PDA

View Full Version : AOPIS: "Cabin Air Contamination"- Ongoing Health & Safety Issue (merged)


AOPIS
27th Oct 2003, 00:13
AOPIS ( www.aopis.org ) is a non profit trust run by air crews from around the world set up by the Australian Pilot Union, AFAP.

We have just completed the making of a 50 minute hard hitting, shocking, but completely factual documentary on the serious health & safety issues associated with breathing contaminated aircraft air.

To order a copy or to get more info go to:

http://www.aopis.org/documentaryrelease.html

Otherwise learn more here......

The documentary was made so as to raise awareness, seek change in industry practices & ensure further research is undertaken into the medical & scientific effects. All proceeds after the limited production costs will be put into research & raising awareness of the issue.

The documentary has the unique input of most of the key players in this issue such as scientists, doctors, politicians but also for the first time many crews speaking out.

Oil lubricants leaking from aircraft engines and APUís into bleed air systems has remained an inadequately addressed problem for over 25 years and appears to have been first highlighted in 1953. The oils (notably Mobil Jet Oil II) are known to contain a range of hazardous and toxic substances including neurotoxins, organophosphates (OPs), sensitisers and carcinogens with most being ignored or in the cases of the OPs underestimated up to 30,000 times in terms of toxicity.

Industry has accepted crews and passengers being exposed to contaminated air whilst knowing it has failed to review the worrying synergistic effects of the ingredients which are heated to high temperatures, at altitude, under reduced atmospheric pressures. Neither does it look at the effect of long term low dose OP exposure and its effects.

The Mobil Jet Oil II safety label states that "...prolonged or repeated breathing of oil mist, or prolonged or repeated skin contact can cause nervous system disorders". Industry has been well aware that crews were being exposed to contaminated air from at least 1977, yet insists that inhalation of these fumes, is only a comfort issue, with no long-term health effects possible. The oil manufacturer admits that while oil leakage is an abnormal condition, it is not unsafe.

Recent medical research has shown that long term repeated exposure to low levels of OPs will cause brain cell death.

The aviation industry has disregarded its own ventilation airworthiness regulations, which are required to be met at all times in order for safe flight, yet at the same time there is extensive industry documentation going back to at least the early 1980's showing that air supply contamination has been all but ignored and crews and passengers not adequately protected. Industry has continued to state this is just a health issue with no long-term effects and certainly no effects on air safety. Some parts of industry is now acknowledging that oil and fumes entering the flight deck and cabin air although previously treated as a nuisance, must now be treated as a potential safety of flight issue.

The aviation industry has insisted that inhalation of these fumes, is only a comfort issue, with no long-term health effects possible. However, many exposed crews and passengers (some having breathed contaminated air for years) suffer from repeated short-term symptoms or become ill long-term with little, if any, recovery and in some cases pilots have lost their medical certificates required to fly. The range of symptoms in airline crews and passengers include heart problems, lung disorders, neurological & neurobehavioural disorders, sensitivity to chemicals, permanent head pressure, headaches, fatigue, weakness, upper respiratory irritations, gastro-intestinal problems, autonomic dysfunction, etc. Recent testing in crew has shown neurological autonomic abnormalities which are considered consistent with those seen in farmers exposed to OPs in sheep dips, while the CAA in the UK has failed a pilot's medical linking it to repeated chemical exposure in the aircraft and possibly linked to OPs.

If the crew performance is impaired there are obvious safety implications for all those on board.

While certain types of aircraft are known to experience greater problems than others, the problem of air supply contamination is in fact a global one of aircraft design and maintenance and affects numerous aircraft types such as the BAe 146, B757, A320 & MD80. The health & safety implications remain the same for each exposure.

All revenue raised from the documentary will go into a trust that has been set up by the Australian Pilot Union, AFAP after production costs have been cleared, then all money will be put into research and education.

The documentary runs for 50 minutes and covers the following areas - not in order:

Initial effects of exposure
3D graphics of aircraft air systems & air contamination process
Crew short and long-term symptoms being experienced
What the medical and scientific experts are finding
What industry has to say
What ingredients in the oils are of concern
What regulations are being broken
How long has this been known
What do the crews and unions have to say
How often does this happen
Legal view
Health & safety issues to crews and passengers
The future
Australian Senate Inquiry, other Gov Inquiries & the cover-ups
The scientific and medical level is geared for general public release and is suitable for the public with no aviation background.

To contact us email: [email protected]

Life On Mars
27th Oct 2003, 06:20
I have recently seen a copy of the AOPIS documentary made by Australian crews on aircraft air contamination and was very shocked at what the industry has known and what they have subjected crews to, especially on the 146.

If you care about your health go to the AOPIS website at:

http://www.aopis.org/documentaryrelease.html

If passengers found out, I think the industry would suffer!

Blacksheep
27th Oct 2003, 14:21
Nice "Shock - Horror!" wind-up and we only have to pay fifteen quid to see it too!

Here's a link to a more reasonable review of cabin air systems - and its free too!

Cabin Air (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/#) - download the Adobe PDF files from the top link button for technical details and figures including measurements of air quality.

I know its from Boeing and they may have a vested interest, but the technical details are an accurate overview of the equipment and its functioning. You may expect the rest of the article to be to the same level of objectivity.

There are differences between aircraft types, obviously; but in general the air in an aircraft cabin is similar in quality to that found in a hospital operating theatre or intensive care unit. Certainly much better than that of the average office or home.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

Life On Mars
27th Oct 2003, 15:50
For Blackshhep to say air quality is like an operating theatre is misleading, the issue is cabin air contamination in abnormal circumstances and not volume of air in the operatig theatre.

Also if it is as good as an operating theatre all the time, why the following...

Australian Senate Inquiry 2000
Hundreds of sick crews and passengers worldwide
Regulators failing pilots medicals due to exposure
Ansett paying out compensation to crews
TCP found in ducting
Numerous ASR reports
Numerous SB and SILs such as..BAe Service Bulletin - ISB.21-150 and BAe SIL - 21-45
CAA FODCOM 2002
CAA Safety Initiative - Cabin air Contamination 2003

ETC....

I will conclude you are industry faithful, why dont you look at the documentary and see the long term effects on crews who have been exposed to contaminated air.

Blacksheep
27th Oct 2003, 21:19
I've suffered heavy exposure to Mobil Jet Oil II and other worse nasties such as Skydrol etc. for several years - a lot more than any exposure due to a defect - so far with less effect than that from smoking for example. Had quite a few fuel burns in my time too, from lying around in Jet A1 too long. Thousands of us engineering staff share the same experience. If its so damned toxic why isn't there a documentary all about the terrible effects of commonly used fluids on maintenance personnel? Because nobody cares perhaps? Don't imagine that Health and Safety legislation is suspended when one walks into a hangar. I'm all for safety but I flinch at what looks like yet another way for 'victims' to sue for imaginary damages.

I stand by my comments and do please bear in mind that if you report a defect such as a smell of oil in the cabin we fix it as quickly as possible. We're maintenance, its what we do.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

FlapsOne
28th Oct 2003, 06:03
Life on Mars

If passengers found out, I think the industry would suffer!

Are you referring to the ones that read this BB then?

If so, remove the 'IF' from our statement!

Old King Coal
28th Oct 2003, 07:46
Sorry but the so called 'facts' expressed on the website are so full of 'ifs', 'buts', and 'maybe's ' as to make the thing completely unbelievable - e.g. : Under normal operating circumstances it is not thought that crews/passengers are at risk from the oil but if and when the oil enters the conditioning system due to a fault, there is a potential health question.
What the heck does 'potential health question' mean, i.e either there is an issue or there is not - to say nothing of the 'if' which also need explaining.
Overexposure to TCP by swallowing, prolonged or repeated breathing of oil mist, or prolonged or repeated skin contact may produce nervous system disorders including gastrointestinal disturbances, numbness, muscular cramps, weakness and paralysis.....
Please define 'overexposure' ( wherein is 'under exposure' ok ? ), and how long is 'prolonged', and w.r.t. swallowing ( no, maybe not ;) ), and what does 'oil mist' look like, i.e. is it the same as what I might see p!ssing out of the wheelwell bay when a hydraulic hose bursts on my B737 ? What are people doing, bathing in the stuff ?

Another section says: Symptoms from single or short-term exposures include:

neurotoxic symptoms: blurred or tunnel vision, nystagmus, disorientation, shaking and tremors, loss of balance and vertigo, seizures, loss of consciousness, parathesias;

neuropsychological symptoms: memory impairment, headache, light-headedness, dizziness, confusion and feeling intoxicated;

gastro-intestinal symptoms: nausea, vomiting;

respiratory symptoms: cough, breathing difficulties (shortness of breath), tightness in chest, respiratory failure requiring oxygen;

cardiovascular symptoms: increased heart rate and palpitations;

irritation of eyes, nose and upper airways.

Neurotoxicity is a major flight safety concern, especially where exposures are intense.Indeed !

......... but one can get all of the above symptoms simply from going out on the lash with ones mates, drinking ten pints of 'Adnams Broadside' and following it up with a blazing hot curry !

146 pilots rock
28th Oct 2003, 18:59
Blacksheep suggsts if there was a problem it would always be fixed immediately-Get a life!

His theory is not supported by the facts that the service bulletins relating to the oil leaks came out in 1984 onwards & almost 20 years later the problem continues & 2-3 AD's have just been issued on this very issue. That's not a real quick fix!!

Also BAe acknowledged to the Australian Senate Inquiry that the modifications would not fix the problem completely, rather reduce the frequency and improve the reliability of the events. This is supported by industry recognition that the oil seals are not as efficient at transient ops/ A design issue!!

Blacksheep- you continue fixing your defects asap & that will be a real good start.

Tartan Giant
29th Oct 2003, 07:43
This sort of stuff is bleeding heart b*llocks, and opens the door to those seeking another quick buck in compensation claims.

Having flown for 38 years (not all pressurised commercial stuff) I have not suffered in the slightest with all this crap about,

Oil lubricants leaking from aircraft engines and APUís into bleed air systems has remained an inadequately addressed problem for over 25 years

If there was such a world-wide serious problem, then perhaps such constant and prolonged exposure would see pilots and cabin-staff littering grave yards having died of horrible respiratory problems - there is NO PROOF over the 25 years these folk are talking about that,

Industry has accepted crews and passengers being exposed to contaminated air .


Roy Castle could have told you about being exposed to "contaminated air".


Another red-herring.........

Recent medical research has shown that long term repeated exposure to low levels of OPs will cause brain cell death.

Brain cells die on a daily basis without any outside help - old research has shown that !


I'm with Old King Cole in this, and concur with his views.


IF it is a problem, then it is very minor one and falls in with being alive on this earth - it's a big risk the minute you get out of bed.


Scaremungering is a sustainable hobby now.

Cheers

TG

Blacksheep
29th Oct 2003, 08:08
Yeah 146, we'll carry on fixing them as quickly as possible. You know what follows not far behind a leaking oil seal I presume?

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

The Big Fixer
29th Oct 2003, 18:16
This is a very interesting topic but when I read the comments by Tartan Giant and Blacksheep I read the same stuff I read from the regulator doctors especially the FAA.

All is Ok

Are you kidding us or what I have met inbound acft where the crew have been breathing in engine oil leaking through the seals and thoses crews were not well and some still are not well enough to work. I was off work myself just from doing my job so those flying crews surely do suffer and Life on Mars is right this is a BIG PROBLEM.

However, the point someone else made about flying for 10,000 years and still being Ok is missing the point. Air contamination is not on all acft types and not on all flights but when it happens on the MD80, 757, A320 (V2500), 146 etc.. then its a problem so sure if you fly the 747 you might be Ok biddy but if you are regularly on a leaking plane your not going to be too good.

I attended a presentation on th &E& and Boeing knows this problem is coming to bite them so they WILL be using bleed free engines for economy and to resolve this issue.

So get real guys, when this happens, it WILL harm you and the lower the exoposure the worst it will be long term.

So when the company doctors say you'll be OK I say bull

Life On Mars
30th Oct 2003, 01:38
You suggest that all these symptoms can come from a night on the tiles and some good grub but clearly haven't had the time to do the reading of info put out by the industry. They know it's happening-Why are you all in denial?

The info is there for those who care about their colleagues and passengers, health and safety.

The CAA recently reported:
"Although the exact cause of crew incapacitation is not yet known, the most probable source is oil leaking from the engines or APU and contaminating the air supply to the cabin and cockpit through the air conditioning system"
" circumstantial evidence suggested potential contamination of cabin air by abnormal concentrations of noxious gases or vapours"

-Now go read the airworthiness Regs-25.831 a/b !!!

& for those who think it's safe bar drinking- get real or take some reading lessons- Read the label for a start!

Old King Coal
30th Oct 2003, 05:40
Just imagine.......

Dr. Bodger - "Ah, hello Mr Mars, thankyou for coming back to see me albeit that I'm afraid that I do have some rather grave news to report. You see, we've done some research and, although the exact cause is not yet known, we think the most probable cause - albeit based on circumstantial evidence and suggested potential - is an excessive level of infection from the compo virus and accordingly we think it prudent to chop off yer hands !"

Thus, w.r.t. 'most probable' - should really read, "we don't actually know what, for certain, is causing this".

Then w.r.t. 'circumstantial evidence suggested potential......' what the UK CAA are really saying is that is that they have no rock solid evidence or hard facts to support their findings.

Finally, w.r.t. 'safe bar drinking and reading the label'.... but surely that then takes all the fun & risk out of it ?!

Superonicdreamgirl
31st Oct 2003, 03:29
The arguments being put forward that crews are getting sick and the counter arguments that it is cirumstantial, not linked, not fact, not backed up etc.. IT IS A NO BRAINER FOLKS....

Everyone in Perth knows that Ansett paid Judy Cullinane 5 Million Australian compensation out of court to keep it from going public because THEY and the BAe 146 made her sick.

Why would they pay that money if it was not pretty clear to them!!!

I know at least 8 other NJS pilots in discussions on a class act against NJS, especially as they admitted they could not provide a safe work place!

So lets get real, this is happening, not on all aircraft types and to all crews but some are sick from the fumes and IT IS NOT in their minds!

Fly Virgin Blue at least they have new planes and they are cheaper!

Smokie
31st Oct 2003, 04:50
Anyone who thinks this is bollox, can come and ride in our 146's

One guy has been to hospital on no less than 7 occassions in the last couple of years!!!

Is he making it up ??? I don't think so.

There is a Captain who was demoted because he was allegedly the only guy who had these problems. Perhaps he was the only one reporting them ???

The "Company" had intially acknowledged there was a problem and has declared that they had "Rectified the problem".
The Op's Director still thinks the problem has been resolved, as he stated at the Air Quality Seminar in London just recently.

He also had the wind completely taken out of his sails when questioned by an AOPIS member why they were getting so many Air Contamination Reports from his Airline.
Perhaps it was the fear of demotion or even being presented with your P45 ????

After the above demotion I put it to all of you that any "Incidents " were quietly covered up or not reported, lest they ended up in the same boat!!

Quote from one of our Training Captains when presented with the problem was:-

"It's a design fault, there's nothing we can do about it"

On the contrary, I'm afraid this is exactly the reason why all the incidents should be reported and at the very least be entered into the aircraft Tech Log for further investigation.

A neat little trick that our company employs at the moment is that they rotate all the aircraft around the bases, so that they are not in any one place for too long for crews to monitor problem aircraft.
There is no reason for this as several years ago we would have the one aircraft or two, as the case or size of the base dictated at the time.
The aircraft would basically stay at your base untill it was due a servicing at the maintainance base; normally about 6 months or so, then then you would normally get that a/c back again, occassionally you would recieve a different one but you would still keep it for the 6 or so months again. If an a/c stays for more than a few days your in luck...or not as the case may be!

You don't want to be flying a comtaminated a/c for 3 or 4 days in a row. The problem here is that it is unlikely that the same crew will operate it for the same duties. Almost certainly you will operate with a different or partly different crew each time. The guys or girls who have to stay on that aircraft for a number of days if not ill already, will be pretty sick by days 2,3,4 or 5.

Slow build up I think is worse because you doubt your self at first( the nature of the beast) Some of the crew may not be effected due to differing metabolisms etc, so as you remain in the same emvironment other fresher crew who are new to the environment may not develope the same symptoms unless there is a servere contamination problem anyway, then you will get effected regardless.

Since the Air Contamination problem has come to the fore, this is no longer the case; a/c do get rotated on a regular basis . :{

Blacksheep
31st Oct 2003, 18:41
So, if its really that bad, and doesn't get fixed, there will be a nice sticky oil deposit all over the cabin interior and the outlow valve.

When smoking was permitted on aircraft, cabin interiors would be coated in a noticeable layer of tar within a few days of a refurbishment and the outflow valve showed visible contamination after only a couple of flights. By the time a 'C' check came due we had to clean the valves off with isopropyl alcohol or they would gum up completely by the next check.

So, if you want us to believe this problem truly exists, produce visible proof of contamination or shut up about it [photographs will do for now]. Or find another job - flying doesn't seem to be up your street, litigation lawyer seems more suitable.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

corporate kid
1st Nov 2003, 00:58
Good points raised with respect to outflow valves etc.

Recently a flight crew reported that the cabin staff had felt light headed and felt mildly ill complaining that the air con was to blame. This was on completion of the first sector they then continued for three more sectors including a stopover at a maintenance base with no more reports.

The captain asked if he should write this in the tech log for an action. At this I said "of course" especially in the light of the on-going problems. I also then added that there should be a air safety report raised that I would be grounding the aircraft until I was satisfied that The fault was a one of or I had in fact found something. Also the crew that had this complaint should go to a medic and be checked out.

At this he backed down and just asked if i could look at it unofficially. This I done to satisfy my own peace of mind with no faults found.

The manufacturer of the aircraft has addmitted that there is a problem and in response a sil has been issued to be carried out at 500cyc/hrs. Our particular operator also carries out the first part of it each week. The base that i am at now has carried this out over a hundred times in the last eight months and nothing has been found.

May I suggest that the opperating procedures be reviewed by the crews for initial start up of air con on the 146. If it not started in manual when cold, the system runs full hot until a controling Cabin temp of 12 degrees is reached which unfourtunately by design of the system does produce a cabin smell temporarily. So please APU on wait a few mins. APU air on wait air con to man set to full cold then packs on and slowly increase temp.

If any crew wish to discuss this further please send a private mail.

Smokie
1st Nov 2003, 20:33
Corporate Kid, all points noted and basically carried out by most of our crews.
However there are 4 problem aircraft that still produce contamination.
Engineers at our base have unoffically checked the Air Con packs on a few occassions and have found Oil at the bottom of the packs.

Unfortunately if it is not entered into the tech log, then they can't officially do anything about it. :{

corporate kid
1st Nov 2003, 21:59
Absolute Rubbish

If an engineer finds a problem then he can put it in the book (even if he writes crew report) and SHOULD put it in the book because there is a defect that needs to be addressed especially on this subject due to all the grief it has caused.

Just because it wasnt written in by a pilot does not mean that it does not exist. If it was a third party aircraft things would be different because the question of why were you looking at that arises, but on one of ours!!!

Smokie. Are you north or south in the network?

Smokie
2nd Nov 2003, 00:15
C.K.

So you are advocating that the First Officers and Cabin Crew can over ride the Captain wrt aircraft defects then?

That should stir up a hornets nest!!!!


I can just see the No2 saying that he/she will not be continuing the next 3 sectors and gets off the aircraft while the Captain insists that there is nothing wrong with said aircaft. mmmmmmmmmm nice one!

If the Company were serious about sorting out this problem, then why don't they give AOPIS their undivided support?
There are some very knowledgable people, Scientists, Engineers, Doctors, etc world wide who are devoting a lot of time and effort to solving this one.

The longer the company keeps its head in the sand, the worse it will be when the chickens come home to roost.


Testing sick crews just for Carbon Monoxide Poisoning is simply not good enough. This is what you should be tested for:-

If you suspect you have been exposed to OPs, current medical advise suggests that you should get a blood test done between 12-36 hours after a suspected exposure and ideally 24 hours later. Ask A&E or your GP to do three tests, which may involve bloods being sent to a poisons unit for analysis.

1. A Cholinesterase Assay serum & red cell cholinesterase test
(Organophosphate poisoning)

2. A CO in blood test: Carboxyhaemoglobin

3. VOC (Volitile Organic Compound) in blood tests.

The test must be followed up 1-2 months later with another set of tests to obtain the base line values to compare the post exposure values to. Make sure that all concerned in the blood testing put the results on your medical records in case these are needed in the future. Crews who have been exposed should also give the medical examiners detailed history of the exposure and symptoms.

May well be worth printing this off, although there are very few places that can actually carry out these tests. That in it's self is another problem that will have to be addressed.

BTW, OP's are the least of our worries the other chemicals in the Oils are 30,000 times worse!!!!!


Hope everybody sleeps well tonite. ;)

Blacksheep
3rd Nov 2003, 08:22
I note that we have now gone from:

"the problem of air supply contamination is in fact a global one of aircraft design and maintenance and affects numerous aircraft types such as the BAe 146, B757, A320 & MD80. The health & safety implications remain the same for each exposure".

to a case concerning certain tail numbers of one particular type of aircraft. I shall therefore leave the subject to those who are directly concerned with fixing the defect(s). But do note that it is pointless slagging off all aircraft over a problem that affects only one particular model.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

corporate kid
3rd Nov 2003, 11:11
Sorry,

I had noticed.

DEAD ZONE
3rd Nov 2003, 19:05
Dear Blacksheep

Blacksheep you say that OPs have never been found and you want evidence, Ok here it is...

Ansett found TCP in the ducting, Qantas Southern Australia, Allied Signal found it, BRE and Portland Down found it etc...

If you still think OPs like TOCP, MOCP, DOCP and TMPP are safe to inhale I would be happy to give your name to some scientists who test the consequences of OP exposure on Rats and Hens, as I am sure they would welcome a human input if you are volunteering your kind services for the benefit of the aviation community and we can spare a few rats and hens as well.

Oh! I can already hear you saying it may be the case that OPs were found but the amounts were so small that they could never cause any ill effects, well I hear that a single dose of .01 LD50 of an OP causes massive brain cell death, so repeated exposure to even lower amounts will not be good for you. Also that is .01 LD50 of one compound, imagine a nice cocktail of compounds!

Why do you think Mobil have never done testing that reproduces the exposure scenario, i.e heat the oil, and do inhalation tests? Or maybe they have, but have decided not to share this with us.

You remind me of the cigarette industry doctors saying all was well back in the 60s. I was new to flying then but times change and crews are getting wise and regretably sick as well.

How do you account for the PET and MRI abnormalities seen in crews who have been exposed, lung problems etc.. Just a bad crew meal?

When an independant panel tests Mobil jet oil 2 in the way it is exposing crews and they check for CN and tell me nothing found then Iīll shut up. As that will not happen, I guess I will just keep watching out for your nonsense posts and listening/reading the mis-information you give your crews!

"Only toxic if swallowed!" what a laugh! :ok:

Blacksheep
6th Nov 2003, 13:06
Since we seemed to have established that only one aircraft model was involved and not the wide spectrum of common aircraft types orignally mentioned, I was going to remain silent. Your last post obliges me to respond.

I previously asked for tangible facts but none are produced so far beyond the quoted 0.01 LD50 as causing massive brain cell death. However the actual LD50 rate was omitted. To save you the trouble, the LD50 rate for the OPs you quoted range from 70mg/Kg to 780mg/Kg (in hens) so the brain death value that you gave equates to 0.7mg / kg in the most toxic case - a dose of 52mg for a 75 kg human.

Early on in the topic you included a large selection of affected aircraft that included the B757. A B757 with two RB211-535E4 engines might use about 2-3 litres of engine oil on a typical two to three hour sector. Most of the oil leaking past the bearing seals would be expelled as designed through the breather system. Without going into the finer details of the engine bleed and aircraft pneumatic systems, the absolute worst case scenario that one could realistically imagine might put as much as 63 grammes of this oil into the 120,000 or so litres of air that will pass through a B757 cabin during a two hour flight. Of this the occupants will breathe less than 50,000 litres, inhaling a grand total of 26.5 grammes or just 145 mg each. That also assumes that HEPA filters in the recirculation system do not remove any of the oil. For a typical passenger weighing 75 Kg this equates to less than 0.2 mg per Kg body weight.

That is not their consumption of OPs however, but of complete oil, so the actual total doseage of OPs suspended in that oil would not exceed 0.0001 LD50 - such a minute dose that there is probably no way of empirically measuring its effect. The excretion rate for OPs is quite high, with typically 90% being eliminated in 24 hours - Organophosphate doseage is not cumulative.

If by some unimaginable disaster the entire oil contents of one engine were discharged into the cabin, the doseage could possibly reach the 0.01 LD50 range that you quoted, but every passenger would emerge drenched in oil, thus providing tangible evidence of their exposure.

I'd be more worried about the effects on my health of long term exposure to airline food or jet lag if I were you.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

Van Sharp
12th Nov 2003, 01:12
While some people may lay around in Jet A1, or get covered in Oil regularly, with no noticeable damage is absolutely beside the point. There is a significant number of people who are succeptible to neurotoxins and WILL show symptoms.

Some people smoke all their lives and don't get cancer, so is smoking safe?

Get real!

If I seem p***ed off it's because I have suffered numerous neurological symptoms for the last 8 years, and suffer constant pain now. I am still flying, but only because the CAA are being very reasonable about my residual symptoms - which by the way are getting worse.

It's not about lawsuits. It's actually about getting companies to do as much as is reasonable to reduce health risks, and not just do nothing becasue the bean-counters reckon that it's cheaper to pay the few succeptible people off if ever they actually proceed against them - knowing that they can each shift blame to each other making a lawsuit difficult, costly and lengthy.

DEAD ZONE
13th Nov 2003, 01:36
Dear Blacksheep

LD50 for hens of TOCP is not 780mg/Kg but 500 mg / Kg given ORALLY not inhalation (meant to be more toxic by a factor of about 10) therefore: .01 of 500mg / Kg would be 5 mg / Kg.

EQSFAP Environmental Quality and Safety. (Stuttgart, Fed. Rep. Ger.) V.1-5, 1972-76.

The current estimated NOAEL from a single exposure to TOCP in a hen is 25mg / Kg yet brain cell death is being seen at only 5mg / kg without any OPIDN signs whatsoever.

The NOAEL for man using a safety factor of 10 is 2.5 mg / kg and yet cell death is seen at 5 mg / Kg already.

This is also single dose damge and not inhalation and not synergestically applied with other OPs!

How much clearer does it need to be for you to to stop protecting your employer rather than your employees especailly as you have a duty of care to your employees!

"Do you sleep well?"

The Big Fixer
22nd Nov 2003, 05:27
Time to add my bit!

I have been "chosen" to investigate on too many times to mention when our acft come in with fumes defects.

Our MM procedure calls for the human nose to sample the bleed air etc.. I can tell you I have had head pressures and head fog for hours after.

Now something, toxic must do that.

What are the long term effects?

A lad left my shift with now diagnosed Parkinsons. Is this related?

Where is the proof it DOESNT do it!

I am sick of hearing: " we don't know!!!"

The big Fixer always sorts it out!!:confused: