Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Aerotoxic in the news

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Aerotoxic in the news

Old 9th Mar 2015, 20:24
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 75
Posts: 451
Ian W - your post expresses my views on this subject better than I did. I have been around long enough never to take anything for granted. Look back a few years to the scares with swine flu,bird flu etc which were supposed to decimate the world.The prophets of doom crawl out from under the stones inferring that is the end of civilisation as we know it - a month later it is all forgotten.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 14:26
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,948
BCG, the conviction that there is a problem is based on personal experience for most of us. Denial is the more blinded stance, since there is plenty of evidence for the existence of an issue and none for the lack of it.
Speaking of "denial" and a "blinded stance", it seems to me that there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence for "the lack of" an issue.

Good point Aluminium shuffler, and in addition I really don't understand why any pilot (if they really are pilots ) would really be against investigating any potentially toxic cabin air and would be willing to ridicule their own colleagues?
Fascinating. Can you name a SINGLE individual, be they pilot, aircrew, passenger, or other, who has actually expressed they are "against investigating any potentially toxic air"? Nope. There are none who are opposed to doing solid research on this issue.

However, the scaremongers have not only succeeded in convincing a number of folks that the problem is real and that there is ample evidence "proving" its reality, but have also succeeded in convincing those folks that there is an active conspiracy underway to "cover up" this "reality".

None are so blind as those who want to see something that is not there.

Can the posters of descriptions of this problem as "anecdotal evidence" please explain how this is so?

Is the Bournemouth Senior Coroner, Sheriff Payne, a man likely to issue a Regulation 28 Report to "prevent future deaths" on the basis of anecdotal evidence, I seriously doubt this.
There is clearly some 3 kgs and thousands of pages of data regarding the death of this individual. That is not anecdotal.

That this particular death was caused by exposure to chemicals in the cockpit remains anecdotal. That this particular individual's reaction to OP exposure is representative of the general population is anecdotal. And separately, this individual's death says absolutely NOTHING, anecdotal or otherwise, about a "conspiracy", about a "cover up", and about "vested interests".

That "solution" hinges, Ken, on your belief that the harm done by OP poisoning is cured by breathing clean air (or bottled O2) for a few hours. If only!
Sorry, no. I'm talking about the duration of the flight, or at least the vast majority of it.

(*) except Boeing 787.
Why is the DC-8 not also exempt? It did not have a bleed air supplied AC system.

Shot one, exactly. Which in turn suggests the naysayers on here view aerotoxic syndrome as analogous to CO or CO2 poisoning, that is temporary and easily reversible with no long term damage.
Wow, there it is again. HUGE extrapolations based on a single data point.
I was addressing a SINGLE individual who suffered from headaches while in the cockpit, but not elsewhere. There was ZERO evidence that this individual was suffering from OP toxicity or that he was hyper sensitive to OP exposure, only that he suspected that he was exposed to OP while in the cockpit. IF the cockpit air was the source of his headaches as he suspected (a huge assumption), one solution in his specific case may be to not breath the air in the cockpit. I never REMOTELY suggested that breathing O2 could "cure" or "reverse" OP toxicity. But, if he breathed pure O2 while flying and still got headaches, then he could rule out the air in the cockpit as the source of his headaches.

I reiterate, there is ZERO evidence that this individual was suffering from OP toxicity or that he was hyper sensitive to OP exposure, only that he suspected that he was exposed to OP. PERHAPS he's actually hyper sensitive to radiation, which is more than 20 times higher at the typical cruising altitudes of jets than it is near sea level.

And for all you scare mongers out there, suppose it was proved that hyper sensitivity to radiation was the cause of these folks suffering from "aerotoxic syndrome". Who will you accuse of being "the vested interest" that is "the source" of the radiation? God? Little green men?
KenV is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2015, 18:57
  #183 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,857
And another example of jumping at shadows (not even a shadow actually)

Dunkin' Donuts ditches titanium dioxide ? but is it actually harmful?

What troubles me more than the fact that we are now in the age of legal-driven medicine (rather than patient-benefit-driven medicine) is that we are slowly moving into the age of legal-driven ethics rather than ethics-driven ethics.

Because of the enormous cost of malpractice insurance for some medical specialities it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract trainees - for example it is getting harder and harder to find an obstetrician, and many Ob/Gyn specialists (like two of my colleagues) now plan to stop doing obstetrics. The insurance is simply too expensive.

Wanna have a baby? Call your lawyer!

Mac the Knife is online now  
Old 12th Mar 2015, 19:57
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Kemi,Finland
Age: 64
Posts: 68
Well,nice to know that there are even more threats to my health that i knew about. And i always believed that my daughters were given to me by the weather radar. To live is to learn.

Mack,i agree that some professionalism is fading away...Doctors are joining in whatever pseudo invented, Lawyers making room for tort-cases to be acceptable. And sure,we have problems at our surroundings,too. Too many pressures from around,of people who really are just trying to race their personal life. Forgetting,disregarding that the decisions are not made behind the desk,9 to 5.
Naali is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 08:27
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 732
KenV, you keep banging on that there is no evidence of a problem other than anecdotal. That's because no-one will commit to a full study because they fear the results. Get that through your head. Lack of concrete evidence is not the same as your assertion of evidence that there is no problem - there is no evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise, that the problem does not exist.

This problem does not cease to exist just because a few ignorant and selfish individuals insist so. Why are these individuals opposed to independent study?

It has be proven by small scale studies that organophospate compounds are present in elevated concentrations in aircraft, and the farming industry experience proved beyond any doubt many of the effects of organophosphates, with undoubtedly more bad effects still to be linked (just like any toxin as medical research advances). Why do the authorities, industry leaders and a few on here insist that just because it's aviation, not agriculture, that the toxins have no effect?
Aluminium shuffler is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 08:48
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 202
@KenV:

However, the scaremongers have not only succeeded in convincing a number of folks that the problem is real
I hope that is a typo.

The problem *IS* real. Like any industry facing potentially tens nay hundreds of millions in payouts to those affected, not to mention cost of rectification, you can bet they will prevent the truth coming out.

The key words are LONG TERM EXPOSURE. i.e. EVERY DAY FOR HOURS.

Joe Public going on holiday and flying maybe twice a year are unlikely to be affected, but the crew who are exposed to it every day are the ones who will suffer the consequences of LONG TERM EXPOSURE.

The tobacco industry will tell you that cigarettes are safe, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's the same deal here.
ECAM_Actions is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 13:15
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Aluminium shuffler View Post
KenV, you keep banging on that there is no evidence of a problem other than anecdotal. That's because no-one will commit to a full study because they fear the results. Get that through your head. Lack of concrete evidence is not the same as your assertion of evidence that there is no problem - there is no evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise, that the problem does not exist.

This problem does not cease to exist just because a few ignorant and selfish individuals insist so. Why are these individuals opposed to independent study?

It has be proven by small scale studies that organophospate compounds are present in elevated concentrations in aircraft, and the farming industry experience proved beyond any doubt many of the effects of organophosphates, with undoubtedly more bad effects still to be linked (just like any toxin as medical research advances). Why do the authorities, industry leaders and a few on here insist that just because it's aviation, not agriculture, that the toxins have no effect?
It is not possible to prove a negative especially with such a low level of supposed positive cases.

I don't think anyone is opposing an independent study (perhaps you can quote) I rather fancy people are opposing having to pay for an independent study.

Your case on farmers and organo phosphates is not a fair example. The levels in the cockpit are traces at most and are below the 'safe' exposure levels even for long term exposure**. The farmers were regularly splashed or even up to the knees in sheep dip which is many orders of magnitude (i.e. billions and billions of times higher exposure)
As I said in a previous post any investigation would need to also investigate what other exposure people had outside the cockpit that may have sensitized them to the extremely low levels in the aircraft.

Your being convinced of the case does not form an argument that a large business will consider valid. A formal study needs to be carried out that looks at all possibilities. Someone needs to pay for that to be carried out. I have a suspicion that if the Airlines were to pay for a study and it said there was no problem your response would be well it would, the airline paid for it. So the study will need to be both independent and independently funded.

The only way I see for you to get that level would be to interest a university with a doctoral program in the idea of research that would cover the area.


** Remember that these chemicals are in use in household and industrial products worldwide. Setting more demanding lower levels of exposure for them is not just a problem for your hated aviation industry bosses. It would be a major problem for the international chemical and domestic product industries and agriculture. This is why the study cannot be just a few people from local trading standards or Health and Safety with a low grade detector.
Ian W is online now  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 13:51
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,948
KenV, you keep banging on that there is no evidence of a problem other than anecdotal. That's because no-one will commit to a full study because they fear the results. Get that through your head.
This is getting interesting. Get THIS "through your head": It does not take cooperation from the airlines, the aircraft manufacturers, the aviation regulatory authorities or any other "vested interest" to do a thorough and well documented study of airline cabin air. Just have a bunch of volunteers buy a bunch of airline tickets, have each carry on board a well designed regimen that includes an air sampling device that does in situ analysis and enables post situ analysis, and in a matter of days, maybe weeks, you'd have enough data to prove your point.

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

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

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

There are none so blind as those who want to see something that is not there.
KenV is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 14:20
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 460
The day that the consultant dealing with my sudden kidney loss, who had never heard of aerotoxic syndrome, said "Have you been in contact with oil?" I changed from a cynic to a believer. Kenv, suggest a less aggresive style of writing, I get a picture of you standing at a bar after four pints laying down the law!

PS Farmers "Puddled about" in sheep dip once a year, I puddled about every working day for 17 years in a 146!

Last edited by Croqueteer; 13th Mar 2015 at 14:34. Reason: Addition
Croqueteer is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 14:44
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
Kenv, suggest a less aggresive style of writing, I get a picture of you standing at a bar after four pints laying down the law!
I imagine it's a result of the frustration of trying to deal with people who do not understand how research into things like this works.
"I once heard", "This happened to me", "A mate of mine" etc are not forms of evidence that can be used to generate a robust scientific conclusion. They're useful as a starting point for a theory but nothing more. Until proper, well documented, tests of cabin air quality are carried out there is absolutely no proof of aerotoxic syndrome. It's as simple as that.

Not to say it doesn't exist, mind you - just that there's no proof of it. Like KenV says it'd be easy to test this by pax flying air sampling devices but this has not been done. Doing so would be much more productive than repeatedly stating 'aerotoxic syndrome exists' until everyone gives up debating.

(edit) And before someone tries "but there's no evidence that it doesn't exist": There doesn't have to be. It's impossible to prove that something like this doesn't exist, the only way forward is to show evidence that cabin air does contain pollutants / toxins.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 14:54
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: between sun and sand
Posts: 106
KenV, you stated:

There are none so blind as those who want to see something that is not there.
this is exactly you, because you want to see that there is NO evidence.

Aeronautical medicine is in stone age status compared to the information available in neuroscience today, especially the devastating effects by toxic chemicals on our and many animals nervous system, resulting into multiple indirect long term serious health issues. It does not affect everybody as sensitivity is very different, but are the standards really made to the most sensitive of us? Think about it, if people are stressed by other reasons then the systems gets weaker, resilience is braking down. Not a good time for your body to fight some chemical poisoning.
rantanplane is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 15:37
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,948
The day that the consultant dealing with my sudden kidney loss, who had never heard of aerotoxic syndrome, said "Have you been in contact with oil?" I changed from a cynic to a believer. "
With all sincerety, how does your consultant's question relate to aerotoxic syndrome?

Kenv, suggest a less aggresive style of writing, I get a picture of you standing at a bar after four pints laying down the law!
Aggressive? Really? May I point out that I started this thread talking about the mechanical realities of aeroturbine engines. It was not until a few folks replied directly to me, by name, and using such phrases as "get this through your head" that I replied in a more personal manner. If that is considered "aggressive" I would recommend you take it up with the folks who routinely write in such a manner and who accuse others of having a "vested interest" and participating in a "conspiracy" to "cover up" what they devoutly claim is "a proven fact", when it is anything but.

The bottom line? While I will not pick a fight, if someone picks one with me, they'd better come well armed. If you call that "aggressive", so be it. Nevertheless, the phrase "He brung a knife to a gun fight" comes to mind.

Last edited by KenV; 13th Mar 2015 at 16:23.
KenV is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 16:01
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 460
hot oil, OP, nervous system, aerotoxic syndrome.
Croqueteer is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 16:52
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,948
KenV, you stated: "There are none so blind as those who want to see something that is not there."

this is exactly you, because you want to see that there is NO evidence.
I "want to see that there is NO evidence?!!" Really? Wow, what version of English do you use?

I have clearly stated, MULTIPLE times, that there is literally MOUNTAINS of evidence. Why did you miss that simple English?

I have also stated that there are kilograms and thousands of pages of documentation supporting the neuorological effects of TCP. How was that simple English missed?

And I have also stated that the evidence linking TCP toxicity to aircraft cabin air is anecdotal at best, and more often tenuous, specious, and contradictory. More plain English contradicting your claim that you somehow missed.

So, why did you miss all that plain and often simple English?

Maybe because you are one of those who want to see something that is not there?

In case you missed it (and apparently you did) the ONLY person (I'm aware of) who has stated "there is no evidence at all" was the guy in YOUR camp who insists aerotoxic syndrome is "well proven". I have repeatedly acknowledged all sorts of evidence related to aerotoxic syndrome, and despite the great majority of it being specious and/or anecdotal, I favor a rigorous, in-depth and well documented study be done and even suggested one way of accomplishing it in days or weeks.
KenV is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 17:15
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,948
I hope that is a typo.

The problem *IS* real.
Uh huh. Says you and a few other very loud folks.

But the funny things is, the Aerospace Medical Association, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Australian CASA Expert Panel, House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, Australian Senate Investigation Committee, US National Research Council, UK Department of Transport, UK Parliament's Select Committee on Science and Technology, Aviation Medicine Directorate at King's College London, Medical Toxicology Unit at Guys' Hospital, US National Institute of Health, Aviation Committee on Toxicity, UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, and LOTS more all disagree with you.

Yeah, yeah, I know. All those organizations are "vested interests" who are "colluding" in a massive "cover up". Just as NASA colluded with countless other organizations and national governments to perpetrate the Apollo moon landing hoax.

Look, you folks can believe what you want to believe. And yet none of you are choosing steam ships or steam locomotives over airplanes when it comes time to travel any significant distance.
KenV is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 17:29
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
rantanplane:
this is exactly you, because you want to see that there is NO evidence.
I've said this about 15 times already in this thread but I'll say it again: Please post a link or something to just one single scientific (peer-reviewed) study that shows evidence for aerotoxic syndrome. Despite asking many times I've not seen anyone do this so far.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 18:26
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: between sun and sand
Posts: 106
KenV, in plain simple English, just what I see.. your attitude: if you can' t see it, it is not there, and then the test, wow: it is not there, therefore I cant' see it. Proven by evidence. Sadly this evidence is based on nothing than blindness. Science means you have to doubt what you see, read, calculate etc. and you have to doubt even more what you don't see.

How do you know which camp I belong to? Despite You know nothing for sure, you claim to do so.
rantanplane is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 19:04
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,948
KenV, in plain simple English, just what I see.. your attitude: if you can' t see it, it is not there
Aaaah, you claim to "see" my "attitude". So you base your statements on your (mis)perception of my "attitude" while utterly ignoring the multitude of words which I posted right here that contradict your misperception. Words that span several days of replies which clearly showed I have seen, and acknowledged, and responded to lots and lots of evidence.

and then the test, wow: it is not there, therefore I cant' see it.
As opposed to your test: you (mis)perceive my "attitude," therefore you can't see my plain English words posted all over this thread.

Further fascinating is that you folks believe that if you repeat a fabrication often enough, it magically becomes true. Your claim that I cannot or refuse to "see" evidence was a bald faced fabrication when uttered, and now repeated it remains a fabrication. A fabrication that numerous posts on this thread clearly contradict and which you refuse to see, much less acknowledge.
KenV is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 20:06
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 732
It's pointless debating with Ken, guys. He must just be winding us up - no rational person is so pig headed in a debate with so many direct witnesses and victims. Either way, most on here know what's going on and what needs to be done. Let's hope that Boeing's tacit admission in the 78 is a sign of better things to come. Shame that the 777X and 350 aren't following the example, but it might end up costing them in the long run.

Last edited by Aluminium shuffler; 13th Mar 2015 at 20:37.
Aluminium shuffler is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 20:59
  #200 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: london
Posts: 17
For anyone doubting how serious this actually is have a read of this:

Is the Air Quality on Passenger Planes Killing People? | VICE | United Kingdom
Pacific Blue is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.