Exhaust Fumes
Thread Starter
Exhaust Fumes
Diesel fumes cause cancer, says WHO | Science | guardian.co.uk
Considering the crap that comes out of the majority of RW engines, and the proximity that Cmn are to the efflux, does anyone know of any studies carried out on the effects to the health of crews?
Considering the crap that comes out of the majority of RW engines, and the proximity that Cmn are to the efflux, does anyone know of any studies carried out on the effects to the health of crews?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: somewhere special
Age: 46
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Benzene Exposure
on a similar note, it has been shown there are links between benzene exposure and Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML). Benzene is found in fuels; notably in aviation fuels it is at a slightly higher concentration than in regular petrol. Benzene is also generated as a by product of combustion, so if you've been in the efflux, or been near anything nasty that is/was on fire, you could have also been exposed.
I would be curious to know if the leukemia incidence is significantly higher in service personnel in the air environment than a regular civvy.
Proving that your cancer is service attributable is a different story though!
I would be curious to know if the leukemia incidence is significantly higher in service personnel in the air environment than a regular civvy.
Proving that your cancer is service attributable is a different story though!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
I don't see how exposure to spotters could cause cancer.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Depends if they're smoking.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or any sooties/lineys that have ever done hot pushbacks or winchbacks or operated under running 199's.
the **** that comes out of the oil breathers - that was worse than jet eflux.....
When it's proven the link between that crap and some horrible disease expect a rather large number of cases.....
IIRC the phrase is "a Rainmaker"
the **** that comes out of the oil breathers - that was worse than jet eflux.....
When it's proven the link between that crap and some horrible disease expect a rather large number of cases.....
IIRC the phrase is "a Rainmaker"
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try these for starters. No I've not read them yet
TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR JET FUELS JP-4 AND JP-7
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp76.pdf
Evaluating Particulate Emissions from
Jet Engines: Analysis of Chemical and
Physical Characteristics and Potential
Impacts on Coastal Environments and
Human Health
http://areco.org/pdf/ParticulateEmis...ngines1996.pdf
Risk factors of jet fuel combustion products. [Toxicol Lett. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
Abstract
Air travel is increasing and airports are being newly built or enlarged. Concern is rising about the exposure to toxic combustion products in the population living in the vicinity of large airports. Jet fuels are well characterized regarding their physical and chemical properties. Health effects of fuel vapors and liquid fuel are described after occupational exposure and in animal studies. Rather less is known about combustion products of jet fuels and exposure to those. Aircraft emissions vary with the engine type, the engine load and the fuel. Among jet aircrafts there are differences between civil and military jet engines and their fuels. Combustion of jet fuel results in CO2, H2O, CO, C, NOx, particles and a great number of organic compounds. Among the emitted hydrocarbons (HCs), no compound (indicator) characteristic for jet engines could be detected so far. Jet engines do not seem to be a source of halogenated compounds or heavy metals. They contain, however, various toxicologically relevant compounds including carcinogenic substances. A comparison between organic compounds in the emissions of jet engines and diesel vehicle engines revealed no major differences in the composition. Risk factors of jet engine fuel exhaust can only be named in context of exposure data. Using available monitoring data, the possibilities and limitations for a risk assessment approach for the population living around large airports are presented. The analysis of such data shows that there is an impact on the air quality of the adjacent communities, but this impact does not result in levels higher than those in a typical urban environment.
Biological and h... [J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Jul-Aug] - PubMed - NCBI
Abstract
Over 2 million military and civilian personnel per year (over 1 million in the United States) are occupationally exposed, respectively, to jet propulsion fuel-8 (JP-8), JP-8 +100 or JP-5, or to the civil aviation equivalents Jet A or Jet A-1. Approximately 60 billion gallon of these kerosene-based jet fuels are annually consumed worldwide (26 billion gallon in the United States), including over 5 billion gallon of JP-8 by the militaries of the United States and other NATO countries. JP-8, for example, represents the largest single chemical exposure in the U.S. military (2.53 billion gallon in 2000), while Jet A and A-1 are among the most common sources of nonmilitary occupational chemical exposure. Although more recent figures were not available, approximately 4.06 billion gallon of kerosene per se were consumed in the United States in 1990 (IARC, 1992). These exposures may occur repeatedly to raw fuel, vapor phase, aerosol phase, or fuel combustion exhaust by dermal absorption, pulmonary inhalation, or oral ingestion routes. Additionally, the public may be repeatedly exposed to lower levels of jet fuel vapor/aerosol or to fuel combustion products through atmospheric contamination, or to raw fuel constituents by contact with contaminated groundwater or soil. Kerosene-based hydrocarbon fuels are complex mixtures of up to 260+ aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (C(6) -C(17+); possibly 2000+ isomeric forms), including varying concentrations of potential toxicants such as benzene, n-hexane, toluene, xylenes, trimethylpentane, methoxyethanol, naphthalenes (including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], and certain other C(9)-C(12) fractions (i.e., n-propylbenzene, trimethylbenzene isomers). While hydrocarbon fuel exposures occur typically at concentrations below current permissible exposure limits (PELs) for the parent fuel or its constituent chemicals, it is unknown whether additive or synergistic interactions among hydrocarbon constituents, up to six performance additives, and other environmental exposure factors may result in unpredicted toxicity. While there is little epidemiological evidence for fuel-induced death, cancer, or other serious organic disease in fuel-exposed workers, large numbers of self-reported health complaints in this cohort appear to justify study of more subtle health consequences. A number of recently published studies reported acute or persisting biological or health effects from acute, subchronic, or chronic exposure of humans or animals to kerosene-based hydrocarbon fuels, to constituent chemicals of these fuels, or to fuel combustion products. This review provides an in-depth summary of human, animal, and in vitro studies of biological or health effects from exposure to JP-8, JP-8 +100, JP-5, Jet A, Jet A-1, or kerosene.
TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR JET FUELS JP-4 AND JP-7
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp76.pdf
Evaluating Particulate Emissions from
Jet Engines: Analysis of Chemical and
Physical Characteristics and Potential
Impacts on Coastal Environments and
Human Health
http://areco.org/pdf/ParticulateEmis...ngines1996.pdf
Risk factors of jet fuel combustion products. [Toxicol Lett. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
Abstract
Air travel is increasing and airports are being newly built or enlarged. Concern is rising about the exposure to toxic combustion products in the population living in the vicinity of large airports. Jet fuels are well characterized regarding their physical and chemical properties. Health effects of fuel vapors and liquid fuel are described after occupational exposure and in animal studies. Rather less is known about combustion products of jet fuels and exposure to those. Aircraft emissions vary with the engine type, the engine load and the fuel. Among jet aircrafts there are differences between civil and military jet engines and their fuels. Combustion of jet fuel results in CO2, H2O, CO, C, NOx, particles and a great number of organic compounds. Among the emitted hydrocarbons (HCs), no compound (indicator) characteristic for jet engines could be detected so far. Jet engines do not seem to be a source of halogenated compounds or heavy metals. They contain, however, various toxicologically relevant compounds including carcinogenic substances. A comparison between organic compounds in the emissions of jet engines and diesel vehicle engines revealed no major differences in the composition. Risk factors of jet engine fuel exhaust can only be named in context of exposure data. Using available monitoring data, the possibilities and limitations for a risk assessment approach for the population living around large airports are presented. The analysis of such data shows that there is an impact on the air quality of the adjacent communities, but this impact does not result in levels higher than those in a typical urban environment.
Biological and h... [J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Jul-Aug] - PubMed - NCBI
Abstract
Over 2 million military and civilian personnel per year (over 1 million in the United States) are occupationally exposed, respectively, to jet propulsion fuel-8 (JP-8), JP-8 +100 or JP-5, or to the civil aviation equivalents Jet A or Jet A-1. Approximately 60 billion gallon of these kerosene-based jet fuels are annually consumed worldwide (26 billion gallon in the United States), including over 5 billion gallon of JP-8 by the militaries of the United States and other NATO countries. JP-8, for example, represents the largest single chemical exposure in the U.S. military (2.53 billion gallon in 2000), while Jet A and A-1 are among the most common sources of nonmilitary occupational chemical exposure. Although more recent figures were not available, approximately 4.06 billion gallon of kerosene per se were consumed in the United States in 1990 (IARC, 1992). These exposures may occur repeatedly to raw fuel, vapor phase, aerosol phase, or fuel combustion exhaust by dermal absorption, pulmonary inhalation, or oral ingestion routes. Additionally, the public may be repeatedly exposed to lower levels of jet fuel vapor/aerosol or to fuel combustion products through atmospheric contamination, or to raw fuel constituents by contact with contaminated groundwater or soil. Kerosene-based hydrocarbon fuels are complex mixtures of up to 260+ aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (C(6) -C(17+); possibly 2000+ isomeric forms), including varying concentrations of potential toxicants such as benzene, n-hexane, toluene, xylenes, trimethylpentane, methoxyethanol, naphthalenes (including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], and certain other C(9)-C(12) fractions (i.e., n-propylbenzene, trimethylbenzene isomers). While hydrocarbon fuel exposures occur typically at concentrations below current permissible exposure limits (PELs) for the parent fuel or its constituent chemicals, it is unknown whether additive or synergistic interactions among hydrocarbon constituents, up to six performance additives, and other environmental exposure factors may result in unpredicted toxicity. While there is little epidemiological evidence for fuel-induced death, cancer, or other serious organic disease in fuel-exposed workers, large numbers of self-reported health complaints in this cohort appear to justify study of more subtle health consequences. A number of recently published studies reported acute or persisting biological or health effects from acute, subchronic, or chronic exposure of humans or animals to kerosene-based hydrocarbon fuels, to constituent chemicals of these fuels, or to fuel combustion products. This review provides an in-depth summary of human, animal, and in vitro studies of biological or health effects from exposure to JP-8, JP-8 +100, JP-5, Jet A, Jet A-1, or kerosene.
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 19th Jun 2012 at 21:45.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Or Jag see offs out of a HAS, neither of them had engines pointing out of the rear doors so you were simply circulating it round in the HAS until your eyes were stinging and you were breathing fumes.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
I must day that, at the time, the possibility of one day being a 'ding ding (potential cancer ridden) wing mong' wasn't really of great concern but I'll bear it in mind.
Air quality testing during RTR at Stafford-early to mid 90s
As an Ex-Wing Mong (Tiswoz) I seem recall the H&S lot turning up at Staffords HLS during the early to mid 90s. We carried out a couple of RTRs on the wessex (mainly front end) whilst a H&S bod with a backpack with sensors took noise and exhaust samples.
Verbally, he told us refuellers, that we were slightly mad stooping beside the exhaust with an open line refuel nozzle, but slightly more worrying, was that his initial readings did cause some concerns regarding the toxicity of emissions and the amount of emissions that an individual was in proximity of throughout the refuel.
However, no surprises when the report came back that, no real risk to health existed!
Oh well, i guess I'll have to put down my odd behaviour to just being totally mad!!
Verbally, he told us refuellers, that we were slightly mad stooping beside the exhaust with an open line refuel nozzle, but slightly more worrying, was that his initial readings did cause some concerns regarding the toxicity of emissions and the amount of emissions that an individual was in proximity of throughout the refuel.
However, no surprises when the report came back that, no real risk to health existed!
Oh well, i guess I'll have to put down my odd behaviour to just being totally mad!!
On a cold North Sea winter's day with 3 degrees temperature and forty knots of wind the only warm place to supervise the refuelling, luggage loading etc, is underneath the boom in the jet efflux of both engines.
Must have spent hours there.
Must have spent hours there.
There was a study done a few years ago and a report was distributed. I have a copy of said report somewhere...
IIRC it was thought that the particulates were of the incorrect size to stay and play in the lungs. Therefore there was no risk.
However, my sooty helmet (
) said otherwise...
IIRC it was thought that the particulates were of the incorrect size to stay and play in the lungs. Therefore there was no risk.
However, my sooty helmet (
) said otherwise...
Is there anyone around who operated the Machine Runway De-icer (MRD)? I believe they had an operator in the cabin between the 2 engines and a driver in the fuel bowser which fuelled and pushed it. How much exposure did they get to the efflux? I didn't pay that much attention, but seem to remember them being out for long periods.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think of all those strong mugs of tea you had too.....
Formaldehyde, the stuff the old speys chucked out in copious amounts. Saw an H&S guy run out of a HAS after taking readings....
Formaldehyde, the stuff the old speys chucked out in copious amounts. Saw an H&S guy run out of a HAS after taking readings....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Is there anyone around who operated the Machine Runway De-icer (MRD)? I believe they had an operator in the cabin between the 2 engines and a driver in the fuel bowser which fuelled and pushed it. How much exposure did they get to the efflux? I didn't pay that much attention, but seem to remember them being out for long periods.
but it was the warmest place to be, if not a tad noisy.
Last edited by NutLoose; 20th Jun 2012 at 19:05.