bral
Dr Furlongs paper was non-specific in the sense that it did not look at the particular OPs that are present in aviation oils. He is simply identifying and quantifying markers (or biomarkers in this case). His research could equally be applied to those suffering from exposure to agricultural OPs (which is apparently what sparked the study in the first place).
The second study by Professor Abou-Donia reaches conclusions that could equally apply to other sources of OP/TCP, and doesn't correlate the levels that cause damage to the levels typically found in aircraft.
Some of the studies done by manufacturers indicate that, even in an aircraft that is know to have a fumes problem, the levels of the really nasty toxins (the ones that can cause damage) were insignificant. By insignificant, I mean less harmful to you than the toxins found in a cigarette.
Chances are that you could get a higher dose of OP/TCP if you happened to breathe in the smoke from a smoking tyre at a motor race.
The evidence is not yet compelling.
Ausie Chick
Why is it that so many Australians are simply incapable of having any form of reasoned discussion without becoming abusive?
Your recognition of "truth" is about equal to your ability to spell your name, which isn't great.
The statements you quote are not only not contradictory, they are both out of context.
You don't even understand how to construct a sentence. Just to help you out then, 99.99999% of the population of the world have "got better chances of being positive for neurological damage than sleeping with Miss World."
Didn't really make your case, did it?
Have a few more beers. I'm sure that does you no harm at all.
