Dream Buster
As I have said - many times now - I have no issue with pilots having serious problems that are
most likely (but not 100%, empirically provable) due to cabin air in the 146 or similar types. I don't doubt that they are ill, and I am perfectly prepared to accept that their problems stem from cabin air, although there appears to be little hard evidence to support that claim, other than the TCP measurement made in some individuals - which could have other sources (see below). That is one of the problems - proving that the chemicals came from engine oil and not some other source.
However, my point (which nobody seems to get - maybe I am affected by fumes after all!) is that it is no good becoming myopically focused on cabin air as being the only possible cause of the problem in every pilot that has reported "symptoms". As I have highlighted above, people who are prone to chemical sensitivity can become afflicted by similar symptoms that stem from a variety of other sources. For you, it might be cabin fumes, for others it might be their new worktop or shiny car. Maybe, for you, it is actually some other external factor that you haven't identified which is causing the problem - something in your home environment perhaps? Do you live in the countryside? Have you ever been exposed to other sources of TCP? It isn't as clear-cut and obvious as some would have you believe - or as some very much want to believe.
By the way, TCP isn't engine oil. Engine oil is simply one of a variety of substances that contain TCP - for example:
Tricresyl phosphate is used as a plasticizer in nitrocellulose and acrylate lacquers and varnishes and in polyvinyl chloride, a flame retardant in plastics and rubbers, as a gasoline additive as a lead scavenger for tetra-ethyl lead, in hydraulic fluids, as a heat exchange medium, for waterproofing of materials, as a solvent for extractions, a solvent for nitrocellulose and other polymers, and an intermediate in organic synthesis. It is also used as an AW additive and EP additive in lubricants, and as a hydraulic fluid. As a gasoline additive, it also helps preventing engine misfires.
Have you been exposed to any of those? Surely you have been around PVC, flame-retardant furniture and petrol?
Nobody has managed to tell my why COT or the Aussie government would deliberately ignore compelling science. What reason is there, given my points made in previous posts? I suggest that the science is not as compelling as some would have you believe - or as some would very much want to believe.
If you or the scientists working on this can establish causal links and clear evidence, across a wide sample, of damage done by cabin air, then I say more power to your arm and you have done us all a great service. I would personally support that work (and have in fact already done so).
However, until that day comes, the cause is not served by muddled thinking and sensationalist conspiracy theories, or the sort of foolish advice proposed by AOPIS. The AOPIS approach is redolent of a union campaign (not surprising considering it's origins). That approach will never work.
If you read through these posts, you will see that I have never denied the problem. I have only questioned the methods by which some seek to solve it.