View Single Post
Old 26th Feb 2015, 18:02
  #107 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
This is getting ridiculous. At the risk of continuing the ridiculous I will venture a reply.

The scant few official studies have been tiny and carried out by authorities with the same attitude and vested interests as KenV, with a coverup the outcome
Vested interest?!
Absolute BS. I work in the aircraft maintenance and mod industry. If anything, I would have a “vested interest” in confirming this myth because it would send lots of work and LOTS of money my way to “fix” this alleged-problem.

Absolute BS. The same folks who “coverup” this myth are the same folks who “coverup” the “immunizations cause autism” myth. The latter myth was proven and admitted to be a willful hoax using false data.

TCP decomposes at between 80 and 90oC, bleed air temperatures are in excess of 200.
Absolute BS If this were true, the lubricants would “decompose” while sitting in the oil sumps with the equipment not running. And that’s utter nonsense.

Oil from the front compressor bearings can escape the seals into the airflow before the bleed valves.
ONLY true if the seals and other parts fail. And even then, the seals are at atmospheric pressure while the compressors are by definition at higher pressure. Oil can only seep into the airflow when the engine is shut down and would then be immediately blown out at start up. That’s why the pilots on this forum report an occasional puff of smoke at start up.

you only need the engineers to be in the habit of overfilling the (hydraulic) reservoirs and a slightly leaky check valve and the fluid can seep into the pneumatic manifold.
Once again, multiple failures are required, including human AND mechanical. And even then, the hydraulic reservoir is at lower pressure than the pneumatic manifold when the system is running. Hydraulic fluid can only seep into the manifold after shut down, and this is immediately blown away at start up, causing the occasional “sweet” or “dirty socks” smell at start up.

I recall they detected organophosphates on all six aircraft, including new A320s and 737s.
Meaningless drivel. Take an air sample in a hospital operating room and you’ll detect organophosphates.

there is plenty of evidence to the open minded that objective and large scale testing is needed.
Total BS. A small scale random sampling can determine if a problem exists with well over 4 sigma confidence. If a problem is detected a larger testing regime can properly define the extent and nature of the problem.

And BTW, being “open minded” and “objective” goes BOTH ways. Now in your case you have decided, with essentially zero hard evidence, all of the following:
1. A serious health problem exists
2. Vested interests exist that deny the problem
3. Vested interests exist that prevent serious study of the problem
4. A “coverup”oexists involving the following:
a. Multiple industries
b. Multiple levels of government
c. Multiple governmental and industry agencies
d. Health agencies and experts
e. Multiple media outlets

Is just ONE of the above (much less all of the above) indicative of someone who is “open minded” and “objective”? Really??!

Now let’s look at the bigger picture:
1. IF this problem were real, air crew who have near constant exposure would be getting sick in significant numbers. That simply is not happening.

2. Submarines use the same lubricants in equipment with the same or similar operating conditions. But unlike airplanes whose atmosphere is exchanged several times per hour, submarines operate for weeks or months with an essentially 100% closed environment. IF this problem were real, dozens or hundreds of sailors would get sick with each deployment. That simply is not happening.

3. The International Space Station also uses these lubricants and their environment has been closed for well over a DECADE. IF this problem were real astronauts/cosmonauts would be getting mighty sick. That simply is not happening.
KenV is offline