,500 employees have been asked not to smoke in open plan
    offices and public places.'They are not strictly enforceable rules
    but guidelines and we trust that good manners and common sense will
    prevail', said a spokesman.
    
    At DIGITAL the rules are stacked heavily in favour of non-smokers.
    'We operate a system of smoking by permission only', said a spokesman.
    'If there is one non-smoker in a room of 20 then he can ask the
    others not to light up and they MUST go along with it'
    
    But at Lansing Bagnall, a less strict approach 'works very well
    indeed'.Their spokesman Charles Hemsley said 'We just ask people
    to be good neighbours and not to smoke where there are non smokers'"
    
    The paper then has an article entitled "Dangers brought home by
    tests at the hospital". Carbon monoxide tests show the percentage
    reduction of the oxygen carrying capacity in the blood.Carbon
    monoxide is the cause of breathlessness in smokers. Tests on
    passive smokers gave readings twice as high as the expected level
    for non smokers not exposed to tobacco smoke.
    
    

    
    RE.[.7] 
    
    	WOT NO SMILEYS !!!!!!   :-)
    
    

	I must object in the strongest possible terms to the censorship
of this note.  This issue is bound to elicit strong views expressed in an 
emotive way, after all, it's a life and death matter we are discussing.

	Censorship of these opinions will not defuse the situation but will 
only serve to exacerbate the frustrations felt by denying them an outlet.  
The people reading this notes file are all known to each other and the 
majority of us are adult enough to dismiss the emotive excesses of the few
without suffering any major psychological trauma.

	Please consider more carefully in future before deciding to protect 
me from the others I'm actually a lot stronger than I look.

    
    If one cannot speak freely in a closed conference ( where all the
    participants are in easy puffing distance of each other anyway ) then 
    why bother to discuss emotive issues in the first place ?
    
    Heavy handedness by the moderator is likely to cause lots of
    
    DEL/ENTRY=CSGUK_SYSTEMS
    
    Dave W
    

    re .12
    
    Could not agree more with Clive's point.
    
    As it is NONE SMOKING DAY, I was a little peeved when 4 young ladies
    decided to have a puff in the shift kitchen where I was having my
    lunch. The reason they were smoking there was to not annoy people
    in their work area!!!!!
    
    Attitude slowly hardening.
    
    Norm B

	I must acclaim in the strongest possible terms the censorship
of this note.  This issue is bound to elicit strong views expressed in an 
emotive way, after all, it's a life and death matter we are discussing.

	Censorship of these opinions may not defuse the situation, but WILL 
prevent slanging matches and slanderous accusations.
 
    	Censorship is particularly important in a free society.  After all, 
there ARE people who would like to censor smoking.  I've no objection to that.

	Well done Mod.!

    As you may be aware I agreed to be a moderator of this conference
    from today.I have been involved with notes files since it came into
    being so I do know a little about what is and what is not allowed.
    
    You may think that just because this is a members only conference
    you can say what you like when you like.Not so! This conference
    exists on a piece of equipment belonging to Digital Equipment Company
    Limited and as such must conform to the Corporate guidelines.What
    that means in a nutshell is "thou shalt not slag anybody".I can
    dig out the actual reference if you like.
    
    Let me tell you a story.There was once a members only conference
    called JOKES.Well,it was closed down by corporate personnel because
    one of the members complained about the number of ethnic jokes in
    it.The moderator was very nearly fired for mis-use of company
    equipment.The excuse that it was members only was termed irrelevant.
    There will always be somebody who will complain and it's the moderators
    who catch it in the neck.I notice nobody else stuck their hand up
    when Richard asked for co moderators!
    
    As for calling it censorship I think you are mistaken.If you are
    that desperate to see the contents of a hidden entry then mail the
    author and ask for details.
    
    So go to it gentleman,the floor is yours.Be as open as you wish
    but do try to avoid personal attacks.Bash the argument not the person.
    
    
    John Johnson
    

     Re 5.13, I don't see you volunteering to moderate,Dave? A thankless
    task,I know,but I'll weather the blows,apart from Clive,that is.
    
    Lets say, if we want to slag each other let it be known that it is in
    jest,re Bob's smiley's......
    
    
     Meanwhile back to the issue......Smoking or none smoking..... 

    hows about 1:smokeless ashtrays - there are certain ashtrays on
    the market that actually prohibit smoke polluting a surrounding
    area.
    &  2.ionisers to freshen the air of the office(correct me if i am
    wrong on the use of ionisers please.
    
    km

    .18 should read inhibit not prohibit as telling smoke not to pollute
    an area tends not to work too well
    

    
    Is'nt there such a thing as a 'Smoke Repellent' Kev? You know...
    You can buy these aerosol cans (CFC free...of course!) which keep
    the flys away when your sunbathing. I'm sure that you could get
    a similar product that keeps Smoker's away or even their bi-products!
    
    
    A previous smoker.. or maybe.. still do?

    what the hell is a smoke repellant kev,ian.& is there an ian repellant
    aerosol?If so please tell me where this may be purchased.	
    
    

    
    
      As a smoker I would like the non smokers to answer a few simple
    questions.
    
    1) Whilst interviewing for your present position, was you told that
    the CSC is a "smoke free enviroment" ?
    
    2) Was the CSC a free of smokers when you joined your present group
    ?
    
    3) Did you refuse to sign your "job offer" due to people smoking
    in the CSC ?
    
    4) Do you know of anyone who was refused a position in the CSC because
    they smoke ?
    
      If you answered NO to the above questions then :-
    
    a) YOU had the choice.
    
    b) YOU chose to WORK with smokers.
    
        If you personal decisions cause you so much distress.
    
    c) It may be time to update your CV. and move on.
    
        However, if you answered NO to the above questions.
    
     a) I appologise for my smoking.
    
     b) MY CV. willl be going in the post..
    
    
           
    
    
    
        Alan.

    
    		-----------{ DID ANYONE READ THE FIRST REPLY }-------------
    
    
    	What about my vote ?. With all this talk about democracy thats
    been going on in this notes file................let's get on with
    the voting............I'll start if you like..
    
    SHOULD WE SUFFER FROM STINKING SMOKE IN THE GENERAL WORK AREA ?
    
    
    		YES				NO
    	     ---------			     ---------
    
    						 X
    
    
    				Regards,
    					An impartial observer.

    
    
    ROB...........WHEN IS YOUR LEAVING DATE ????????
                  ==== 
    
    WE LIVE AND LEARN,I THOUGHT CENSORSHIP WAS TO STOP KIDS WATCHING
    BONKING FILMS !!!!
    
    
    

    
    In reply to Alans note (5.22)
    
    When I was hired into the CSC I asked about the smoking policy and
    was told that it was under review and smoking in the work areas
    would probably be banned from January 1989.
    
    		 What happened ? .....NOTHING.
    
    Alan then goes on to suggest that if you do not like smoking then
    maybe it's time to move on......... In June I am re-joining field
    service...........back to the lovely clean air of computer rooms.
    
    Unlike Alan, I am of the opinion that there must be some common
    ground. You cannot ban smoking, it is not an offence though it is
    often offensive. My vote calls for no smoking in the work areas,
    NOT no smoking in the building.
    
    				Rob.

    
    In reply to Rob's note (5.25)
    
    I would like to state that I am not totally against "the common
    ground"
    
    5.22 was there merely to point out many people that now complain
    about the smokers originally agreed to work with smokers.
    
     Don't forget the only thing in life you HAVE to do is die..
      If you don't like working with smokers then.....
      If you don't like working where there is no smoking then.....
    
      The choice is YOURS..
     

    
    Nigel,
    	  to be precise............ 26-May-1989  17:30.
    
    				Rob.

        My own feelings on smoking, took a dramatic turn a few years
    back.My father who had smoked 40/day for 25 years, suddenly without
    warning, was struck by a massive Angina attack.The symptoms were
    similar to a heart attack.I got in the car & rushed to the hospital
    a hundred miles away, fearing the worst.
    
        I got there & things were better than I had feared.It was one
    of the biggest shocks I had had.The thing that angered me so much,
    was that the cause of this illness was self-inflicted.
    
     So it is not purely secondary smoking that can cause distress,
    to other people, it is the distress caused to one's own family
    should things go wrong.
    
    PS. He hasn't smoked a single cigarette since...
                                        
         

    Being a non-smoker,I,like so many non smokers dislike the smell
    of cigarettes,being in a smokey environment & having my clothes
    smelling of ciggies.
          However,unlike many of the participants of this note do not
    get out of my tree over people doing something they enjoy.Unless
    the smoke is blown directly into my face it does not cause any 
    major hassle.I feel that a lot of the non smokers taking part 
    here are going over the top about the "smoky environment".
    "smoky environment"?
    Come on lads get off the soapbox.
    Let these poor addicts die in peace it may be the only bit of 
    pleasure they have.
    Anyway,with this big hole in the ozone layer developing nicely the
    smokes all gonna get sucked out.
    
    
    Kevin(cant see for all the smoke(haha))m

    A vote of the European Parliament was conducted a few months ago,
    and were it not for the Italian vote (against), smoking would have
    been banned in all public places in Europe.
    
    The Belgians did their own thing anyway. It is now illegal to smoke
    in a public place in Belgium.
    
    Steve.

    
    
    	I vote NO - with the forthcoming refurbishments to the CSC,
    it should be a simple matter to set aside a specific smoking area
    for the committed adicts.

    
    
    
    	No.

    
    
    		BALLOT FORM.
    
    	Motion: Should our atmosphere be polluted by stinking smoke?
    
    
    	Your vote:	YES		NO
    
    					X
    
    	Name: Steve Plank.

    
    
    My Vote for smoke is....
    
               	
    		mmmmmm....well I....do'nt really kno....Oh all right
    then.....
    
    			
    
    		Yours sincerely
    
    		A Once, Fence-sitter

    i think we should have an area set aside for smokers.
    
    
    Then we could all throw rotten tomatoes & such things at them -
    wouldn't that be fun!!!
    
    Lets call this area the csg..
    

    MAY I SUGGEST THAT THE WHOLE OF THE TOP FLOOR SHOULD BE INVOLVED
    IN A VOTE.....THE MAJORITY OF SMOKERS ARE IN THE RESPONSE GROUP,PERHAPS
    WE CAN VOTE TO KEEP THE NON-SMOKERS OUT OF OUR AREA AND OFF OUR
    BACKS.....LETS PARTITION THE BUILDING......NOW !!!!!!!!
    

    
    
    I gave up smoking at christmas - but just because I'm a reformed
    smoker, I don't see what right I've got to dictate to others what
    they can or can't do. 
    
    I vote in favour of smoking.

    
    
    Well said Paul....I'll give you that 5 quid later...
    I'm on both sides!!!
    
    
    
    And I dont smoke either.
    

    
    RE:"I dont smoke"
    If anybody says I do,they've got to PROVE IT!
    
    

    you wont get the girls to kiss you just to taste your breath
    steve!!!!!!!!ha ha ..
    
    nic.
    
    
    smokers joke.
    
    smoker*"Dr,Dr I cant stop smoking"
    
    Dr nicotine:"hokay you'd better drag yerself up on to the couch"
    
    ha ha 

    I vote NO to smoking. I am in favour of an area where smokers can
    go and have a puff.
    
    Norm B.

    
    
    	I vote NO, because Clive told me to say No.

    I'm a (passive) smoker.  I don't want to be a smoker.  I don't want
    to smell like a smoker.  I don't expect to have to change my job
    in order to give up smoking.  I don't have any strong feelings on
    the subject.
    
    
    I vote        NO!!!!!!!!!

            The suggestion has been made in this "oracle" that anyone
    who objects to smoking should leave.     That is tantamount to saying
    that non-smokers should not be allowed to work !     The situation
    may slowly be getting better, but there are still few work places
    that are completely smoke free.
             Perhaps the point is not just about individual choice ?
    This is a place of work (at least for some of us :-) ), and as such
    falls within the scope of the Health & Safty at Work Act.   It is
    illegal for a company to force/allow people to work in an unsafe
    environment.   Now it has been proven that passive smoking is harmful,
    a smoke filled atmosphere is not in  Digital's best interest.    It
    is only a matter of time before we , as a company , get sued over
    this matter.
             I sugggest it would  be pertinent to grasp the nettle of
    restrictive smoking now.    Before a non-smoking , lung cancer victim
    rams it up our Corporate Backside.
    
             
             I vote NO
    
                            Bruce
    
    
    
    

    
    
     Bruce, 
        Reply .22 did not state that non smokers should/have to or must
     leave..
    
      It did however state that those who now object to so fiercly to
     smoking, originally decided (of THEIR OWN free will) to work in
    with smokers in this building.
    
      the real question is :-
      Why do the non smokers want to change an enviroment that they
    once wanted to work in ?
      ( or were YOU all forced to work here by the some horrific beasty)
    
      Alan -I REALY wanted to work here- Bell.
    

    
    
           Alan
                  How can I make this more clear (watch my fingers :-))
    I know smoking was allowed here, as it was almost anywhere, when
    we joined.   So the only choice we have is :-
    
        EITHER   we work here & put up with the smoke.
    
        OR       we stay at home & hope that no one is smoking at the
                 dole office on our weekly trip there.
    
           Yes I guess your right, it is an horrific beasty that forces
    us to work here.    Its called a Mortgage .
    
    
                                         Bruce
    
    
     

    
      Bruce, 
          Why do you say that you only alternative is the "dole".
    
      Surely Bruce you have ALL the qualities of a lumberjack ('cause
     your OK :-))
    
      Even you have to admit that it was more than money that helped
     you decide to work here.
    
    
      Alan.

re .22    
    

�    1) Whilst interviewing for your present position, was you told that
�    the CSC is a "smoke free enviroment" ?
    
No - but then I didn't ask. At that time the passive smoking issue had 
not become so popular.

�    2) Was the CSC a free of smokers when you joined your present group
�    ?
 
No but the whole building was not in use at that time and the air moving
system was not installed.
   
�    3) Did you refuse to sign your "job offer" due to people smoking
�    in the CSC ?
 
If I had, I wouldn't be answering this, would I?
   
�    4) Do you know of anyone who was refused a position in the CSC because
�    they smoke ?
 
No. I would be surprised if this happened. Why are you asking this question?
   
�      If you answered NO to the above questions then :-
�    
�    a) YOU had the choice.
�    
�    b) YOU chose to WORK with smokers.
 
Agreed. However, a lot of things have changed since I came here. There are
more people and more smokers and there is a need to look at conditions as
they are now. The conditions at the time I joined are irrelevant.
   
�        If you personal decisions cause you so much distress.
 
I have no great problem with the smokers. I would prefer an environment 
free of smoke to work in but I'm not going to resign if it doesn't happen.
   

�    c) It may be time to update your CV. and move on.
 
Ahhh, the old "stuff you mate, I'm alright" syndrome.
   
�        However, if you answered NO to the above questions.
    
You've said this twice. Trying the confusion trick too, eh?



�     a) I appologise for my smoking.
    
�     b) MY CV. willl be going in the post..
    
Wanna buy a stamp?  

If we did get a smoke free work environment with designated smoking
areas, would you leave?

Roland      
           

    	Thanks Alan, at last one smoker is putting forward
	valid points.

re 5.22
�    1) Whilst interviewing for your present position, was you told that
�    the CSC is a "smoke free enviroment" ?

	No; However at the time I was very concerned about the 
	effects of smoke on my health.  I am allergic to smoke 
	(amongst other things), and as such, have suffered greatly
	since I started work here (August '85).  When I joined
	I believed that the company, DEC, would provide a safe
	and healthy environment. 	
	 
�    2) Was the CSC a free of smokers when you joined your present group
 
 	No; Unfortunately not.    
    
�    3) Did you refuse to sign your "job offer" due to people smoking
        in the CSC ?
    
	No; It is very difficult to determine what the working environment
	is like from one visit to the building.  I joined the CSC in mid-
	summer from outside DEC, I had no way of knowing how bad the 
	environment could be.  Remember it was mid-summer, all the windows
	were open.  I mistakenly assumed that the building was air 
	conditioned, and that smoke was not a problem, AND again that DEC
	would provide a healthy environment. 

�    4) Do you know of anyone who was refused a position in the CSC because
        they smoke ?
    
	No; I have NO objections to anyone in the CSC being a smoker, and
	would support anyone who was refused a job on those grounds. 
	But, (and this is important) you must understand that everyone has
	a right to employment, smokers and non-smokers, but that employment
	should be made as safe as can be.  If this is possible in the States,
	why not here?   (are you listening DEC?)

�   a) YOU had the choice.
   
	Agreed.
 
    
�   c) It may be time to update your CV. and move on.
    
	If only life were so easy.  On bad days (ie very smokey), its
	always in the back of my mind.  Its not easy living with that
	pressure; one has to consider one's family (wife and two kids)
	ie should I put them under the strain of a move away from DEC,
	or the undeniable problems of working long hours in the field.
	    
�    a) I appologise for my smoking.
    
	Thanks, you are the first to do so.

re 5.26    
�    5.22 was there merely to point out many people that now complain
�    about the smokers originally agreed to work with smokers.
        
    	Because the problem is getting worse, and the dangers are more
    	evident.
    
	Come on Alan, you can't stop progress...
	Take the asbestos industry, the nuclear industry, coalmining,
	steel industry... standards in the workplace *are* improving.
	What was thought to be safe only a few years ago is now
	recognised not to be so.  It is only recently that the true
	horrors of passive smoking have been recognised.
    
re 5.46
�      the real question is :-
�      Why do the non smokers want to change an enviroment that they
�      once wanted to work in ?
     
	Because we strive for progress, just like the asbestos workers
	did when they knew that the workplace was dirty, unsafe, 
	unhealthy; and the coalminers, the workers in the nuclear industry
	and so on.  Everyone should be concerned with their health,  I
	certainly am.
	    
	There are many things that affect our health and well-being, 
	stress, eyestrain (problems working long hours with VDU's),
	tiredness from working long shifts etc. Smoking is just another
	issue.  Is is however, the only one that I have no control over.
	I can't stop breathing for a rest from it (even if Nigel says so :-))
	I can't force you to stop smoking.  
    
    	It is for me the most worrying, frustrating, and destructive issue
    	in working my life.

	Brian    
        

    THE PREVIOUS NOTE MUST BE HIDDEN...HE'S :-
    
    
         "HAVING-A-GO" AT ME AGAIN  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
    
    
  NIGE  
    

    
     Roland, Brian,
          You have a very good point, however we do work with people from
    varied walks of life. Each person has their own vices, for
    every one else will moan about.
      Basically yours and everyone elses points are valid for your personal
    reasons.
      In answer to your question, Yes I would leave, as I feel that
    I would not be able to work in a relaxed enviroment while having
    restrictions on my movements.
    
         Correct me if I'm wrong.
     
      You stated that more poeple are smoking now. Stats show that smoking
    is definitely on a decrease so if you wait long enough DEC won't
    have to waste money building cupboards for smokers.
    
    
                   

    
    Sorry people but when I was born I thought my mum told me I lived
    in england,well it now appears that I'm living in Russia...communists
    and all...
    
    I resent peolpe telling me what I can do where I can do it and how
    much of it I can have.....
    
    The average person who smokes probably gets about 15-20 fags at
    work,each ciggy taking approx 5 mins,so that means if we had an
    area set aside for smoking we would need to be away from our desks
    for about an hour and a half!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
    
    Do you really think the management would allow this,not very cost
    effective is it??????????????????????
    
    Why dont all you negative peolpe out there give us some motivation
    ie,get the managers to give us a slight pay increase for not smoking
    at work............
    
    I dislike some things people do at work,like wearing offensive ties,
    eating garlic the night before and breathing all over me,but do
    you hear me complaining.....................no no.....
    
    
    
    

>>    The following article appeared in last Friday's "Basingstoke Gazette"
>>    under the headline of "Firms Get Tough on the Smokers".
        
>>    At DIGITAL the rules are stacked heavily in favour of non-smokers.
>>    'We operate a system of smoking by permission only', said a spokesman.
>>    'If there is one non-smoker in a room of 20 then he can ask the
>>    others not to light up and they MUST go along with it'
    
What right has our "press spokesperson" to give this totally misleading 
impression of life inside DEC (or can we simply blame the paper for
 misquoting them?).

The "room" I work in has a very large number of people who object to 
smoking in the same "room" as can be seen from this conference. The fact that
my workroom just happens to be an open plan work area seems to make it OK
for those who wish to override my wishes NOT to inhale their smoke.

What the Gazette DID NOT say was the majority of office based employees 
spend the  majority of their working time in the same type of enviroment.

Of my time in Viables I probably spend less than 1% in a conference room 
where I can have a real say on the question of smoking and even then
smokers don't always ask. They just light up in the middle of a presentation!

As you have probably gathered by now my vote would be for a NON smoking
office enviroment but I believe we should provide a place for those who
can't or don't wish to kick their addiction.

   
    

Note 5.7                      TO SMOKE OR FUMEE....                      7 of 54
KERNEL::GARNETT                                       9 lines   7-MAR-1989 07:44
              -< YOU'LL PROBABLY MAKE A GOOD MANAGER,FOR "IBM"?? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           In reply to note 5.6
                           --------------------
        I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT THE ONLY POSITVE ACTION THAT CAN
    BE TAKEN TO FIX YOUR PERSONAL PROBLEM IS ........EUTHANASIA !!!!!
    
    ALTERNATIVELY WHY DONT YOU WEAR A "SMOGMASK" OR A 100% OXYGEN FED
    GOLDFISH BOWL ON YOUR HEAD (I'LL WILLINGLY SUPPLY THE MATCH).
    
    MOST SMOKERS TREAT THE SUBJECT AS BEING "SENSITIVE"..."BULLS IN
    CHINA SHOPS" DO MORE DAMAGE THAN GOOD.
                                            BUT DON'T LAUGH TOO HARD!
                                              (ed by mod with consent).

    
>    Sorry people but when I was born I thought my mum told me I lived
>    in england,well it now appears that I'm living in Russia...communists
>    and all...
 

    When you were born? Even people with communist beliefs can exist
    in England, as you rightly intimate, England is a democracy.
    
       
>    I resent peolpe telling me what I can do where I can do it and how
>    much of it I can have.....
 
     Sorry, you are employed by Digital & they have every right to tell
    you what to do,where & how.    
     I resent having to inhale smoke impregnated air, I am not telling
    you to do anything, I have no choice in breathing air as Brian
    previously stated.
    
>    The average person who smokes probably gets about 15-20 fags at
>    work,each ciggy taking approx 5 mins,so that means if we had an
>    area set aside for smoking we would need to be away from our desks
>    for about an hour and a half!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
    
>    Do you really think the management would allow this,not very cost
>    effective is it??????????????????????

    I like a drink, but I can wait until lunch time or the evening for
    one.In field service smokers are forcably restriced from smoking
    in computer suites, a case of machines being given more concern
    than the humans that make them.
        
>    Why dont all you negative peolpe out there give us some motivation
>    ie,get the managers to give us a slight pay increase for not smoking
>    at work............

    Negative people? do you mean the majority of non-smokers? Bribery
    would work? How about 365 days leave per year?
    
    I don't believe anyone is even suggesting you give up your pleasure,
    just that non-smokers are given some degree of respect in their opinions.
                            
Richard.    
        
    
    
    

    Join the conference, they said.
    
    Say something inflammatory, they said...
    
    " Cigarette "  I said...(geddit ?! inflammatory? .....please yourself)
    
    Whats the argument?
    
    Passive smoking is WRONG.
    
    YOUR habit affects MY health.
    
    Either get better air conditoning/ designated smoking areas or ban
    it. Simple as that.
    
    
    Tom 'Nazi' Scuffham
    
    

    
    
    Re 5.53
    
    Michael Ryan was born in England, & his Mum probably told him he
    was living in a free country.   He exercised his freedom of choice
    by stepping out onto the streets of Hungerford where he carried
    out an extremely anti-social activity, which directly resulted
    in several deaths due to Lead poisoning.
    Had he been asked to explain his behaviour, he may well have replied
    "I really resent being told who I can shoot........"
    
    Living in England does not mean you can do exactly whatever you
    please, regardless to any resulting harm to others.
    
    O.K. O.K. I know its an extreme example, & perhaps in rather bad
    tast.   And NO I do NOT think that people who smoke are in any way,
    shape or form, similar to mass murderers, nor evil or undesirable
    types (perhaps a little thoughtless sometimes ? ).
    
    This is not intended to be an attack, on smokers, but rather on
    an intolerant attitude.    As such I feel it is an extremely valid
    point !
    
    
          Bruce
     

    
    Re 5.53
    		
    	Daryl,
    
    	I'm really not sure if this outburst is in jest... but I've
    	a sneaking suspicion that its not.
    
    	Do you take this attitude in general, or is it your addiction
    	to tobacco that distorts your mind?     Think about it.
    
    	As to whether or not DEC management would allow smoking breaks
    	in dedicated smoking areas,  speak to K.O., the *whole* of
    	DEC US works this way.
    
    	Brian
    
    

    
    Re .52
    
    Can the health and welfare of the non-smokers wait until all smokers
    give up voluntarily ?  I doubt it, read Lifeline in Connect for
    a doctors opinion.
    
    Re .53
    
    The quantity of cigarettes you suggest equates to 2 per hour. The
    idea of "Permitted smoke breaks" at regular intervals, would be
    to help you cut down on smoking, rather than maintain current level.
    Digital always attempts to compromise, by allowing what may be
    considered reasonable. No way can they run their business (and
    therefore pay your wages) on the amount of breaks you suggest.
    
    Might I suggest, that you read section 6.30 of the Policies and
    Procedures Manual and I quote the last paragraph on page 1,
    "People who wish to smoke in Digital facilities should take into
    account that some people may be affected medically by smoke and
    others may find smoke annoying.Employees who choose to smoke at
    work should do so with the utmost consideration and bear in mind
    the effect their action has on others"
    
    Regarding your attempted comparison with ties and garlic.How can
    a tie affect anyones health, and you can move away from anyone
    who has consumed an excess of garlic. Try getting away from cigarette
    smoke, it invades one's hair and clothes as well as lungs. Ties
    and garlic have yet to be proven as health hazards.
    
    Please don't mis-understand me, I am not against smoking where it
    doesn't affect myself or others. Outside of the office, e.g in your
    own home, I am quite happy for you to smoke as much as you like.
    After all it's your life and you are free to damage your health, if you
    so wish. 
    
    But please, don't force proven hazards on those of us who care about
    our health. We may have our own habits and pleasures, but we confine
    them our own time.
    

    
    
    
    In CCD and RESPONSE area there is a high percentage of smokers.
    If we were to leave our desks to have smoke breaks the amount of
    calls getting answered would suffer and there would be longer delays.
    
    I would be willing to go to a smoking area to light-up if they were
    allocated but I dont think that we would be allowed. We have trouble
    enough with the red-light count when someone goes to the canteen
    to get a sandwich in peak-time.
    
    When we get the ventilation system improved I am sure that the office
    atmosphere won't be nearly as stuffy/smokey and we will get a lot more 
    'fresh' air into the building through the vents (I think someone once
    told me that our 'air conditioning' system only brings in 20% of air
    from outside).
    
    I would be pleased to see a ban on smoking on all public transport
    as I hate being trapped in a smokey bus or carriage on a train.
    
    Trevor
    

	The following is an extract from Connect dated 11-Mar-1989 :-

	>		WE ARE ALL LIVING DANGEROUSLY
        >
	>		          	LIFELINE with Dr Garry Heritage
        >
	>	Smoking is the greatest risk factor of all. Cigarette
	>	smoking  causes a third of all cancer  deaths with at
	>	least 90 per  cent of lung  cancers  due to  smoking.
	>       There is now  evidence  that non-smoker's  health can 
	>	now be damaged by constant exposure to other people's
	>	cigarettes.  Smokers  stop  as  quickly as  possible.
                                           
   Give  it up. You'll  feel  fitter, happier  and  healthier. Life is good.
   Life is fun. Don't let a little weed destroy this wonderful gift we have.
	
   Alan.
    

    RE 5.58
    BRUCE.....I GAVE UP SMOKING "LEAD" YEARS AGO !!!!!!!
    
    RE 5.62
    ALAN......AS AN ACTIVE AND "PASSIVE" SMOKER FOR 33 YEARS I CONSIDER MY
    STATE OF HEALTH TO BE FAR BETTER THAN MANY OF THE NON-SMOKERS THAT
    I HAVE WORKED WITH OVER THOSE YEARS !!!!
    
    NIGE................SMILEYS (AS/IF REQUIRED !!!)
                                 
    

    
    re 5.63:
    
    	Nige, you may consider yourself healthy now, but so far you've
    	been LUCKY.  Stop kidding yourself smoking does'nt damage your
    	health, it does.  You can't ignore the facts, they speak for
    	themselves.  You are aware of the risks and have chosen to take
    	them...  I can understand why you smoke.
    
    	Please consider those of us who choose not to smoke, (active
    	or passive).
    
    	Brian 

    BRIAN,
          I HAVE ALWAYS CONSIDERED "NON-SMOKERS" (EVEN THE ONES AS UNHEALTY
    AS YOU....SMILEYS GALORE !!!!!).....AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT OUR
    MANAGEMENT SHOULD TAKE STEPS (%#@&%$# GREAT BIG ONES) TO FIX THE
    PROBLEM.
          IF TO BAN SMOKING CAUSES A PAIN, FROM A OPERATION VIEWPOINT
    , THEN STEPS MUST BE TAKEN...SOONEST...TO SEGREGATE US.
    
    ******* WHY DONT WE START PUTTING UP OFFICE PARTITIONING ?? ******
    
    ****** LOADS OF "SMILEYS"....TO ANYONE WHO MAY BE OFFENDED ******
    
    NIGE
    
    

    As a 30-a-day woman (and that's on a good day) I think we should
    have a vote - believe it or not I'd actually vote in favour of
    non-smoking.   BUT ...... only if there was a place set aside
    for us to have a quick puff.
    
    Now, my husband is a smoker and he works in a recently made smoke
    -free atmosphere.  The first week of the ban saw him and other co-
    smokers rush out every half hour or so, but then they realised
    that they were wasting so much time. (AND if you ask people who
    have given up the weed, they all say how much a time-waste smoking
    is!).  After the initial panic at his work, things settled down
    very quickly and now smokers go out once in the morning and once
    in the afternoon.  Result hubby can save lots of money and take
    me on exciting holidays (well, I got a Cadbury's cream egg last
    week).
    
    WHY NOT A VOTE.....??????????

    Okay then. We have got to the 67th reply.
    
    What is being done?
    
    It seems as if almost EVERYONE is in favour of some kind of ban.
    
    IS there anything being done?
    
    Or will we all be moaning 67 notes in the future?
    
    

    You got it Tom; we'll all be moaning 67 notes in the future, and
    then some!
    
    The simple solution is to become an MP, get the law changed, and
    THEN the CSC will tackle the problem.
        
    Theo.

    
    With the refurbishment of the shift kitchen under starters orders
    AND the relocation of the fag machine what do you all feel about
    a NO SMOKING notice in the shift kitchen ?
    
    Hmmmmmm?
    
    
    
    

    re .69
    		Definitely in favour Tom.
    
    Norm B

    Definitely not. .... well maybe not.  If smoking is banned at your
    desk, I hope they wont ban it for the building.  Where the "smoking
    area" is I dont care, but I dont want to have to stub my butt end
    on your slightly dented car Tom. 

re: 71
    
    Should people be smoking where others are eating Helen ?
    
    Do you want all the NEW furnishings smelling of smoke and
    covered in ash ?
    
    I think the shift kitchen is an ideal place to start the 'ban' ;-)
    
    Tom
    
    (...and speaking of dented cars Helen )
    
                                   

    HAVING USED THE SHIFT KITCHEN FOR THE LAST "SEVEN" YEARS, I HAVE
    FREQUENTLY FOUND THAT APPART FROM THE CARD SCHOOL NOBODY ELSE USES
    IT....I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT A TOTAL BAN IN A ROOM WERE
    I SIT ALONE...I ALSO SIT AS CLOSE TO THE EXTRACTOR FAN AS I CAN.
    
    **** I STRONLY OPPOSE A BAN,UNTIL AN ALTERNATIVE IS PROVIDED ****
    
                                                               
    

    I AGREE ENTIRELY WITH NIGEL ON THIS ONE..... IF THERE IS A BAN
    IN THE SHIFT KITCHEN THEN WE SHOULD HAVE A DESIGNATED "SMOKING AREA"
    BUT AT THE MOMENT, I'M HAPPILY SMOKING EVERYWHERE EXCEPT THE LOOS

    
    In spite of his denials, STEVE EDMUNDS has been witnessed 
    
    
                       " SMOKING "
    
    Witnesses were Norman Bland and myself.
    
    [I'll bring the camera in tomorrow - Steve %-) %-) ]

    
    
    ALL UNTRUE.....I WITNESSED THAT HE WASN'T REALLY SMOKING !!!!!!
    
    

    
    
    
    
    AND I'LL BRING IN THE MONEY TOMORROW NIGE!!!!!
    

    
    Held in his grubby mitt was a slender cylindrical white paper wrapped 
    item, filter tipped, approximately 3 inches in length and the end of 
    which was glowing/onfire and emitting a plume of noxious odours in the 
    form of a greyish white smoke. When challenged, he attempted to
    hide the item in a glass receptacle which was later found to be
    called an "Ash-Tray". In this receptacle was found the remains of
    several other white paper wrapped items, all showing signs of having
    been burnt at some stage in their recent past.
    
    Was he a secret smoker ???   Was he an arsonist ???
    Or was he being really security conscious, rolling up his notepad
    pages, and burning them, so that passwords etc would not fall 
    into unauthorised hands ????  Could that racking cough be a clue
    to his surreptitious activities ???

    
    
    
    NIGEL SAID I CANT SIT ON HIS DESK UNLESS I PRETEND TO SMOKE!!!
    
    
    
    
    (...and my mitts weren't very grubby......I'd just licked them clean.)
                             

    Steve boy...
    
    do you smoke after sex...???
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    or haven't you looked...!!!

    
    
    HE WOULDN'T KNOW....HE'S TO UNFIT TO HAVE THE ENERGY TO CHECK !!!!!!!
    
    

    
    
    I dont know Paul......I just can't remember! 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

                    
    PROOF:
    
    (LOTS OF TIME) + (DO NOTHING) = 0
                                  = (IT WILL FIZZLE OUT)
                                  = (IT WILL DEGENERATE INTO ABSURDITY)
          
    CONCLUSION:
    
    DO NOTHING
    ----------

    
    THEO....I'VE NEVER KNOWN YOU TO BE SO CONCLUSIVE.....
    
    PS.....WERE YOU COMMENTING ON "SEX" OR "SMOKING"
    
    PPS....WE ALL HAVE A CROSS TO BEAR...............SMILEYS !!!!!
    

    
    
    Just because I cant remember,it doesn't mean its fizzled out or
    absurd...I hope!
    

    	The following information is a transcript of Fact Sheet 7,
	ASH, (Action on Smoking and Health).   Its rather long, but please
	find time to read it.
	
	Brian.



	Passive Smoking
	===============


Breathing other people's smoke is called passive, involuntary or second-
hand smoking.  The nonsmoker breathes "sidestream" smoke from the  burning
tip of the cigarette and "mainstream" smoke that has been inhaled and then
exhaled by the smoker.  Smokers are also exposed to sidestream smoke from their
own and others' cigarettes.  Many people spend much of their lives indoors and
tobacco smoke can make a significant, measurable contribution to the level of
indoor air pollution. (1)

What's in the smoke?
-------------------
Tobacco smoke is highly complex and contains thousands of chemicals which are
released into the air as particles and gases.  Many potentially toxic gases
are present in higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream
smoke and nearly 85% of the smoke in a room results from sidestream smoke. (2)
The particulate phase includes tar (itself composed of many chemicals), 
nicotine, benzene, and benzo(a)pyrene.  The gas phase includes carbon monoxide
ammonia, dimethylnitrosamine, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and acrolein.
Some of these have marked irritant properties and some 60, are known or 
suspected carcinogens (cancer causing substances), including benzo(a)pyrene
and dimethylnitrosamine.

How does this affect the passive smoker?
---------------------------------------
As well as causing annoyance by making hair and clothes smell unpleasant,
involuntary smoke exposure can cause symptoms such as eye irritation, headache, 
cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea and produce small but measurable
changes in the air passages in the lungs of otherwise healthy adults.
Adults with asthma experience a significant and substantial decline in lung
function when exposed to sidestream smoke for one hour (3).  People with
allergies and other respiratory and heart ailments may be more seriously
affected.

The effects of long-term exposure
---------------------------------
In March 1988 the Government's Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking
and Health (ISCSH) published its fourth report, dealing in particular with
passive smoking (4).  The Committee scrutinised epidemiological studies on
the effects of passive smoking and found that the overall findings were
consistent with an increased risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers in the range
of 10-30%.  This means that is the risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers is,
say, 10 per 100,000, the risk in an exposed group would be 11 to 13 per
100,000.  This means that several hundred of the 40,000 deaths from lung
cancer each year may be caused by passive smoking.

When this risk is compared to other cancer risks, it is found that the
lifelong risk from passive smoking is more than 100 times higher than the
estimated effects of 20 years exposure to chrysotile asbestos normally
found in asbestos-containing buildings (5).

What is important is that (a) large numbers of people are involved; 
(b) some of these are at a greater risk than the general population due to
pre-existing cardiac or respiratory conditions and/or prolonged exposure
in homes or at the workplace; and (c) there is no "safe" level of exposure
to carcinogens.

Studies have found increased risk of diseases other than lung cancer in
nonsmokers married to smokers and in nonsmokers whose parents smoked (6).
Several studies have identified a possible link between passive smoking
and heart disease but as yet the evidence is inconclusive.  In a study
where nonsmokers who had worked for 20 years with smokers but who were not
exposed to cigarette smoke at home were found to have sustained lung damage
similar to that of light smokers,  researchers concluded that chronic 
exposure to tobacco smoke in the workplace reduces small airways function to
the same extent as smoking 1 to 10 cigarettes a day (7).  Similarly, it has
been found that amounts of cotinine, a derivative of nicotine, in non-
smokers exposed to others' smoke were similar to the amounts found in light
smokers.

Are young children at risk?
--------------------------
Infants of parents who smoke are more likely to be admitted to hospital for
bronchitis and pneumonia in the first year of life.  Chronic cough and phlegm
are also more frequent among children of parents who smoke.  The ISCSH said:
"By enhancing the frequency or severity of childhood respiratory illnesses, 
(passive smoking) could contribute to the development of respiratory disease
in adult life among nonsmokers." (4).  The ISCSH also found evidence for an
association between  exposure to passive smoking and low birthweight and
said that, since active smoking confers a hazard on the health of the unborn
baby, passive smoking might be expected to confer one also, albeit a smaller
one (4). (see also ASH Fact Sheet 8 "Smoking and Reproduction" for 
information on the effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy.)

Should nonsmokers be protected?
------------------------------
Experts have concluded that, given public health initiatives to minimise
or eliminate involuntary public exposure to other environmental pollutants 
with less carcinogenic potency than several of the substances in tobacco smoke,
similar efforts to prevent involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke are necessary.
In the USA, some 40 states restrict smoking in public places and workplace
smoking policies have increased dramatically in the 1980s.  According to a 
survey carried out by the Bureau of National Affairs in 1986, 36% of the
responding organisations currently had a smoking policy, 2% were to implement
one during 1986 and another 21% had such a policy under consideration (8).

The ISCSH said that:
-------------------
"The health risks to nonsmokers (of passive smoking) provide added argument
for the reduction of smoking in the community, and nonsmoking should be
regarded as the norm in enclosed ares frequented by the public or employees, 
special provision being made for smokers, rather than vice versa." (4)

References:
(1) US Surgeon General, Health Concequences of Involuntary Smoking 1986
(2) US Surgeon General, The Health Consequences of Smoking: Chronic
    Obstructive Lung Disease, 1984
(3) Fielding, JE, New England J Med 1985. 313:491-498
(4) Fourth report of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and
    Health. HMSO March 1988
(5) Peto, J and Doll, R Br J Cancer 1986 54:381-383
(6) Sandler, DP et al, Amer J Epidemiol 1985 121:37-48
(7) White, J and Froeb, H N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 720
(8) Bereau of National Affairs, Where there's smoke, 1986.

    HOW ON EARTH DID YOU MANAGE TO DO ANY OTHER "WORK", WITH US BEING
    SO SHORT OF ENGINEERS ???
    I JUST CANT UNDERSTAND HOW ME MANAGE TO SURVIVE. WHAT WITH ALL THIS
    AIR POLLUTION, FOOD POLLUTION, WATER POLLUTION, AIDS, DEPLETING LAYERS.
    I GUESS WE WILL GET IT RIGHT ONE DAY..AND GET RUN OVER BY A "BUS".
    
    TO QUOTE THE "FIN"........"LIFE IS JUST A CROCK........."
    
    LOTS OF "SMILEYS"...JUST IN CASE !!!!
    
    NIGE
    
    
    

    That's ridiculous, Nige!
                      
    No smileys.
    
    Theo.
    
    ps. I'm glad to see you come to your senses when discussing The
        Rota.  It's amazing to agree with you on something! :-)

      PLEASE KEEP SMILING THEO..THE ALTERNATIVES ARE "CRYING" OR
    "GOING MAD".......MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ?????
    (WE'VE BEEN THIS WAY BEFORE....YOU WANTED ALL THE DECNET CALLS !!)
    
    NIGE (HOPING TO REMAIN "SANE")
              
    

    
    	Read MARVIN::UK_DIGITAL note 53.530
    
    	No smiley faces here nige.
    
    	Brian
    
    	kp7 to select
    

    
    
      I'M STILL SMILING , AT PRESENT ,  BRIAN...I DONT WORK FOR ENGINEERING
    ..HOPEFULLY BY THE TIME THEY START TO SCREW US , I'LL HAVE RETIRED!!
    
    HOPEFULLY THEY ARE NOT "TELEPHONE DRIVEN" AND PROBABLY GET "BREAKS",
    ..LIKE THEY HAVE AT THE CRESCENT..SIT DOWN BREAKFASTS...INDEED !!!
    
    I JUST HOPE THAT YOU ARE NOT PUSHING TOO HARD TO DISRUPT THE EFFICIENT,
    UNDER-STAFFED OPERATION OF THIS BUILDING ????
    
    NIGE...........SMILEYS (AS ALWAYS)
    

	The following information came from the no_smoking
    	conference, it is mainly of interest to our female
        smokers.  The source appears genuine.
    
    	
    
    
               <<< NEWS::YAKNOW$DUB1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]NO_SMOKING.NOTE;4 >>>
                        -< Welcome to NEWS::No_Smoking >-
================================================================================
Note 186.11     Report on Nat. Acad. of Sciences on Passive Smoke       11 of 11
R2ME2::OBRYAN "When in doubt, let the user decide."  19 lines  16-MAR-1989 21:19
                   -< Another study on passive smoke (JAMA) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Cause and effect, or coincidence?"
That's the latest question in the cigarette controversy.  It is raised by
researchers who say that even so-called Passive Smoking poses a risk of
cervical cancer.  Passive smoking, which has already been linked to lung
cancer,was put on another danger list.  A new study in the Journal of the
American Medical Association says that women who are exposed to other people's
smoking for 3 or more hours per day face almost 3 times the risk of cancer
of the cervix.  Women, especially non-smokers over 40,are said to be as
likely to get cervical cancer from what is called side stream smoke as they
would if they smoked themselves.  Martha Slattery, author of the study, said
"This is one more example of where being exposed to the smoke of other
people may also be very detrimental to your health."  Who's affected?
Women who work surrounded by smokers.  But the study found that the greatest
risk is being exposed to smoke at home.  The Tobacco industry said that
the study fails to prove that being exposed to cigarette smoke causes the
disease.  The Public Health Service says that the study, which was conducted
among 600 women in Utah, reinforced the Surgeon General's earlier
warnings about the dangers of Passive smoke

    
    	re -1, include all females, we are *all* smokers be it
        passive or active.
    
    	Nige this is a very sad face.

    BRIAN,
        I DONT WISH TO BE IMPOLITE, BUT WHERE PRECISELY ARE THEY INHALING
    THE SMOKE....SHOULD THIS BE PART OF A CIRCUS ACT ???
    
    NIGE.........STILL "SMILEYS"
    
    

    
    I notice FCM group is now a 'No Smoking Area'
    
    Is this the shape of things to come ?
    
    

    TOM,
       IT PROBABLY IS THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME.......BUT THEY HAVE
    NO WAY OF ENFORCING IT, OTHER THAN VIOLENCE....NON-SMOKERS TEND
    TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE (HARDENING OF ARTERIES)..WE SMOKERS JUST CALMLY
    FUR OURS UP.
                                                                     
    NIGE
    
    

re FCM area....


	Sally says that she's prepared to offer 
	a certain amount of violence. She's 
	already evicted a level 11 Service 
	Consultant, so don't mess with her!

Being constructive, we *have* provided an ashtray outside the area
so that people have the opportunity to respect our wishes.

           <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]UK_DIGITAL.NOTE;2 >>>
                       -< UK employees discussion forum >-
================================================================================
Note 53.571                 Smoking Policy in the UK                  571 of 573
UKCSSE::RDAVIES "Live long and prosper"              51 lines  22-AUG-1989 11:46
                        -< the new policy for Reading >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   The following just received:
    
    
                      I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M
    
                                            Date:     22-Aug-1989 11:28am BST
                                            From:     VMSMail User 
    DAVIDAB "David Allen-Butler Extn. 3519  22-Aug-1989 1127"@RDGENG@MRGATE
                                            Dept:
                                            Tel No:
    
    TO:  VMSMail Distribution List ( _@RDGENG::SEC)
    
    CC:  DAVIDAB@RDGENG@MRGATE
    
    Subject: Please distribute to all employees. Thank you.
    
    
                    PROPOSED ENGINEERING UK SMOKING POLICY
                    --------------------------------------
    
    The Engineering Management team in Reading has determined that the
    forthcoming changes in the space availability to engineering staff
    gives us the opportunity to introduce a formal smoking policy to
    engineering areas in DECPark1 and parts of DECPark2.  During the
    refurbishment work which is currently in progress, smoking rooms will
    be established in both DECPark1 and DECPark2.  Once these rooms are
    available for use, all staff and visitors will be prohibited from
    smoking in all other engineering office areas, conference rooms,
    corridors and toilets.  This policy is in line with that already in
    operation in our peer groups in the US.
    
    We expect that these rooms will be available around September and if
    this is successful then we intend to implement this policy at that
    time.  It is also intended that D space in DECPark1 will become a
    non-smoking area as soon as it is commissioned.  Confirmation of the
    implementation date and of the location of the smoking rooms will be
    provided when the logistics have been finalised. The smoking rooms are
    not intended as work areas and will not be equipped with terminals or
    workstations.  A telephone will be provided for emergency use only.
    
    It is already clear to the engineering managers that this policy is
    supported by a large majority of staff in engineering.  In order to
    gauge what impact this policy will have, all employees are invited to
    send their reactions to me by 1st September.  The EMT will meet on 8th
    September to discuss the feedback and make a final decision.
    
    David Allen-Butler
    Personnel Manager
    Engineering UK.
    

    Speculation:-
    		Is the new green shed in the front garden for all smokers?
    Or is it just for one particular cigar smoker?
    			Dave(With the built in air filter!)

    ....re .100
    	It would seem from the volume of smoke that it's for all smokers!!
    Either that, or someone is making up for previous restrictions!
    			Dave(With a sooty face!)

    I feel this issue should be raised again, as I for one am suffering
    	as a direct result of smoking not being restriced in my
    	immediate working environment. 80% of all major firms in
    	Britain have a smoking policy. Digital does have a policy
    	but asking someone to refrain from smoking is not an
    	effective policy. I have forwarded the following mail
    	to Theo to raise at the next H&S meeting. Horizon on
    	Monday night was all about passive smoking and the
    	issues it raised I feel should make non-smokers and
    	smokers think hard about the effects of smoking in general.
	As was pointed out in earlier notes in this topic, employers
    	have a legal obligation to provide a safe and healthy
    	environment for employees to work in.
        
    	Richard.
    
    	Theo,

	I am writing to you in your capacity as Health and safety rep for
	our group. I wish to make my feelings felt about the issue of
	a non-smoking environment. My health is certainly suffering
	because of the continued exposure to a smoke-filled work
	environment. The symptoms I am experiencing are, dry and sore 
	throat every week day, together with several cases of "heaving".
	I have nearly thrown up on several occasions and I have a constant
	throaty cough, which disappears outside of the building.

	The levels of smoke in my immediate environment, have increased
	significantly in recent weeks. I can only deduce that this
	happened after the Front-end desk was established across the
	passage from my work area.

	I am getting very annoyed and upset at the current situation
	in as much as nothing seems to be being done about the issue.

	I would hope you could raise the issue as soon as possible
	and let me know what is happening about it.

			Thanks and regards, Richard.
                                                                   

    
    Re .-1
    
    It's about time this subject was brought to the fore again.
    
    The refurbishment has come and gone.
    Chris Bishop has gone.
    Regionalisation has come plus lots of discussions, but nothing on
    smoking.
    Lots or re-organisations have taken place within the building, putting
    smokers amongst the "Non Smokers" once again.
    New (albeit temp) staff seem to have smoke at will, with no thought
    for the wishes of others.
    Ionisers (and yellow bags full of stones) don't work.
    The so called "air conditioning" doesn't make much difference.
    Smokers wander around the building, "with fag in hand", taking no
    notice of the wishes of others. Whatever happened to smoking by
    agreement, (especially in conference rooms ??)
    
    We were promised a "Smoking Area" but that has died a death, or
    seems to have done.
    We know from Chris Bishop's survey, what the majority of CSC want.
    
    		    WHEN WILL IT BE IMPLEMENTED
		**********************************
    		**********************************
    
        

	


    	The following information is a transcript of Fact Sheet 7,
	ASH, (Action on Smoking and Health).           



	Passive Smoking
	===============


  Breathing other people's smoke is called passive, involuntary or second-
  hand smoking.  The nonsmoker breathes "sidestream" smoke from the  burning
  tip of the cigarette and "mainstream" smoke that has been inhaled and then
  exhaled by the smoker.  Smokers are also exposed to sidestream smoke from
  their own and others' cigarettes.  Many people spend much of their lives
  indoors and tobacco smoke can make a significant, measurable contribution
  to the level of indoor air pollution. (1)

  What's in the smoke?
  -------------------
  Tobacco smoke is highly complex and contains thousands of chemicals which
  are released into the air as particles and gases.  Many potentially toxic
  gases are present in higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in 
  mainstream smoke and nearly 85% of the smoke in a room results from
  sidestream smoke. (2) The particulate phase includes tar (itself composed
  of many chemicals),  nicotine, benzene, and benzo(a)pyrene.  The gas phase 
  includes carbon monoxide, ammonia, dimethylnitrosamine, formaldehyde,
  hydrogen cyanide  and acrolein. Some of these have marked irritant
  properties and some 60, are known or suspected carcinogens (cancer
  causing substances), including  benzo(a)pyrene and dimethylnitrosamine.

  How does this affect the passive smoker?
  ---------------------------------------
  As well as causing annoyance by making hair and clothes smell unpleasant,
  involuntary smoke exposure can cause symptoms such as eye irritation,
  headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea and produce small but 
  measurable changes in the air passages in the lungs of otherwise healthy
  adults. Adults with asthma experience a significant and substantial decline
  in lung function when exposed to sidestream smoke for one hour (3).
  People with allergies and other respiratory and heart ailments may be more
  seriously affected.

  The effects of long-term exposure
  ---------------------------------
  In March 1988 the Government's Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking
  and Health (ISCSH) published its fourth report, dealing in particular with
  passive smoking (4).  The Committee scrutinised epidemiological studies on
  the effects of passive smoking and found that the overall findings were
  consistent with an increased risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers in the range
  of 10-30%.  This means that is the risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers is,
  say, 10 per 100,000, the risk in an exposed group would be 11 to 13 per
  100,000.  This means that several hundred of the 40,000 deaths from lung 
  cancer each year may be caused by passive smoking.

  When this risk is compared to other cancer risks, it is found that the
  lifelong risk from passive smoking is more than 100 times higher than the
  estimated effects of 20 years exposure to chrysotile asbestos normally
  found in asbestos-containing buildings (5).

  What is important is that (a) large numbers of people are involved; 
  (b) some of these are at a greater risk than the general population due to
  pre-existing cardiac or respiratory conditions and/or prolonged exposure
  in homes or at the workplace; and (c) there is no "safe" level of exposure
  to carcinogens.

  Studies have found increased risk of diseases other than lung cancer in
  nonsmokers married to smokers and in nonsmokers whose parents smoked (6).
  Several studies have identified a possible link between passive smoking
  and heart disease but as yet the evidence is inconclusive.  In a study
  where nonsmokers who had worked for 20 years with smokers but who were not
  exposed to cigarette smoke at home were found to have sustained lung damage
  similar to that of light smokers,  researchers concluded that chronic 
  exposure to tobacco smoke in the workplace reduces small airways function 
  to the same extent as smoking 1 to 10 cigarettes a day (7).  Similarly,
  it has been found that amounts of cotinine, a derivative of nicotine, in
  non-smokers exposed to others' smoke were similar to the amounts found in
  light smokers.

  Are young children at risk?
  --------------------------
  Infants of parents who smoke are more likely to be admitted to hospital
  for bronchitis and pneumonia in the first year of life.  Chronic cough and
  phlegm are also more frequent among children of parents who smoke.  The
  ISCSH said: "By enhancing the frequency or severity of childhood 
  respiratory illnesses, (passive smoking) could contribute to the
  development of respiratory disease in adult life among nonsmokers." (4). 
  The ISCSH also found evidence for an association between  exposure to
  passive smoking and low birthweight and said that, since active smoking 
  confers a hazard on the health of the unborn baby, passive smoking might
  be expected to confer one also, albeit a smaller one (4). (see also ASH 
  Fact Sheet 8 "Smoking and Reproduction" for  information on the effects 
  of maternal smoking during pregnancy.)

  Should nonsmokers be protected?
  ------------------------------
  Experts have concluded that, given public health initiatives to minimise
  or eliminate involuntary public exposure to other environmental pollutants 
  with less carcinogenic potency than several of the substances in tobacco
  smoke, similar efforts to prevent involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke
  are necessary. In the USA, some 40 states restrict smoking in public places
  and workplace smoking policies have increased dramatically in the 1980s.
  According to a survey carried out by the Bureau of National Affairs in 
  1986, 36% of the responding organisations currently had a smoking policy,
  2% were to implement one during 1986 and another 21% had such a policy
  under consideration (8).

  The ISCSH said that:
  -------------------
  "The health risks to nonsmokers (of passive smoking) provide added argument
  for the reduction of smoking in the community, and nonsmoking should be
  regarded as the norm in enclosed ares frequented by the public or employees, 
  special provision being made for smokers, rather than vice versa." (4)

  References:
  (1) US Surgeon General, Health Concequences of Involuntary Smoking 1986
  (2) US Surgeon General, The Health Consequences of Smoking: Chronic
      Obstructive Lung Disease, 1984
  (3) Fielding, JE, New England J Med 1985. 313:491-498
  (4) Fourth report of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and
      Health. HMSO March 1988
  (5) Peto, J and Doll, R Br J Cancer 1986 54:381-383
  (6) Sandler, DP et al, Amer J Epidemiol 1985 121:37-48
  (7) White, J and Froeb, H N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 720
  (8) Bereau of National Affairs, Where there's smoke, 1986.

        Smokers have been offered assistance recently to help them stop
    the habbit. What incentive is there to do this whilst there is a
    cigarette machine in the building!!!!!

    	(I have a copy of Monday's Horizon Program on passive smoking
    for anyone to borrow.)
    
    Alan.
    

	I think that after all the previous discussions,meetings,chats,surveys
etc, that we are all agreed that there should be a "SMOKING ROOM" and we have
all been in the arguements about whether we should have one or not. This is not
the issue as far as I'm concerned.


	The issue is "WHEN is the SMOKING ROOM going to be introduced". IT has
been promised so when will it arrive???

	I think thats the only question we should be asking.


	Chris.

	

 		I've just seen the new video on the CSC. It goes to great
	lengths to tell Customers how expert we are at coping with problems.
		All these good words seem meaningless to me when taking into
	consideration the overall ability of management to solve the total
	range of problems in our building - particulartly of cigarette smoke
	in the work area.
 		The failure of successive mamagement teams to confront the
	smoking issue has led to the amount of smoke in our area to be worse
	than it's ever been.
		THE EVIDENCE OF PASSIVE SMOKING CAUSING CANCER IS OVERWHELMING.
	Management should act IMMEDIATELY to solve the smoking issue if they
        wish to be seen as capable as they say they are.
        	A total ban of smoking in the work area is the answer!!

    
      Perhaps this is a bullet which Pete Donovan may bite when he takes up
    the CSC management? Anyone who implements it will probably be taking a
    'courageous' decision - and thats probably where the problem lies!!
    
    Alan T.
    

    I have extracted the following notes from UK_Digital, the CSC seems
    to be dragging its heals.
    
    Richard.
    
               <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]UK_DIGITAL.NOTE;2 >>>
       -<    Matters Relevant to Digital and its Employees in the UK    >-
================================================================================
Note 53.745          Re-opened: Smoking in the UK: See .586           745 of 758
VAXCAT::RKE "Polysyllabic Pussycat"                   7 lines  30-JAN-1991 16:24
                                  -< Yippeee >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Two Things.

1	I have the Horizon proggy on Video, if someone wants to borrow it.

2	NEWSFLASH: Solent goes no smoking (with smoking rooms) on 7th May 1991

Richard.

           <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]UK_DIGITAL.NOTE;2 >>>
       -<    Matters Relevant to Digital and its Employees in the UK    >-
================================================================================
Note 53.749          Re-opened: Smoking in the UK: See .586           749 of 758
SUBURB::MCDONALDA "Old Elysian with a big D.I.C."      1 line   4-FEB-1991 17:04
                 -< Smoking policy introduced at Queens House >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    

           <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]UK_DIGITAL.NOTE;2 >>>
       -<    Matters Relevant to Digital and its Employees in the UK    >-
================================================================================
Note 53.754          Re-opened: Smoking in the UK: See .586           754 of 758
45235::KORMAN "tgif!!"                                2 lines   6-FEB-1991 10:00
                 -< Leatherhead goes non-smoking on Feb 25th >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Now that the smoking room is operational (AC, Extracts, Air-Lock :-) ),
 the Leatherhead Office will be non-smoking from 25th Feb!

    HI FOLKS,
           I THOUGHT IT WAS HIGH TIME THAT I STARTED FIRING BULLETS FROM
    THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE...
           THIS BUILDING HAS CLEAN AIR FROM 07:00 TILL MIDNIGHT MON TO FRI
    ( WHAT DO WE DO IF WE CATCH PEOPLE CHEATING ???).
           IF WE ARE SCHEDULED TO WORK NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS THEN WE REVERT
    TO POLLUTED AIR....WE MUST BE HERE ON SHIFT BUT ALL THE "SMOKERS" CAN
    COME IN TO PLAY GAMES AND MAKE THE ODD PHONE CALL AND HAVE THE RIGHT
    TO POLLUTE THE AIR IN WHICH WE "MUST" WORK..
           ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED ME TO STOP SMOKING WAS THAT
    IT WAS GOING TO BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTINUE SMOKING "COMFORTABLY".
    YET THE LEVEL OF DISCOMFORT I EXPECTED ISNT THERE YET....
           MY QUESTION IS..."WHY IS THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT MAKING IT
    EASIER FOR ME TO RESTART SMOKING, RATHER THAN KICK THE 'MONKEY' THATS
    BEEN ON MY BACK FOR 35 YEARS" ???
    
    REGARDS
    
    NIGE
    

    
    I think all Non-Smokers are happier now, except when the smokers 
    return to their desks, with clothes smelling strongly of tobacco.
    It's now their washing machines working overtime, rather than those 
    of all of us in the building.
    
    Also it seems that quite a few people are trying/managing to kick the 
    habit. Maybe a total ban, might help even more. Congratulations to
    those who have given up, especially with the new packets being labled
    "CIGARETTES  CAN KILL "
    
    One point that I feel should be raised, re those working shifts, is the
    increased workload on the non-smokers, while the "cough & drag" brigade
    dissappear for their "fix". Its difficult to tell the customer with a
    hung cluster, that the diagnosis engineer is too busy smoking, to deal
    with their call. This could lead to people being unwilling to work OOH
    with a smoker.