Is contaminated bleed air harmful? YES...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: oxfordshire. uk
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
research/publications on the subject?
CAA and Professor Boobis named in shaming document. “Dozens of the Government's most influential advisers on critical health and environmental issues, including cabin air, have close links to biotech and drug corporations, according to a dossier of Whitehall documents obtained by The Observer.
“Internal papers from the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) reveal for the first time the extent of the close connections between big business and scientists hired to give independent advice to Ministers. Many work as consultants for the firms, own shares in the companies or enjoy lucrative research grants from them.
Confidential documents disclose that former Environment Minister Michael Meacher and Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty, were deeply concerned that scientists with industry links were dominating committees on everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent arrival of GM crops. Both Meacher and Whitty were alarmed that the scientists' commercial links jeopardised the independence of the advice they gave.” Antony Barnett and Mark Townsend Sunday July 13, 2003 The Observer
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: 'It is now crystal clear how big business is setting the agenda right at the heart of government. The whole process needs to be opened up and made transparent. How can the public trust what Ministers say if their advice is coming from those with vested interest in the biotech or pharmaceutical industry.'
A Defra spokesman said the committees publish their members' interests.
He went on: 'Defra has full confidence in the capability of independent advisory committees across the range of issues the department deals with to provide high-quality, well-informed advice and support.'
The Observer contacted many of the Government's scientific advisers, who denied that their links to industry compromised the impartiality of their advice.
Professor Boobis, who took legal advice on which interests he should declare, summed up their view: 'It is almost inevitable that any scientists of international repute will have some current or past links with industry.
'To say we would risk our professional integrity because we own a few shares in a company is ridiculous.'
However, The Countess of Mar in a speech to the House of Lords highlighted how “filters could be put on aircraft to filter the air supply and protect the travelling public from exposure to known neurotoxins at the cost of ‘peanuts’ in aviation terms but the CAA and airlines had done nothing.”
The Countess of Mar highlighted how “the government in its attempt to bury this issue have passed the vast volume of data supplied to them by the pilot union BALPA ,to a team under the leadership of Professor Alan Boobis. Professor Alan Boobis is a well known advocate that chemical exposures are all safe, despite this be a differing view to that held by the Royal Commission.”
Discredited or what?
“Internal papers from the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) reveal for the first time the extent of the close connections between big business and scientists hired to give independent advice to Ministers. Many work as consultants for the firms, own shares in the companies or enjoy lucrative research grants from them.
Confidential documents disclose that former Environment Minister Michael Meacher and Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty, were deeply concerned that scientists with industry links were dominating committees on everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent arrival of GM crops. Both Meacher and Whitty were alarmed that the scientists' commercial links jeopardised the independence of the advice they gave.” Antony Barnett and Mark Townsend Sunday July 13, 2003 The Observer
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: 'It is now crystal clear how big business is setting the agenda right at the heart of government. The whole process needs to be opened up and made transparent. How can the public trust what Ministers say if their advice is coming from those with vested interest in the biotech or pharmaceutical industry.'
A Defra spokesman said the committees publish their members' interests.
He went on: 'Defra has full confidence in the capability of independent advisory committees across the range of issues the department deals with to provide high-quality, well-informed advice and support.'
The Observer contacted many of the Government's scientific advisers, who denied that their links to industry compromised the impartiality of their advice.
Professor Boobis, who took legal advice on which interests he should declare, summed up their view: 'It is almost inevitable that any scientists of international repute will have some current or past links with industry.
'To say we would risk our professional integrity because we own a few shares in a company is ridiculous.'
However, The Countess of Mar in a speech to the House of Lords highlighted how “filters could be put on aircraft to filter the air supply and protect the travelling public from exposure to known neurotoxins at the cost of ‘peanuts’ in aviation terms but the CAA and airlines had done nothing.”
The Countess of Mar highlighted how “the government in its attempt to bury this issue have passed the vast volume of data supplied to them by the pilot union BALPA ,to a team under the leadership of Professor Alan Boobis. Professor Alan Boobis is a well known advocate that chemical exposures are all safe, despite this be a differing view to that held by the Royal Commission.”
Discredited or what?
Discredited or what?
Do we want scientists in the govenment who understand the problem well enough to cover it up, or do we want Doctor Quack with an elixir for whatever bothers us?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: oxfordshire. uk
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
contaminated scientists
Hi CALIFORNIAN BABE (posted 30th April 2005)
QUOTE:
Governments covering up air quality issues.
I got this from a good source, its amazing how much the governments B/S everyone to protect their own, in this case British Aerospace.___The UK AAIB and the UK CAA published reports last year saying Cabin Air Quality was OK. Part of their report was supported by work looking at the pyrolysis products of heated engine oil which the UK CAA / AAIB said despite Exxon Mobil saying its in the oil, contained none of the Organophosphate known as TCP in any pyrolysis products during their testing. This goes completely against the TCP being found in filters, swab tests and on pilots clothes reported recently at the BALPA Contaminated Air Protection Conference in London, so how can this be?PRUNE
You may be interested in the following:
8 Dec 2005 These are excerpts from a speech in the House of Lords by the Countess of Mar:-
Dr Ruge, a member of the AHWG, in referring to the UK Government and CAA-initiated and sponsored research paper Cabin Air Quality published in
2004,stated:
"The results did not suggest that there is a health risk for passengers, including infants, and crew".
A look at that paper reveals that:
"The research described in this report addresses the effect of cabin air contamination on the pilot's ability to safely fly and land an aircraft.
The CAA decided to conduct this research following a small number of events where flight crew effectiveness was reduced, possibly due to oil products present in the cabin air. Although some references are made concerning long term health effects, the scope of this research did not attempt to determine the extent of any such risk".
It makes no reference to passengers or infants. The research paper relies heavily on a BAe "Commercial—in confidence" paper by Marshman and neither
paper has been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal, and yet they seem to be accepted as gospel.
Just prior to the publication of the recent Royal Commission report on environmental exposure to chemicals, there appeared in the Observer of 18
September an article that with a began:
"Britain's leading poison experts united last week to denounce pressure groups for mounting a 'hysterical, scaremongering' campaign about dangerous
chemicals in the environment".
The report includes a quotation from Professor Alan Boobis who, as a member of the Committee on Toxicity, will be reviewing a great deal of the evidence submitted by BALPA to the AHWG. In relation to a recent statement by the WWF, he stated:
"These compounds can cause diseases but not at the levels found in these [blood] tests".
As for the chemical cocktail effect, he stated:
"There is simply no evidence it exists".
There is an ever increasing body of scientific literature from around the world that indicates that some chemicals are giving rise to adverse health
effects.
Even the royal commission accepts that there is clear evidence of
ill-health which may be attributable to exposure to small quantities of toxic
chemicals. I remind the Committee that Toyber said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I continue to find it extraordinary that our so-called experts exhibit so little scientific curiosity. Their objective seems to be to maintain the status quo and dismiss out of hand any hypotheses others
may propose. Their pronouncements in the face of so much contrary evidence do not tend to engender public confidence.
I could go on giving examples. I could comment on the complacency of Written Answers that I have received in recent weeks to my Questions about cabin air quality. I could be justifiably angry that sick people are being ignored—as long as they are fit enough to fly an aeroplane, no one is responsible for how they feel or the conditions under which they are expected to work.
Neither the aviation regulators nor the airlines seem to consider that occupational health and safety are their business. They are currently using the excuse of waiting for the Government's advisory committee to report after the Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity has reported to them and then, presumably they will be waiting for legislation or regulation. I have seen it all before.
John Woodley, the Australian former Senator who chaired his government's
inquiry into this subject is reported to have said:
"Some people in the industry and some of the regulators seem to think they are God and so can take risks with the lives of their employees and
customers, but they are not God and this is not a joke. It is time they got serious, stopped mucking about and started to play the game seriously".
I most earnestly ask the COT to heed his words.
The Minister knows what I think about stand-alone epidemiological studies.
As another eminent scientist whom I know said to one of my correspondents just the other day:
"In the final analysis data trumps models. Why on earth won't they measure?"
The answer that he gave is that they really do not want to know"
QUOTE:
Governments covering up air quality issues.
I got this from a good source, its amazing how much the governments B/S everyone to protect their own, in this case British Aerospace.___The UK AAIB and the UK CAA published reports last year saying Cabin Air Quality was OK. Part of their report was supported by work looking at the pyrolysis products of heated engine oil which the UK CAA / AAIB said despite Exxon Mobil saying its in the oil, contained none of the Organophosphate known as TCP in any pyrolysis products during their testing. This goes completely against the TCP being found in filters, swab tests and on pilots clothes reported recently at the BALPA Contaminated Air Protection Conference in London, so how can this be?PRUNE
You may be interested in the following:
8 Dec 2005 These are excerpts from a speech in the House of Lords by the Countess of Mar:-
Dr Ruge, a member of the AHWG, in referring to the UK Government and CAA-initiated and sponsored research paper Cabin Air Quality published in
2004,stated:
"The results did not suggest that there is a health risk for passengers, including infants, and crew".
A look at that paper reveals that:
"The research described in this report addresses the effect of cabin air contamination on the pilot's ability to safely fly and land an aircraft.
The CAA decided to conduct this research following a small number of events where flight crew effectiveness was reduced, possibly due to oil products present in the cabin air. Although some references are made concerning long term health effects, the scope of this research did not attempt to determine the extent of any such risk".
It makes no reference to passengers or infants. The research paper relies heavily on a BAe "Commercial—in confidence" paper by Marshman and neither
paper has been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal, and yet they seem to be accepted as gospel.
Just prior to the publication of the recent Royal Commission report on environmental exposure to chemicals, there appeared in the Observer of 18
September an article that with a began:
"Britain's leading poison experts united last week to denounce pressure groups for mounting a 'hysterical, scaremongering' campaign about dangerous
chemicals in the environment".
The report includes a quotation from Professor Alan Boobis who, as a member of the Committee on Toxicity, will be reviewing a great deal of the evidence submitted by BALPA to the AHWG. In relation to a recent statement by the WWF, he stated:
"These compounds can cause diseases but not at the levels found in these [blood] tests".
As for the chemical cocktail effect, he stated:
"There is simply no evidence it exists".
There is an ever increasing body of scientific literature from around the world that indicates that some chemicals are giving rise to adverse health
effects.
Even the royal commission accepts that there is clear evidence of
ill-health which may be attributable to exposure to small quantities of toxic
chemicals. I remind the Committee that Toyber said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I continue to find it extraordinary that our so-called experts exhibit so little scientific curiosity. Their objective seems to be to maintain the status quo and dismiss out of hand any hypotheses others
may propose. Their pronouncements in the face of so much contrary evidence do not tend to engender public confidence.
I could go on giving examples. I could comment on the complacency of Written Answers that I have received in recent weeks to my Questions about cabin air quality. I could be justifiably angry that sick people are being ignored—as long as they are fit enough to fly an aeroplane, no one is responsible for how they feel or the conditions under which they are expected to work.
Neither the aviation regulators nor the airlines seem to consider that occupational health and safety are their business. They are currently using the excuse of waiting for the Government's advisory committee to report after the Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity has reported to them and then, presumably they will be waiting for legislation or regulation. I have seen it all before.
John Woodley, the Australian former Senator who chaired his government's
inquiry into this subject is reported to have said:
"Some people in the industry and some of the regulators seem to think they are God and so can take risks with the lives of their employees and
customers, but they are not God and this is not a joke. It is time they got serious, stopped mucking about and started to play the game seriously".
I most earnestly ask the COT to heed his words.
The Minister knows what I think about stand-alone epidemiological studies.
As another eminent scientist whom I know said to one of my correspondents just the other day:
"In the final analysis data trumps models. Why on earth won't they measure?"
The answer that he gave is that they really do not want to know"
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I watched that. Very interesting. Hopefully the commission will authorize a full investigation but as both aircraft (B757, BAe 146) are now out of production I don't know what good it will do.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add a little more fuel....
OK, I know it's not bleed air... but....
If an apu is u/s, gse can privide air con on the ground..... Ok so doors are open.... but what are they pumping into the cabin???
~~ not read the whole thread so sorry if it's been mentioned!! ~~
If an apu is u/s, gse can privide air con on the ground..... Ok so doors are open.... but what are they pumping into the cabin???
~~ not read the whole thread so sorry if it's been mentioned!! ~~
