BA's in-flight safety chief warns about toxic cabin fumes

[Setpoint99]

According the The MailOnline:

Toxic cabin fumes can POISON plane passengers and oxygen masks are no protection warns BA's in-flight safety chief | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3910048/Toxic-cabin-fumes-POISON-plane-passengers-oxygen-masks-no-protection-warns-BA-s-flight-safety-chief.html)

"The head of in-flight safety for British Airways has admitted that passengers can be 'incapacitated' by toxic fumes on planes.

"Mark Mannering-Smith reportedly wrote on an internal online forum that cabin fumes can be toxic and therefore hurt crew and travellers.

"His comments which were posted on the internet have since been deleted, but were saved by BA staff, reports The Sun on Sunday."

[White Knight]

A truly amazing revelation:rolleyes:

Thanks Mark for the highly paid insight:hmm:

[wiggy]

What TangoAlphad said.

All MMS was doing was making some quite sensible points and issuing a few reminders to employees on an in house BA forum about some aspects of smoke/fumes incidents. He didn't claim to be revealing anything new.

Why someone thought his comments were worth leaking and why the Mail has chosen to use paraphrase his report and use "poison" in bold in it's headline I can't begin to imagine.........

[DaveReidUK]

why the Mail has chosen to use paraphrase his report and use "poison" in bold in it's headline I can't begin to imagine.........

Well newspapers paraphrase things all the time, though there's possibly more need to do that for DM readers.

Having said that, if something is toxic then, by definition, it's poisonous.

[wiggy]

You're not wrong DR, though this is one of those rare occasions when for once I actually have some limited sympathy for those in management trying to do an honest job and keep "the troops" informed.

As I read it ( and I do mean "it") the manager involved was trying to write a piece to address some concerns and one or two half baked theories/medical opinions that were being passed around by word of mouth or by intranet/internet by certain people....some of it similar to some of guff posted in other threads in this place...

The manager promptly finds himself being quoted/paraphrased in a national newpaper which has managed to construct a headline that contains " POISONED" and "BA safety chief"....

[Less Hair]

Why don't we install sensors in every a/c cabin and monitor cabin air at any time? Because we would find something?

One specific problem might be overfilled engine oil reservoirs. Just more awareness could help big time.

[Less Hair]

Yes we can. Check engines and what is monitored and datalinked.

[RAT 5]

Slight thread creep; but in 90's I read a report commissioned by the LH & Alitalia pilot's union into cosmic radiation at >FL300. Evidently a German whose job was the monitoring of radiation in ground plants had travelled in a flight deck with a geiger meter and it went epileptic. The report was every extensive and quite scary. Perhaps it was meant to be. There are now developed 'exposure' models linked to rosters and the amount of time spent >FL300, so everything is OK. (a bit like the fatigue model linked to rosters). I wonder just how much actual data high level was accumulated before those models were designed, and how much was extrapolation and laboratory generated data. It disappeared very quickly into a PR black hole and the unions didn't pursue it publicly; and ECA seems to have been very quiet on the issue.
Then the poisoned cabin air saga came to light and it too was poo poo'd as voodoo and pure speculation; until some scientific tests were done. But it too disappeared into a PR black hole and the unions didn't pursue it publicly. Previously DVT went the same route.
All these were 'inconvenient truths'. The cure was far too difficult to implement so we better not acknowledge the problem and it will fall off the radar.
I remember the same thing with the 'lead in fuel' scare mongering; except that was pursued, proven and corrected. I guess that was an easy affordable solution so it was easier to keep the campaign going once the science was proven.

[lomapaseo]

Why don't we install sensors in every a/c cabin and monitor cabin air at any time? Because we would find something?

Care to suggest a standard to monitor against?

Would it be set above flatulence levels?

Would it be seat specific or just averaging between floor and ceiling at the center of a cabin?

and finally what action would be required at each level?

all engines off? or

a 2 hour diversion max?

[wiggy]

Evidently a German whose job was the monitoring of radiation in ground plants had travelled in a flight deck with a geiger meter and it went epileptic. The report was every extensive and quite scary.

RAT5 I've heard umpteen versions of that story ( usually as told in the UK gent was from Calder Hall or Aldermaston) over the years. Frankly if someone whose job was meant to be radiation montoring doesn't know what levels he or she would expect to see at high alt then they are no expert, the numbers have been known since Auguste Pickard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Piccard

As far as radiation and studies disappearing down a black hole as an inconvenient truth :ok:, there's plenty of data out there on the open medical sites on the internet thingy. There are some interesting studies yet to be resolved/finalised but that whilst radaiation levels at crusing altitude are high vs. ground level I'm afraid that in general the epidemology doesn't support a hidden radiation threat conspiracy.

Now back to fumes...

[FE Hoppy]

Back in the early 90's in a sandy place we carried a chemical agent monitor, similar to the type used at airports these days. It sniffed the air and gave warnings when it detected dangerous levels of various "agents".

Being roughy toughy mil types we tested any number of "gasses" and you would be amazed how often we were in mortal danger! Especial after a curry night.

Surprisingly we all lived to tell the tale.

[Less Hair]

The old COT/BALPA paper on this issue:

https://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/cotstatementbalpa200706.pdf

[Nemrytter]

Evidently a German whose job was the monitoring of radiation in ground plants had travelled in a flight deck with a geiger meter and it went epileptic. The report was every extensive and quite scary. It must also have been nonsense. I've travelled quite frequently with a radiation spectrometer (advanced version of a geiger counter) and whilst the radiation is greater than that at ground level it's far, far, far, below the amount deemed to be even slightly hazardous. If you spent every possible second of your life in the air then it might be a problem after a few years, but for crews it's not a problem.

(edit)Why don't we install sensors in every a/c cabin and monitor cabin air at any time? Because we would find something? There's been a few studies that have done exactly that, to my knowledge none of them found anything. Possibly because there's nothing to find or possibly because they didn't encounter a fume event on the flights that were studied.

[Less Hair]

This is why I suggested to measure in every single cabin.
Even blood tests right after a flight don't seem to guarantee to leave any traces after fume events sometimes.

Here is one from Germany (A319 4U):
http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/Investigation%20Report/2010/Report_10_5X018_A319_Koeln-Bonn_Smell.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

[blind pew]

In the early 80s lufthansas cabin crew union carried out radiation monitoring and when the preliminary measurements were announced management banned further monitoring.
It was fairly open knowledge in Swissair at the time as we had a lot of ex Luftwaffe pilots and one of our German Swiss skippers purchased his own measuring equipment which was one of the reasons that many of us cruised a few thousand feet below optimal FL.
IATA or IFALPA published a paper on it around that time and very quickly every copy was removed from our crew room.

[slip and turn]

I tend to agree with Less Hair's take on these matters (cabin air toxicity, that is, as opposed to the separate issue of overexposure to cosmic radiation - clearly less hair might be a symptom of the latter!).

And in relation to that last offered example German report, it occurs to me that the known overfilling of the hydraulic system may have been dismissed a little prematurely. Which systems get a particular and fresh working over on approach? Sure, excess deicing fluid often oozes from where it's been hiding on descent and approach too, but lots of hot hydraulic oil out of design limits caused by overfill would be high on my list for investigation.

Some very strange and nasty smells can come from hot hydraulic oil getting out to the wrong places - I first learned that on farm tractors 45 years ago - but you can step out of those till the smell subsides, and simultaneously retain fully brain function to quickly work out what just went wrong!

[FE Hoppy]

How hot does your hydraulic oil need to be?

[Setpoint99]

For those who wish to read a good brief on this, an article published in a nuclear technology news magazine I once edited, Nuclear News, provides an excellent overview of the issue of air crew radiation dose:

http://www3.ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/pdfs/2000-1-3.pdf

Though published in 2000, the article contains a lot of hard data that are still valid.

Incidentally, there is increasing evidence that the current LNT (linear no-threshold--i.e., any dose at any level is bad) theory of dose response and radiation risk to humans vastly overstates radiation risk. It is well known that exposure to low-level dose can actually reduce cancer prevalence below normal rates because it stimulates cell repair mechanisms, a process called "hormesis":

"Hormesis is a biological phenomenon whereby a beneficial effect (improved health, stress tolerance, growth or longevity) results from exposure to low doses of an agent that is otherwise toxic or lethal when given at higher doses."

Sorry for the thread drift, but this subject was brought up. . . .

[Basil]

Forty years flying and not a single fume problem.* Colleagues did when a chemical container on a freighter sprung a leak but hardly aircraft related.
People I know who have died earlier than expected have been heavy smokers BUT, my father was and still made it to 80.

* Had a few close brushes with The Reaper but most due stoopidity.

[4Greens]

If there are obvious fumes can we not put pax on oxygen?

[tubby linton]

Pax O2 does not offer respiratory protection from fumes. This gets asked every year on our SEP exam.

[slip and turn]

How hot does your hydraulic oil need to be?Well some might say that if it ever gets as hot as the water in the galley used for making tea, then it's too hot. How hot does yours get?

[slip and turn]

Well tepid is good, because above 150 degrees C, various unwanted degradations can occur according to one technical bulletin from ExxonMobil (http://www.aviapromvolga.ru/partners/mbm/hyjet_v/download_h/HyJetV_Technical_Bulletin.pdf)

[WingNut60]

IIRC the Concorde had radiation monitoring on the flight deck and crew routinely checked for probability of solar flares prior to departure.
Though, I also remember Brian Trubshaw writing that the only time that he saw the needle in the red (whatever that may have indicated) was when flying over certain known "sensitive" areas on the ground. I think that he mentioned Iran, at that time.
Would this problem not be more applicable to high-flying military aircraft? Or is their shielding more effective, of necessity?

[wiggy]

Setpoint..thanks for the link.

WIngnut


Back in the day most of the mil weren't at very high levels long enough for cosmic radiation to be an issue, and in my military days we certainly didn't clock up anything like the hours at high level the airline guys did. That said there will always be exceptions like the U2.

Concorde was a game changer in some ways in being at very high level for relatively long continuous period but I believe there was only one recorded instance of a descent being needed because the alarm went into the red...anyone confirm/deny?

As far as cancer risks are concerned, under pinning all this is the happy fact/statistic that about 30% ( yep, about 1 in 3 ) of the general non flying ground level living and working population will at some time in their lives suffer from cancer. Despite the inevitable anecdotes the general informed opinion seems to be that any small increased incidence of cancer due to radiation exposure in flight is almost immeasurable against the general background incidence.

Yet again, sorry for the thread drift.

[WingNut60]

Wiggy .... Back in the day most of the mil weren't at very high levels long enough for cosmic radiation to be an issue .............


Actually, for the military aircraft, I was thinking more along the lines of the shielding for ionising radiation (and electromagnetic pulse) associated with nuclear weapons.

[Canute]

Once the bomb has dropped, planning for the long term affects of radiation exposure always seemed a little optimistic...:bored:

[Setpoint99]

Originally posted by wiggy
Despite the inevitable anecdotes the general informed opinion seems to be that any small increased incidence of cancer due to radiation exposure in flight is almost immeasurable against the general background incidence.


True, wiggy. The following info will put things into further perspective.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that Americans receive an average radiation dose of 620 millirem per year, about half each from natural background radiation and man-made sources, and that this dose level “has not been shown to cause humans any harm.”

The American Nuclear Society “Personal Radiation Dose Worksheet” allows you to calculate your annual dose based on numerous variables, such as where you live (altitude, geography, proximity to a power plant), how you live (including a dose estimate of 0.5 millirem per hour in the air for “jet plane travel”—admittedly an approximation, given variations in flight altitude, latitude—the Earth’s magnetic shielding is weaker over the poles—and solar activity level), food/air/water intake (e.g., radon), and medical tests:

http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/docs/dosechart.pdf

The NRC has its own (online) annual dose calculator, which factors in dose from airline travel differently, by total miles traveled (1 millirem per 1,000 miles traveled):

NRC: Personal Annual Radiation Dose Calculator (http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/around-us/calculator.html)

Here is a printer-friendly worksheet version of the above:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/for-educators/average-dose-worksheet.pdf

According to a meta-analysis in the January 2015 JAMA Dermatology:

Risk of Melanoma in Pilots and Cabin Crew | Dermatology | JAMA Dermatology | The JAMA Network (http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/1899248)

“Pilots and cabin crew have approximately twice the incidence of melanoma compared with the general population.” It surmised, however, that the cause was not cosmic rays but could be UVA exposure, and that regarding lifestyle factors, pilots and cabin crew did not have “more sunny vacations,” etc., than the general population.

As I mentioned previously, low-level radiation exposure has been shown to actually reduce cancer rates. Here is a dramatic example of that, from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol. 9, No. 1, Spring 2004:

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf

“An extraordinary incident occurred 20 [now 32] years ago in Taiwan. Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with cobalt-60 [sources] (half-life: 5.3 y), was formed into construction steel for more than 180 buildings, which 10,000 persons occupied for 9 to 20 years. They unknowingly received [total] radiation doses that averaged 0.4 Sv [40 rem]—a ‘collective dose’ of 4,000 person-Sv [400,000 rem].

“Based on the observed seven cancer deaths, the cancer mortality rate for this population was assessed to be 3.5 per 100,000 person-years [of exposure]. Three children were born with congenital heart malformations, indicating a prevalence rate of 1.5 cases per 1,000 children under age 19.”

By comparison, “The average spontaneous cancer death rate in the general population of Taiwan over these 20 years is 116 persons per 100,000 person-years. Based upon partial official statistics and hospital experience, the prevalence rate of congenital malformation is 23 cases per 1,000 children. Assuming the age and income distributions of these persons are the same as for the general population, it appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure.”

This sort of thing drives the anti-nukes bonkers.

[wiggy]

Wingnut

Still off topic but to quickly answer the question: .

Actually, for the military aircraft, I was thinking more along the lines of the shielding for ionising radiation (and electromagnetic pulse) associated with nuclear weapons.

As I understand it amount of radiation released at the instant detonation is very much dependant on the weapon, many are relatively (I stress relatively clean) at the sort of distance the delivery aircraft would presumably plan to be at the moment of detonation. The radiation at short range and also from any fallout is another matter ...as is EMP.

Canute also makes a valid point.....certainly peacetime rules regarding level of exposure etc would be long gone.

[ShotOne]

That simply doesn't follow, setpoint. Your "evidence" no way supports your conclusion about health benefits from chronic radiation exposure. Seriously!? All it shows is that statistically, the occupants of a few score buildings is an unreliably small sample amongst a population of tens of millions...But if you'd like to prove the benefits yourself with an exposure trial....? What's more worrying is the implication that the radiation risk experienced by flight crew is very low, indeed almost laughable. The very high incidence of skin cancer among pilots (for which I agree causality hasn't been established) makes it very hard to argue this is somehow beneficial

Unfortunately this is a perfect example of the kind of methodology that's been used to prevent the issue of toxic chemicals in cabin air being addressed.

[Ian W]

That simply doesn't follow, setpoint. Your "evidence" no way supports your conclusion about health benefits from chronic radiation exposure. Seriously!? All it shows is that statistically, the occupants of a few score buildings is an unreliably small sample amongst a population of tens of millions...But if you'd like to prove the benefits yourself with an exposure trial....? What's more worrying is the implication that the radiation risk experienced by flight crew is very low, indeed almost laughable. The very high incidence of skin cancer among pilots (for which I agree causality hasn't been established) makes it very hard to argue this is somehow beneficial

Unfortunately this is a perfect example of the kind of methodology that's been used to prevent the issue of toxic chemicals in cabin air being addressed.

There is a very high incidence of skin cancer in professional drivers ( Truck Drivers Face Risk of Skin Damage From Years of Sun Exposure ? TransForce, Inc. (http://www.transforce.com/truck-drivers-face-risk-of-skin-damage-from-years-of-sun-exposure/) Study: Driving May Contribute to Left-Side Skin Cancers | TIME.com (http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/21/study-driving-may-contribute-to-left-side-skin-cancers/) ) skin cancer is caused by UV mainly UVA radiation not ionizing radiation.

[IcePack]

In my last airline the crews were pretty good at entering any "smelly sock smell" in the tech log.
I never saw or heard of an aircraft being grounded (AOG).
So should sometime in the future the link to organophosphates & medical complications be proven. I wonder how the airlines & the individuals who released the aircraft fair in the inevitable compensation lawsuits. This post intentionally controversial so please discuss.

[misd-agin]

Cancer risk is in the low 40% for white males. Death from cancer is in the low-mid 20%'s.
Maybe 230/1000. Aviation induced is about 2/1000.

Exposure is 1/4 to 1/7 of the annual limit so the airlines didn't stop monitoring because they were trying to hide data, they stopped because it was a waste of time.

[IcePack]

Yes interesting stats. As a matter of interest as of now nor at the time did I suffer any known reaction. However one of my co-pilots did. Although not to a detrimental extent.
So yes your figures are proberbly right but will those (if proved in future) have a case?

[4468]

In my last airline the crews were pretty good at entering any "smelly sock smell" in the tech log.
I never saw or heard of an aircraft being grounded (AOG).
So should sometime in the future the link to organophosphates & medical complications be proven. I wonder how the airlines & the individuals who released the aircraft fair in the inevitable compensation lawsuits. This post intentionally controversial so please discuss.
The crews may well have been "pretty good at entering any 'smelly sock smell', but in any subsequent "inevitable compensation lawsuits", one imagines the first question asked of those claiming compensation may well be along the lines of: "Captain Bloggs, having detected that unusual smell, why didn't you follow the smoke/fumes checklist, and immediately don your oxygen mask? That would have provided you with significant protection, would it not?"

Protecting yourself is in your hands. Nobody else's!

[Basil]

Can't imagine that donning O2 mask would have been my first thought if informed of 'sweaty sock' smell (Nor my second, third or fourth).

[RAT 5]

Can't imagine that donning O2 mask would have been my first thought if informed of 'sweaty sock' smell (Nor my second, third or fourth).

Having heated discussions with my wife, on return home, might be; but then again not.

[4468]

Then the only question to be asked is why they are entering their (or their colleagues) sweaty socks, in the tech log?

[ShotOne]

Ho ho! Except the smell denotes lethally toxic gas causing life-shattering or fatal injuries down the line Unfortunately it's only quite recently that such entries started getting much in the way of priority for treatment or rectification.

[RAT 5]

I realise this is a serious issue and might have been brushed under the carpet for too long, but.....the list of amusing tech log entries & replies is now becoming longer.

1. Funny smell in cockpit:.....We all checked it out, had a laugh, and sprayed air freshener. Funny smell departed.
2. Smell of old socks in cockpit.......Old socks removed (from under seat- what are you guys doing in there?) sprayed with air freshener. Ground tested found satis.
3. Strange smell of engines in cockpit.........Smell of engines perfectly normal and side window closed.

Note: Air freshener now added to list of cockpit equipment and no-go items. MEL allows one sector to a station where Air freshener can be replaced.

[Nemrytter]

Except the smell *may* denote *what is conjectured to be* lethally toxic gas *that may* cause life-shattering or fatal injuries down the lineCorrected that for you to make it just a tad more sensible.

[ShotOne]

Fume events "may" be triggered by a whole range of contaminants, not all of them toxic. But It's not in dispute that organophosphates, a chemical constituent of jet oil, are very harmful indeed and cause serious long-term health issues.

[Setpoint99]

ShotOne, as far as “the implication that the radiation risk experienced by flight crew is very low” is concerned, my points are that (1) radiation risk is dependent upon specific variables: radiation type, dose, and dose-rate, and (2) below a certain threshold, radiation exposure has little risk or even a benign effect. It all depends on the numbers in each person’s case. Of course, if a pilot’s exposure exceeds that threshold, there would be an X probability of cancer.

The article and personal radiation-dose computation worksheet links provided in my earlier posts provide some perspective.

It is quite probable that a significant level (especially at high altitudes) of long-duration-UV exposure can cause skin cancer.

Paradoxically, sunlight is not the only significant variable. As my dermatologist tells me, skin melanoma often occurs without lifetime high exposure to sunlight. There are other factors involved such as genetic predisposition. Nonetheless, since I live in Florida, I try to minimize sun exposure.

Speaking more generally, the devil is in the details. Different (other) kinds of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma) have different biological effects. According to MIT News: “Because x-rays and gamma rays are less damaging to tissue than neutrons or alpha particles, a conversion factor is used to translate the rad or gray into other units such as rem (from Radiation Equivalent Man) or sieverts, which are used to express the biological impact.”

Another variable is dose rate. The same dose received within a small span of time has a greater negative effect than that received during a much longer duration.

There is growing evidence supporting radiation hormesis, the theory that low doses are harmless and may even have a beneficial effect by stimulating cell-repair mechanisms. Science sometimes takes a long time to change course, and challenging its conventional wisdom in a highly contradictory way means opposing its massive inertia, which is like that of a super tanker.

The scientific challenge is to define more precisely the boundary between the harmful and beneficial levels of both radiation dose and dose-rates, so that we can transition from the woolly generalization that all radiation is bad.

That can lead to use of low-level radiation to improve health in specific, scientifically proven contexts, and also reduce overextended radiation protection regulation that unnecessarily increases the cost of compliance for industry and government.

The current Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model underlying worldwide radiation protection standards is imprecise and clumsy. As Wikipedia (which provides an excellent overview of the LNT pros and cons) notes:

“The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a model used in radiation protection to quantify radiation exposure and set regulatory limits. It assumes that the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation (essentially the cancer risk) is directly proportional to the dose. This allows the summation by dosimeters of all radiation exposure, without taking into consideration dose levels or dose rates. In other words, radiation is always considered harmful with no safety threshold, and the sum of several very small exposures are considered to have the same effect as one larger exposure (response linearity).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model#Controversy

According to the World Nuclear Association:

“Some of the ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun is considered ionizing radiation, and provides a starting point in considering its effects. Sunlight UV is important in producing vitamin D in humans, but too much exposure produces sunburn and, potentially, skin cancer. Skin tissue is damaged, and that damage to DNA may not be repaired properly, so that over time, cancer develops and may be fatal. Adaptation from repeated low exposure can decrease vulnerability. . . . Our knowledge of the effects of shorter-wavelength ionizing radiation from atomic nuclei derives primarily from groups of people who have received high doses. The main difference from UV radiation is that beta, gamma and X-rays can penetrate the skin. The risk associated with large doses of this ionizing radiation is relatively well established. However, the effects, and any risks associated with doses under about 200 mSv [20 rem], are less obvious because of the large underlying incidence of cancer caused by other factors. Benefits of lower doses have long been recognised, though radiation protection standards assume that any dose of radiation, no matter how small, involves a possible risk to human health. However, available scientific evidence does not indicate any cancer risk or immediate effects at doses below 100 mSv [10 rem] per year. At low levels of exposure, the body's natural mechanisms usually repair radiation damage to DNA in cells soon after it occurs (see following section on low-level radiation). However, high-level irradiation overwhelms those repair mechanisms and is harmful. Dose rate is as important as overall dose.” Radiation | Nuclear Radiation | Ionizing Radiation | Health Effects - World Nuclear Association (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/radiation-and-health/nuclear-radiation-and-health-effects.aspx)

More documentation about hormesis by other sources:
“In 1990, the ICRP [International Commission on Radiological Protection] (in its Publication 60) conceded that hormesis might exist but said that “the available data on hormesis are not sufficient to take them into account in radiological protection.” With the publication of a great deal of evidence on hormesis since 1990, the converse is now true, viz: that the ICRP would need to be very confident that radiation hormesis does not occur if it is going to recommend the assumption of LNT [the Linear No-Threshold concept].” --Dr. Donald J. Higson, Australasian Radiation Protection Society ICRP: Consultation view comment (http://www.icrp.org/consultation_viewitem.asp?guid=%7B81B7F7F9-046B-4F48-A180-D92E300B30D0%7D)

“The conclusion of zero threshold dose for carcinogenic effects of radiation in the recent updated report on the atomic bomb survivor cancer mortality data appears to be unjustified and may be the result of the restrictive functional forms that were used to fit the data. Also, the shape of the dose-response observed in the recent update of atomic bomb survivor data is clearly non-linear with the significant reduction in cancer mortality rate in the dose range of 0.3 Gy to 0.7 Gy. This raises doubts about the LNT model and possibly shows evidence for the phenomenon of radiation hormesis when a correction is applied for a likely bias in the baseline cancer mortality rate. Though the use of radiation hormesis was proposed more than three decades ago as a method of reducing cancers, no prospective human cancer prevention studies have been conducted so far to determine its validity due to carcinogenic concerns based on the LNT model. . . . Low dose radiation may also be helpful in improving outcomes in cancer patients by cure of early stage cancers, as an adjuvant to standard radiation therapy to improve tumor control and reduce metastases, and to reduce the incidence of second cancers. Pilot clinical trials are needed to determine the effectiveness of low dose radiation in these applications. Success in such clinical trials can help to reduce the concerns regarding low dose radiation and enable the study of cancer prevention using radiation hormesis.”--”Linear No-Threshold Model VS. Radiation Hormesis,” by Mohan Doss, PhD, Associate Professor, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3834742/

[4468]

Ho ho! Except the smell denotes lethally toxic gas causing life-shattering or fatal injuries down the line Unfortunately it's only quite recently that such entries started getting much in the way of priority for treatment or rectification.
I have no intention of trivialising the matter. I speak having spent many years on one of the two worst affected types. Having donned my mask for exactly this reason, and having personally flown with one of our colleagues who died due to aerotoxic syndrome.

My point is, don't expect anyone else to protect you. Protect yourself by donning your masks. Or just keep your trap shut, your fingers crossed, and don't bother putting anything in the tech log!

Because by the time you land, it's too late!

[tubby linton]

This makes for an interesting read.
https://avherald.com/h?article=425f6a41&opt=0

[snooky]

It certainly does, as does this https://news.aviation-safety.net/2010/03/17/repeated-issues-with-foul-odor-on-boeing-767-n251ay/

[up_down_n_out]

Just to put the radiation bit to rest for good and all.

My dad's best friend (MRC) was the UK expert on radiation and industrial accidents.
He was always called out when it anything hit the fan.

Cosmic radiation has been steadily increasing over a number of years (mostly gamma), as the sun's activity has been steadily falling. (so much for global warming eh?)

When there's a CME (coronal mass ejection) the cosmic ray flux drops sharply in a FORBUSCH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbush_decrease) decrease.

http://www.spaceweather.com/cosmicrays/everything_11sep16_strip.png

This is a quote from Space weather, which is most informative, especially on why we get Aurorae (as is highly likely for christmas).

This plot displays radiation measurements not only in the stratosphere, but also at aviation altitudes. Dose rates are expessed as multiples of sea level. For instance, we see that boarding a plane that flies at 25,000 feet exposes passengers to dose rates ~10x higher than sea level. At 40,000 feet, the multiplier is closer to 50x. These measurements are made by our usual cosmic ray payload as it passes through aviation altitudes en route to the stratosphere over California.
What is this all about? Approximately once a week, Spaceweather.com and the students of Earth to Sky Calculus (https://www.facebook.com/Earth-to-Sky-Calculus-174490502634920/timeline/) fly space weather balloons to the stratosphere over California. These balloons are equipped with radiation sensors that detect cosmic rays, a surprisingly "down to Earth" form of space weather. Cosmic rays can seed clouds (http://news.spaceweather.com/cosmic-rays-and-clouds-new-results/), trigger lightning (http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2013/05/do-cosmic-rays-grease-lightning), and penetrate commercial airplanes (http://news.spaceweather.com/rads-on-a-plane-may-oct-2015/). Furthermore, there are studies ( #1 (http://www.heartrhythmjournal.com/article/S1547-5271%2808%2900481-5/fulltext), #2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18810718), #3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1501097/), #4 (http://shao.az/SG/v1n2/SG_v1_No2_2006-pp-13-16.pdf)) linking cosmic rays with cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the general population. Our latest measurements show that cosmic rays are intensifying, with an increase of more than 12% since 2015:
http://www.spaceweather.com/cosmicrays/stratosphere_11sep16_strip.png

Why are cosmic rays intensifying? The main reason is the sun. Solar storm clouds such as coronal mass ejections (CMEs) sweep aside cosmic rays when they pass by Earth. During Solar Maximum, CMEs are abundant and cosmic rays are held at bay. Now, however, the solar cycle is swinging toward Solar Minimum, allowing cosmic rays to return. Another reason could be the weakening (http://news.spaceweather.com/earths-magnetic-field-is-changing/) of Earth's magnetic field, which helps protect us from deep-space radiation.
The radiation sensors onboard our helium balloons detect X-rays and gamma-rays in the energy range 10 keV to 20 MeV. These energies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray) span the range of medical X-ray machines and airport security scanners.
The data points in the graph above correspond to the peak of the Reneger-Pfotzer maximum (http://www.hist-geo-space-sci.net/5/175/2014/), which lies about 67,000 feet above central California. When cosmic rays crash into Earth's atmosphere, they produce a spray of secondary particles that is most intense at the entrance to the stratosphere. Physicists Eric Reneger and Georg Pfotzer discovered the maximum using balloons in the 1930s and it is what we are measuring today (http://spaceweather.com/cosmicrays/2015/22oct15/pfotzer_22oct15.png).

[falcon10]

What is the annual radiation "limit" recommended for flight crew?

[up_down_n_out]

This subject has already been covered here ad nauseam.
http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/440890-radiation-doses.html
AMS Gatwick, Airline and Airport Aviation Medical Examiners (http://www.amsgatwick.com/radiation.php)

However you have to look no further than concorde for all the info you might ever need, and/or if paranoia (http://www.rp-alba.com/news/?p=116) is really taking hold.

The supersonic aircraft with the greatest range of all, being able to outfly military aircraft.
The civil aircraft with the greatest radiation exposure profile, because of altitude to reduce drag, c/w highest maximum cruise altitude (60,000ft).
One of the most advanced SST aircraft with the longest unbroken service period (27 years), the only other being TU144 which was a FAIL.

The only civil aircraft fitted with a dosimeter as standard.
This unit was developed and calibrated with the help of Aldermaston nuclear weapons AWRE lab.

You can read about it here:- (https://previ.obspm.fr/articles/RadProtDos-v104n3-199.pdf)

At 60 000ft, the a/c internal usual dose rate is usually around 1mR/h.
For x-rays and gamma rays, 1 rad = 1 rem = 10 mSv
For neutrons, 1 rad = 5 to 20 rem (depending on energy level) = 50-200 mSv

TBQH there are places in the UK, which have almost as high background radiation levels at ground level 24/7/365 than you would get in a/c at FL30. (eg. chiltern hills around High Wycombe).

http://www.ukradon.org/cms/assets/gfx/phe-radon/maps/ukradonmap.jpg

http://wordpress.mrreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/uk-radon.jpg

"nuff said?

[ShotOne]

"Nuff said..?" Being as the thread is about contaminated bleed air, Yes.

[tubby linton]

It is almost as if somebody is trying to deflect away from the issue of cabin air. It doens't help when the union medical expert doesn't believe in it..

[snooky]

I couldn't agree more. There is something about this issue which is for wharever reason being suppressed by both airlines and some unions.

[Nemrytter]

It doens't help when the union medical expert doesn't believe in it..Perhaps because they've been trained to believe evidence and carefully tested theories rather than anecdotes and 3rd-hand tales?

[snooky]

Perhaps because they've been trained to believe evidence and carefully tested theories rather than anecdotes and 3rd-hand tales?

Or then again perhaps for some reason they choose to ignore the evidence that many of us have first hand experience of.

[Nemrytter]

Sorry, yes, I forgot: Big conspiracy.

[PPRuNe Towers]

Nemrytter you do write a lot of sense but you are UK based and therefore have no excuses to ignore the disgrace over the Organo Phosphate decades of denial, spin and lies for the farming community.

Did the methodologies you describe equally apply there too? Or that mild sleeping assistance, Thalidomide?

The record is not perfect and vested interests have always been deeply involved in these previous tragedies.

Rob

[crablab]

Just on the topic of fume events...

British airlines to be sued because 'planes contain toxic air' | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-airlines-to-be-sued-because-planes-contain-toxic-air-10304369.html)

[Nemrytter]

Nemrytter you do write a lot of sense but you are UK based and therefore have no excuses to ignore the disgrace over the Organo Phosphate decades of denial, spin and lies for the farming community.
Did the methodologies you describe equally apply there too? Or that mild sleeping assistance, Thalidomide?
The record is not perfect and vested interests have always been deeply involved in these previous tragedies.
RobOne should always have a healthy scepticism for the position of those with vested interests on issues such as this. That goes both ways, however: One should not base an entire argument upon suppositions and anecdotes.

We know that certain substances can, in great enough doses, cause harm. We know that those substances can be present in aircraft cabin air. What we don't know is how often these substances are present, and whether they are present in amounts great enough to cause any harm. Current research based upon interviewing flight crews suggests that they may, on rare occasions, be present in great enough doses. Current research based upon actually measuring the concentrations of these substances suggests that they are not present in such doses.

Obviously there's more research to be done, and is being done right now by many different groups of researchers (some independent, others not). Quite frankly the hyperbolic comments by many (not just here) are silliness. Websites with skull-and-crossbones, talk of conspiracies and a general hyperbolic exaggeration of the slightest fume incident don't help. In fact, I'd say that this type of stuff hinders a proper understanding of fume events and how they may cause health issues. I was at a meeting a few weeks ago where we had one crew representative who was shouting that "these aircraft are killing us, we will all be dead within a decade". That talk is deeply unhelpful.
Yes, I know that's easy to say and harder to do when you believe you're being exposed to these fumes but, unfortunately, that's life. Screaming about it and presenting some hideously distorted version of events makes things harder for everyone. Again, that goes both ways. Figuring out the facts will be done, but it can't be done instantly and it does require solid facts and evidence - something proponents of 'aerotoxic' are a little short of at this time.

(edit) The news article above is a perfect example of this: Rather than trying to get expert opinion they try to push something through the courts, knowing there's not enough evidence available. Deeply unhelpful.

[snooky]

It is rather frustrating when suffering these toxic effects to be told for decades that one day the truth will out. The problem lies in the fact that apart from occasional extreme occurrences the day to day accumulations of low exposure take years before symptoms show.
Those of us who regularly fly or flew some types know well the odour associated with oil fumes. Back in the 90s we were unaware of the cumulative toxic nature of these fumes.
It is strange that these toxic substances are still being inflicted on passengers and crew. One day no doubt we will look back and wonder how it was allowed to happen, over the years this has often been the case in industrial poisoning.

[crablab]

I assume, with the introduction of non-bleed air cabin packs (such as on the 787) this will cease to be a problem?

[safetypee]

crablab, never assume.
Your assumption could be just as hazardous as the difficulties in taking predetermined positions as clearly outlined in #62.
What if the issue relates to the composition of duct materials, temperature or sensitivity to humidity, deterioration with component age, ...

The problem requires a scientific approach; establish a viable theory, gather information to test the theory, and repeat for a range of circumstances; unfortunately we are lacking in all areas.

With problems, people are most valuable in helping to solve them; however when a problem is a mess, the problem is with the people.

[tdracer]

crablab
The air cycle machines on the 787 use oil for lubrication, and can also fail in such a way as to introduce oil fumes into the cabin air.
After one of the previous aero-toxic shouting matches on PPRuNe, I started watching the Boeing incoming 21.3 reports for fume events (so all Boeing and Douglas/MacDac commercial aircraft) and continued to do so for over a year (I recently retired so I no longer have access).
What I noticed was, by a wide margin, most reported fume events were galley related - either burned/overcooked food, or electrical smoke from a galley appliance. Most of the rest were also some sort of electrical overheat. Less than ten percent were related to the cabin air system in some way. A few were reported right after an engine water wash (if the people doing the water wash don't do all the correct steps, some of the wash fluid can get into the engine bleed system). A couple others were failures of the ECS packs, and one was the failure of an air cycle machine on a 787. I saw two that were traced to the engine - both Rolls powered 757s. Naturally there were several where no fault was found.
If someone was really serious about investigating aero-toxicity, the first thing they should do is go start sampling the air around the major airports - it's far more polluted than the stuff you're breathing at cruise. Not only is there the exhaust from all those airplanes, turbine engines use differential air pressure to keep the oil where it belongs and consume far more oil at/near idle than they do at power. So all those aircraft with their engines idling are spewing oil fumes out the exhaust.

[snooky]

I found that in decades of flying RR powered 75s the most pungent moments were shortly after take off and shortly after TOD, consistent with differential pressure changes in the engines.
Topping up oil levels to a less than full level did appear to reduce, but not eliminate the smells. The smell I refer to is the oft quoted "smelly socks".
I think that Airbus may yet come to regret not following the 787 example in that the 380 and 350 still get their bleed air in the "old fashioned" way.
I recently travelled on a 787 and literally found it to be a breath of fresh air.

[ShotOne]

Tdracer, that may well be so; nobody is insisting every fume event is toxic but some undoubtedly DO involve bleed contamination, particularly with certain aircraft and engine types. There is no dispute that the organophosphates contained in aero-engine oil can cause serious harm.

[Nemrytter]

It is strange that these toxic substances are still being inflicted on passengers and crew. One day no doubt we will look back and wonder how it was allowed to happen, over the years this has often been the case in industrial poisoning.Well do something about it, then. Complaining doesn't solve the perceived problem. If you think there's fumes then take an air sample, for instance. Try to organise some independent research into the subject, get people interested.

What needs to be done is exactly what Safetypee suggests:
The problem requires a scientific approach; establish a viable theory, gather information to test the theory, and repeat for a range of circumstances; unfortunately we are lacking in all areas.
The problem is that this is not being done. Those who are concerned are, effectively, shouting into a hurricane rather than trying to actually understand the situation. That needs to change.

[Widger]

There is no dispute that the organophosphates contained in aero-engine oil can cause serious harm.

Shot one. To the contrary, there IS dispute

https://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/cot/cotstate.pdf

[lomapaseo]

Shot one. To the contrary, there IS dispute

here we go again, mincing words

too much of anything is worrisome

But this issue is a waste of bandwidth without an agreed process to analyise facts.


And then there is what to do with the analysis results other than wring our hands. publish papers and argue that not enough is being done.

is there anything new here?

[RAT 5]

The problem requires a scientific approach;

I would suggest:

1. There has to be agreement there is a problem: that involves some scientific research and analysis.

2. If discovered that cabin air does have toxic ingredients they need to be identified.

3. The source needs to be identified. It has been mentioned various possibilities.

4. If the source is engines then the spotlight falls on the engine manufacturers.

5. If the source is in the fuselage, zircon' ducts, packs, etc. then the spotlight is no the aircraft manufacturers. How ever they are the seller of there final product on toto.

6. The XAA with jurisdiction in the country of manufacturer has to take responsibility for enforcing the process all the way through to solution.

Who is going to enforce that the XAA fulfils its duties? They have a duty of care to pax & crew. Perhaps their government has to hold them to account and ensure they act on their responsibilities. talking about it in the bar, or even the newspapers, will be short term effective at best. Imagine there being an air pollution event in a factory that affects workers. The union would have all the workers outside PDQ until it was solved. Is this another demonstration of the true influence of todays aircrew unions? If their is a problem why are they not protecting the health of their members?
Why do the unions not combine first with the Airline Passengers Association. They are all in the same smelly boat; so to speak.
There are some 'ifs' here, so let's find the truth soonest and so a strategy can be discussed and implemented.

[lomapaseo]

Rat 5

You would work fine on a committee since you ask pertinent questions and seem willing to work a process :ok:

But do give a thought that not all problems can be worked at their source any more than you can solve heat stroke by turning off the sun.

Many aviation related problems are addressed by mitigation of the problem's results.

If we tackle only one part of the problem that is attributable to the engines, then we can either eliminate the engines, the oil, their function that lets out the bad particles or we can provide a positive shield between the engine and the passengers and crew.

Lacking that we can provide more tolerant passengers and crew and the rest can take surface transportation :)

The challenge one quickly comes to in all this is the technical capability, the cost and lastly is "how much is needed by validation"

Personally I doubt that anything is going to come out of casual internet discussion boards that address this problem. But I can hope that we can at least support a scientific addressing of these issues without all the arm waving

[unobtanium]

All of you concerned pilots should check out an aircraft when it gets its interior stripped during maintenance. You'll quickly realise the occasional fumes might not be as bad as the amount of crap circulating the cabin.

[ShotOne]

"To the contrary there is dispute.." Organophosphate are neurotoxins, principally used in herbicides, pesticides and chemical nerve agents. Approximately 200,000 people die worldwide annually as a result of OP poisoning. If you're relying on the long report you posted (113 pages) to prove they are harmless, widger, either you didn't read it or grossly misrepresent it. The report considered only low level exposure, principally in the agricultural context, expressly excluded acute exposure and its authors would no doubt be surprised to find it being used to dispute my statement of "serious harm". But by all means go ahead and sprinkle them on your cornflakes!

[Nemrytter]

Approximately 200,000 people die worldwide annually as a result of OP poisoning. I presume you got that from wikipedia? If you follow the link on the wikipedia article (citation 2 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493390/)) you'll see that the 200k figure came from a review that primarily discusses self-poisoning. Therefore the 200k figure is not suitable to the debate here.

As I've said before, this is one of the major problems with the cabin air debate: The entire thing is centred upon a bunch of poorly-researched bits-and-pieces without any proper analysis. That really, really, needs to change. Airlines, of course, won't drive that change so it is - unfortunately - up to the crews and other individuals who are worried about their own health.

[ShotOne]

The 200k figure entered the debate purely to refute the earlier assertion that the serious harm that can be caused by organophosphates is somehow the subject of scientific dispute.

[Basil]

A World total of 56m people died in 2012. Kinda puts it all into perspective.

WHO | The top 10 causes of death (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/)

WORLD RANKINGS-TOTAL DEATHS (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-rankings-total-deaths)

I flew for forty years and only even heard of two fume/smoke events.
One was smoke in FD and the other was on a freighter on pushback caused by a broken cargo chemical bottle.
Oh, yes, there was one other when an RAF trainer tossed a blazing ball of newspaper into the sim to make it more realistic :}

I am definitely NOT saying that OP events never happen in aircraft but I think we are becoming a bit polarised.
We humans seem to just love tribal conflict - nature of the beast, I guess.

[misd-agin]

Previous research showed higher OP levels surrounded the a/c vs in the aircraft. But the 'inside the aircraft' will be taken as the proof of harm. Shouldn't more ground workers be experiencing long term damage from the greater exposure?

[Mac the Knife]

Well, I've re-read the report that Widger cites: https://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/cot/cotstate.pdf
(I've read it before, when the same subject came up previously)

The conclusion (and please read all 113 pages of it before sounding off) is that there is no evidence that occasional exposure to low levels of organophosphates leads to any measurable cognitive impairment, dementia or increased risk of suicide. And there are many many studies.

Cabin fume events do occur, as we all know. How many of these lead to exposure to low levels of organophosphates is unknown, but what evidence there is, suggests not very many. But it is of course impossible to prove a negative case.

As the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, everybody's entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts.

Even if they are called "alternative facts."


[and in case you wonder why a lowly surgeon should have any standing to add his two-bits, it is because he has spent rather a large part of his life in operating theatres, where fume events, both noticeable and unnoticeable are far from uncommon - so he does have a dog in the race]

[ShotOne]

On what grounds have you decided a fume event is a "low level" exposure? The studies used in the report are predominantly agricultural and specifically excludes acute exposures....so even those in that industry acknowledged to have suffered very serious ill effects would not have featured. I agree let's not have alternative facts. But equally, let's not twist genuine facts to "prove" issues widely removed from their context.

[Mac the Knife]

"On what grounds have you decided a fume event is a "low level" exposure?"

I am not aware of a reported fume event which has resulted in the signs and symptoms of acute or sub-acute organophosphate poisoning.

From Wikipedia: "The effects of organophosphate poisoning on muscarinic receptors are recalled using the mnemonic SLUDGEM (salivation, lacrimation, urination, defecation, gastrointestinal motility, emesis, miosis. An additional mnemonic is MUDDLES: miosis, urination, diarrhea, diaphoresis, lacrimation, excitation, and salivation."

See also: Organophosphate Toxicity: Background, Pathophysiology, Epidemiology (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/167726-overview)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4238091/

But I do of course stand to be corrected.

Please note that I am NOT denying that this, or lesser events can occur or may have occurred - it is just that I am not aware of them, nor have I been able to find any verifiable accounts in an aviation context.

I believe that a paper was referenced in a a previous thread where wipe/swab tests were done on cabin surfaces to check for organophosphate residues - the results were negative as far as I recall - I'm sorry that I did not make a note of it so that I could include it in our database.

[BTW, chronic a/o low-grade OP poisoning is more commonly seen in agricultural workers and I specifically teach my students to inquire about such exposure in patients who present with odd symptomatology, since this may mimic a confusing number of disorders]

I believe that it is most important to establish the truth or otherwise of these anecdotal reports (I fly [as SLF] too!).

Finally, a little story about the clinical importance of of observation and asking the patient where they come from and what they do or have been doing. In Casualty I was asked en passant to give an opinion on a woman with moderately severe right arm discomfort of subacute onset. Questioning revealed that she was an American tourist who had arrived the day before, and clinical observation showed a right arm that was slightly more swollen than the left and slightly darker/blueish in colour. My presumptive diagnosis of axillary vein thrombosis was confirmed on duplex ultrasound. She was treated and made a good recovery. She had, of course been carrying heavy luggage with that arm. AVT is uncommon (the last one I saw was 26 years ago), but it illustrates the importance of keeping your clinical wits about you and the essential clinical question unde venis? ["Where do you come from?])

:cool:

[RAT 5]

"The head of in-flight safety for British Airways has admitted that passengers can be 'incapacitated' by toxic fumes on planes.
"Mark Mannering-Smith reportedly wrote on an internal online forum that cabin fumes can be toxic and therefore hurt crew and travellers.

I'm a northern plain thinking guy. I sense the beginning of a never ending debate about scientific analysis & conclusions about this issue, and what the true results are. There seem to be two camps.
Thinking in simple terms, why would the of Head of In-fight Safety at BA make such a statement without some belief that it is true? Either he knows something that the posters on here do not, or he was not thinking clearly. Perhaps even having that belief he should have kept it quiet until more was known and solution found. So, perhaps he's both of my options.
What has been the response of the Airline Passengers Group?

[Basil]

Altering the good manager's alleged comment:
"Basil for our street has admitted that people can be 'incapacitated' by toxic fumes in houses."

Especially if there's a gas leak, fire, CO from a gas appliance, cleaning fluids used without ventilation etc etc.

The CC smoke hoods are just that; to assist CC to remain effective in case of fire.

It seems to me that a small group of people appear to be determined to make an issue of a vanishingly unlikely event.

[Nemrytter]

Either he knows something that the posters on here do not, or he's an idiot.Why does it have to be so black-and-white? He's not an expert on toxicology, fumes or anything like that. He's a pilot who is commenting on something outside his area of expertise. His comments should therefore be taken with a pinch of salt - just as you should if you read comments from a toxicologist about piloting.