Few Cloudy, "So how come this only happened in Alaska?"
I take it you mean "Why did only the Alaska Airlines FAs sue?"
Fair question. The Boeing-Honeywell defence team appears to have
advanced a theory. From the post-verdict juror interviews I think
it reasonable to infer that the defence strategy was two-fold:
1) there is no proof that the organophosphates circulating in the
a/c caused the damage to the central nervous systems of the
plaintiffs, and 2) even if they did, the toxins entered the cabin
not because of a design defect but because of the airline's
inadequate maintenance. The comments of one juror indicate she
was swayed by the first argument. The comments of a second juror
indicate that the majority of the jury members accepted the second
argument. That suggests that the Boeing-Honeywell legal team
presented evidence implicating the maintenance of Alaska Airlines.
If that theory is correct (about which I have no idea) then it
would answer your question.
Here is another theory. Alaska Airlines attitude toward air quality
issues may have put their FAs in a more litigious state of mind
than their counterparts elsewhere. At the bottom of the first post
in this thread there is a description of American Airlines
response to cabin odors and mists. Several reported incidents
suggest that Alaska did not always react as quickly to correct
such problems. There may have been a perception on the part
of the FAs that the airline was not paying sufficient attention
to their health concerns. (As I hope my language indicates, this
theory is hypothetical.)
Smokie, "All the results came back negative. Were the Doctors
testing for the right thing I ask myself?" I believe that
it is considered impractical to assay for specific poisons. They
were probably looking at the level of an enzyme, AChE, an
unintentionally ironic abbreviation of acetylcholinesterase,
that is found in blood. This enzyme is a catalyst for
the transmission of nerve impulses. Exposure to organophosphates
decreases AChE function. When properly conducted the AChE test
provides an early warning for OP exposure because decreased levels
of AChE can be detected prior to the onset of symptoms. A "negative"
test result means that the subject has a normal AChE level.
The problem with the test is that the range that is considered
normal is quite wide. The literature claims that false positives
occur as a result. These happen when an individual has a naturally
low AChE level. The literature also claims that false negatives
are less frequent and that may be true but I am skeptical. If a
subject had a naturally high AChE level then considerable depression
could occur before he passed to the low end of normal. In a monitoring
program that California set up (for agricultural workers) the
first step was to get a baseline AChE reading. Perhaps you could
get and retain the result of the first blood test. It would be
useful to have for comparison if you ever had to undergo a second
test.
Any needed corrections or elaborations are welcome. Biochemistry is
not my thing, just data.