Toxic Air SyndromeBack to Forum
Tagged: Aerotoxic Syndrome, Airbus, Airlines, Aviation, bad science, Boeing, Cabin Air Quality, Chemical Exposure, CoverUp, Documentary, Espose, Flight Attendants, Frequent Fliers, Fume Event, Passengers, Pilots, research, science fraud
As ever your patronising style on serious issues does you no favours. This only enforces the perception that your interests are those of the airline industry rather than those of your fellow humans who work (fly & serve) you in the air without regard to their welfare and safety.
As we are all concerned in making sure that the airlines that we fly on perform to the highest safety standards, I am perplexed why you should wish to dismiss the eveidence without due consideration.
I do hope that you find it beneath your condascending attitude to post something valuable in this debate or withdraw completely. Thank you18 Jun 2013
ToxicAir – 18/06/2013 15:57 GMT
I do hope that you find it beneath your condescending attitude to post something valuable in this debate or withdraw completely. Thank you
1) Pitifully sad and abandoned or lonely: “forlorn figures at bus stops”.(of an aim or endeavor)
2) Unlikely to succeed or be fulfilled; hopeless: “a forlorn attempt to escape”18 Jun 2013
Here is a published US study from 2009 of the effects from oil fumes:
Just as aircrew are exposed most – so are passengers – there are many testimonies of passengers who have had their health wrecked from just one fume event flight – like this one:
Please refrain from making jokes about this issue.18 Jun 2013
Thank you Aerotoxic ! I concur ! I wonder if those participants who are making uninformed remarks would agree to be exposed to the jet engine fumes cocktail for a period of several hours – it might be enjoyable since they see this conversation and its topic as a game, they can play at Russian Roulette?18 Jun 2013
Leonard Lawrence (Former British Aerospace BAe146 and Boeing 757/767 Pilot)
Collegium Basilea (Institute of Advance Study) Basel Switzerland Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry 11 (216-220).
Len Lawrence. His storey was one of costly legal battles to prove that his brain injury was due to chemical exposure and that he was not mentally unfit. What emerged was a story of incompetence by the medical profession, who lacks knowledge of the symptoms following exposure to neurotoxins and the unfairness of the legal profession in not allowing him to see data concerning his own personal records in their reluctance to take those culpable.
United Kingdom Hospital Medical Director
Report Leonard Lawrence
Mr Lawrence has been heavily exposed to organophosphates. He was medicated to the extent that he lost mental capacity. During the period the Official Solicitor of the Supreme Court acted as his Guardian ad Litem three Court of Protection medical certificates (CP3’s) had been obtained but not registered with the Court of Protection. He was, therefore, for nearly 18 months regarded as a mentally ill patient without access to the Court of Protection. During this time considerable amounts of his assets went missing.
United Kingdom Consultant Haematologist
Dear Mr Lawrence I am sorry that we will not be able to accept you as a donor. This is because of your history of organophosphate poisoning that has left you with on-going nervous system problems.
United Kingdom Professor and Consultant Immunologist
Clearly Mr Lawrence has been through a great deal because of his organophosphate poisoning and related matters.
Professor Abou-Donia Professor of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology and of Neurobiology
(Testing paid for by the British Airline Pilots Association)
Tau and MBP suggest the presence of moderate brain injury. Consistent with chemical-induced nervous system injury.
Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry Malcolm Hooper
Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry 11 (209-215)
In the Lawrence case there appears to be sound grounds for legal action and significant compensation claims for mistreatment and false diagnoses and an appalling failure of the duty of care18 Jun 2013
Aerotoxic – I have never supported VK before, however it appears clear that you and your cohorts are taking it in turns to bump your single topic agenda. It is being ignored by all regular posters.
You have failed in starting a discussion. You have failed to stimulate a response by being antagonistic. You have failed to take a hint.
Please trot on there is no interest here.19 Jun 2013
@ Vintage Krug, BigDog – even if the topic does not interest you or your friends, it does interest others , and “regular posters” might just be staying out of it because they might not know anything about the subject and are reading, rather than making unethical comments …….and just might also not approve of silly little jokes. At least don’t be disrespectful in your comments – you are making fun of seriously sick pilots , flight attendants and passengers. That is pretty inappropriate, don ‘t you think?19 Jun 2013
Avalonia makes the pertinent point that this is about public awareness.
The forum should be used as much for the travelling publics awareness of this matter, rather ponticicating on whether a particular vintage cru is served on board an airline or the Qatar Airways club class configuration suits the new B787.
To this end I have posted a new ‘Fume Incident’ which seems to be typical of what might occur inflight. There no conclusions, just observations.
Incident: Aeromexico B738 at Cancun on Jun 17th 2013, smoke in cabin
By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Jun 19th 2013 17:01Z, last updated Wednesday, Jun 19th 2013 17:01Z
An Aeromexico Boeing 737-800, registration N520AM performing flight AM-580 from Cancun to Mexico City (Mexico) with 120 passengers and 7 crew, was climbing out of Cancun’s runway 12R when smoke appeared in the cabin obviously originating from the air conditioning outlets. The crew stopped the climb at FL110 and decided to return to Cancun, worked the checklists which resulted in the smoke subsiding and landed safely on runway 12R about 15 minutes after stopping the climb. The passengers disembarked normally.
The flight was cancelled.
The incident aircraft was able to position to Mexico City about 8 hours after landing back.20 Jun 2013
Incident: Delta B763 near Denver on Jun 19th 2013, smoke in cockpit
By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Jun 19th 2013 21:20Z, last updated Wednesday, Jun 19th 2013 21:20Z
A Delta Airlines Boeing 767-300, registration N1602 performing flight DL-1162 (dep Jun 18th) from Los Angeles,CA to New York JFK,NY (USA), was enroute at FL370 about 150nm east of Denver,CO (USA) when the crew reported smoke in the cockpit, turned around and diverted to Denver for a safe landing on runway 16R about 30 minutes later. The crew taxied the aircraft to the gate with emergency services in trail.
The incident aircraft was able to continue the flight after 10.5 hours on the ground and reached New York with a delay of 12 hours.20 Jun 2013
Gentlemen (and ladies). You have made your point, you feel passionately about it, and I’m sure many of our readers have looked at this thread.
If you keep posting on it to boost it back up to the top of the forum I am afraid I will delete the thread, so please stop doing so.
Tom Otley, Site Administrator.20 Jun 2013
Anonymous11 Mar 2014
As someone who has flown a lot and still flies reasonably frequently I was rather concerned after taking in a recent documentary… Why do we allow our airlines to poison us?
Have you ever felt unwell either after leaving an aircraft or possibly a few days after, normally suffering from any of the following symptoms….
Feeling of drunkenness
Short of breath.
I stumbled across a documentary the other day to do with “ Bleed air” and contamination of the cabin involving TCP used in hydraulic fluid.
It was pretty damning of airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aviation regulators for not taking seriously the health risks, including danger of incapacitated pilots caused by breathing in air that had first been pumped through the engine.
Jet engines require synthetic oils for lubrication. Airlines choose to purchase oils from BP, Shell, Mobil , these manufacturers use tricresyl phosphate (TCP), an organophosphate as an ingredient.
Long term exposure to this has apparently been proven to cause neurological damage.
The documentary also asked why airlines don’t choose to use a synthetic oil manufactured by a French company that doesn’t use TCP as an ingredient and is used by the French Air Force after they concluded that there was a risk to their pilots performance using the oil that the airlines purchase.
In the documentary they cited an incident of a Swedish crew who if they hadn’t donned their oxygen masks at the last moment, seconds later they would have been so incapacitated they would not have been able to fly their planes.
Another incident involved a British crew setting the flaps incorrectly at take-off !
Apparently the industry is sweeping this under the carpet, fearing the cost of litigation.
And interestingly the 787 has been designed the old fashioned way, and passengers inhale fresh air pumped from outside avoiding the engines!
I know there are quite a lot of forum members with a medical background , your thoughts on this would be most insightful !11 Mar 2014