@glofish
If you think that the interests of big business and government don't effect what the press reports on then you are being quite naive. They're all ultimately run by the same group of people.
There are some issues that simply don't get to the public's attention (these are few in nature), most get to the public's attention but the news producers decide what gets more air time and what gets less and especially how its presented. There are a million and one ways you can express the story to make it look "ok" or "not that bad" or "the worst thing in the world". Also, the exposure a story gets determines how heavily an individual not involved in these issues feels towards them.
In addition, news producers are salaried individuals who have families to feed and will put job security in front of giving an unbiased fair view of the world to the public. Their bosses in most cases is a government or a super multi billionaire individual who is involved in numerous other businesses.
Quoting Dan Rather
One of the most pernicious ways in which we do this is through self-censorship, which may be the worst censorship of all. We have seen too much self-censorship in the news in recent years, and as I say this please know that I do not except myself from this criticism.
As Mark Twain once said, “We write frankly and freely but then we ‘modify’ before we print.” Why do we modify the free and frank expression of journalistic truth? We do it out of fear: Fear for our jobs. Fear that we’ll catch hell for it. Fear that someone will seek to hang a sign around our neck that says, in essence, “Unpatriotic.”
We modify with euphemisms such as “collateral damage” or “less than truthful statements.” We modify with passive-voice constructions such as “mistakes were made.” We modify with false equivalencies that provide for bad behavior the ready-made excuse that “everybody’s doing it.” And sometimes we modify with an eraser—simply removing offending and inconvenient truths from our reporting.”
@Emma Royds
I agree with you that its an issue for us pilots. I get a great whiff of fumes every time we start up. But again I want everyone here to be realistic. It is not the DIRECT cause of death for very many people. What glofish was trying to state is that airlines and the public are going to become so aware of the situation that they will demand bleedless AC systems and that manufacturers and airlines will have no option but to provide that to them and whatever cost. I simply don't see that happening for the reasons which I have stated in my last post. And I especially don't believe that EK will make a decision over aircraft based on it.
I am all for pressuring governments, manufacturers, and airlines to ensure that cabin air is as safe as possible. And if you want my help in order to do that I am all for it. I just don't see this issue going very far right now. Yes, I do think that manufacturers will do their best to ensure safe cabin air, yes I do think that there will be public awareness towards it. But eventually manufacturers will decide when the bleedless system is cost effective for them and their customers and will not be coerced into offering the system due to public opinion. I have given my reasons for that above.