View Single Post
Old 13th Mar 2015, 14:51
  #188 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
KenV, you keep banging on that there is no evidence of a problem other than anecdotal. That's because no-one will commit to a full study because they fear the results. Get that through your head.
This is getting interesting. Get THIS "through your head": It does not take cooperation from the airlines, the aircraft manufacturers, the aviation regulatory authorities or any other "vested interest" to do a thorough and well documented study of airline cabin air. Just have a bunch of volunteers buy a bunch of airline tickets, have each carry on board a well designed regimen that includes an air sampling device that does in situ analysis and enables post situ analysis, and in a matter of days, maybe weeks, you'd have enough data to prove your point.

Since the above has NOT happened, why have the "vested interests" who are convinced this is a real problem (like you and your cohorts) not done the above? Is it because your true "vested interest" is NOT to learn the truth, but to stir the pot? And with the evidence already available, it is clear that collecting hard data will almost surely stop you guys from stirring this particular pot. Just as hard data stopped you guys from stirring the pot about the danger of immunizations, breast implants, peanut alergens, GMOs, high fructose corn syrup, palm oils, Alar in apples, frakking, etc, etc, etc, etc.

You really don't get it that for alarmists, hard data is the LAST thing they want. Because hard data, whether it proves them right OR proves them wrong, will result in the same thing: having to move on to some new alarm. And that takes effort, work, and a measure of clear thought. All things alarmists don't like.

Lack of concrete evidence is not the same as your assertion of evidence that there is no problem - there is no evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise, that the problem does not exist.
No evidence at all? Utterly false. There is literally mountains of evidence indicating that the OP problem you claim to exist does not exist. You just refuse to see that evidence, and when confronted with it, wave it off as generated by "vested interests" who are "colluding" in a vast "cover up".

There are none so blind as those who want to see something that is not there.
KenV is offline