By Bearnairdine Beaumont – 15th August 2018
Under the principle of the human right to health, everyone has the right to breathe healthy air. Also indoors.
The prestigious World Health Organisation WHO stated in a meeting report from the year 2000 held in Bilthoven, The Netherlands, that “Indoor air quality is an important determinant of health and wellbeing”, but that: ”The control of indoor air quality is often inadequate, one reason being the poor articulation, appreciation and understanding of basic principles underlying policies and action related to indoor air quality”.
In general the public is not familiar with such reports and those principles in particular, nor with their associated rights. At the time, a WHO working group was convened to work out and agree on a set of principles and statements about “The right to healthy indoor air”, based on the fundamental principles of human rights, biomedical ethics and ecological sustainability. The conclusion of the Working Group informs groups responsible for healthy indoor air about their rights and obligations, and individuals by bringing those rights to their attention.
The statement concerning the right to an environment that improves living conditions and increases wellbeing and protects health, also applies to indoor environments.
Does it also apply to aircraft indoor environments?
WHO states in their report that: “Under the principle of respect for autonomy (“self-determination”), everyone has the right to adequate information about potentially harmful exposures, and to be provided with effective means for controlling at least part of their indoor exposures.”
And this is where the problems begin: we breathe air laced with potentially dangerous fumes containing not only highly toxic organophosphates but also CO from thermally degraded chemicals and their mixtures in and of various levels inside aircraft passenger cabins. No information is provided from the industry. No warning signs, no health warning in safety brochures or on tickets.
Investigation into the reasons behind incidences now known widely as ‘fume events’ has been ongoing since the 1940’s. However, although regular and in the mean time daily occurrences throughout the airline industry and in most aircraft models are becoming public knowledge, and the fact that there is science, which has proven such contamination and its dangers, it does not stop the denials to keep rolling in: based on ‘not above legal limits’. Sixty-six years ago, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health wrote a report linking leukemia to benzene, a common solvent and an ingredient in gasoline. “It is generally considered,” he wrote, “that the only absolutely safe concentration for benzene is zero." And that applies to countless substances.
Although, a couple of airlines are stating that they are in the process of taking measurements with specialized equipment (but never seem to find anything), or are even in the process of installing new ‘improved’ filters they declare that they are doing it for precautionary measures only, and that they do not believe that such ‘rare’ incidents pose a problem, or can cause any ill-health. If they are talking filters and are also ‘testing’ less toxic jet engine oils, the simple question springs to mind: Why install filters and change oils if the fumes are not harmful to the occupants in the cabin?
WHO: “Under the principle of non-maleficence (“doing no harm”), no agent at a concentration that exposes any occupant to an unnecessary health risk should be introduced into indoor air.”
Of course the argument is always the same. Although it has been proven and the industry has had to admit that, yes, ‘fugitive emissions’ from jet-oils and other aircraft fluids can enter the cabin - they still insist that, of course, the levels of toxicity are always ‚below legal limits’ and therefore cannot cause any ill-health. However, it is well documented that i.e. CO can be dangerous at any level, and it is also well-known that ‚legal limits’ can be and have been in the past, adjusted to fit requirements. The industry’s requirements that is. To avoid any changes to remedy an inherently awkward situation, the following is done:
1) The permissible limit values are increased – this was i.e. successfully proposed in the field of mercury or, 2) you simply cannot find problematic values. All you have to do is use the proper method. For example, measure something that is not important at all.
There are several hundred substances in those fumes. Fumes that often don’t even smell of anything, or if they do are invisible. If we look at the list of selected substances measured on a far too small number of several ‘return’ flights with the same aircraft and company, we find yet again that the conclusions are: no levels exceed the legal limits (EASA ). Other highly neurotoxic, cancerogenic and endocrine disrupting substances are not mentioned, not tested, and often not on any legal level limit list anyway; which means they should not be in the air at all – ever. Statements and warnings to this effect made by renowned scientists in the field, are conveniently and regularly ignored.
One research study (comissioned by the industry), which tested aircraft cabin air quality on a total of 61 test flights, states: "The results show, that the cabin/cockpit air quality is similar or better than what is observed in normal indoor environments (offices, schools, kindergardens or dwellings). No occupational exposure limits and guidelines were exceeded." 61 test flights are too few. One could speak of statistical zero-relevance. It turned out that, in addition, they often used the same aircraft from the same airline, on which - for example the consequences of no fumes from (not) leaking labyrinth seals - were measured on return flights. To use different planes on each flight would have made more sense than return flights on the same aircraft, but in view of the way too small sample it doesn't really matter anyway." (8)
"Further measurement taken on 108 flights related to the popularly quoted number of ‚only’ 1: 2.000 flights on which a serious fume event occurs, is on a statistical average 5.4 % of the quantity actually required - according to the probability calculation. In a statistics seminar such an interpretation would probably spark amusement and the book written by Professor Walter Krämer, professor of statistics: "This is how one lies with statistics" springs to mind". 
And of course it would make sense to compare such substances in the cabin air simultaneously with those that can be detected immediately afterwards in the "biological material", i.e. in blood and urine. And to then compare them - as epidemiologists would - with the data of an uncontaminated control group. Not just once, but several times. But, fact is, that such ‚studies’ are usually using "third-party funds from industry" and as such 'could' be biased ...
Ultimately, one does not measure what one would have to measure, if one wanted to get to the bottom of the problem.
WHO: “Under the precautionary principle, where there is a risk of harmful indoor air exposure, the presence of uncertainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent such exposure.” And also: “Under the “polluter pays” principle, the polluter is accountable for any harm to health and/or welfare resulting from unhealthy indoor air exposure. In addition, the polluter is responsible for mitigation and remediation.” 
Tensions and conflicts often occur between individuals suffering from the consequences and ill health from indoor air pollution and those whose actions and products used negatively influence indoor air quality – it is no different in the airline industry. Countless passengers and crewmembers have already suffered ill health, ranging from mild to severe cases, to lifelong ill health with the loss of their license to fly, even death as a result from chronic and acute exposure to cabin aircraft (indoor) pollution. Low level or not. Aerotoxic Syndrome a new occupational disease? (published 'Public Health Panorama' by WHO)
What can aircraft 'indoor' air be compared to?
Certainly not to 'kindergarden' and hospital surgery rooms, a favourite comparison by the airline industry.
The general public nowadays uses air transportation as a means to get to places for business, a quick weekend trip, a one-day city hop and holidays, nearly as much as driving by car. They do not expect to be poisoned in the process. We don’t know what levels of potential hazards in cabin air are safe for every person.
Potential cabin air hazards may include:
Cabin air contaminants can include carbon dioxide (CO2), products of combustion such as highly toxic carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides, (nano-sized) particulates and aldehydes , fumes from fuel, de-icing fluids, and then there's the issue with the seals, which aren't really seals, but controlled leakage devices, through which jet engine oils and other substances containing organic hydrocarbons and other neurotoxic and cancerogenic substances 'escape', not to mention: cleaning products, allergens and infectious agents such as viruses and bacteria.
And all of this is in a confined, hermetically sealed aluminium hull with no possibility to open windows or to escape. So:
IS YOUR AIRCRAFT A DEATHTRAP?
"Concentrations of CO exceeding one part in 20,000 parts of air (0.005 percent) are hazardous.· To prevent an airplane from becoming a deathtrap, a thorough examination of the exhaust
manifold and heater assembly should be conducted at regular intervals and whenever CO contamination of the cockpit or cabin is suspected because cracks and holes may occur in a relatively short time. Some aircraft manufacturers recommend that exhaust and heater systems be inspected as often as every 25 hours of flight time. Carbon monoxide in the cabin or cockpit has been traced to worn or defective exhaust stack slip joints, exhaust system cracks or holes, openings in the engine firewall, "blowby" at the engine breather, defective gaskets in the exhaust manifold, defective mufflers, and inadequate sealing or fairing around strut fittings on the fuselage." (©source) : FAA
Perhaps renowned organisations such as WHO should work closely with authorities and politicians to make sure that the measures required for the implementation of their principles are adopted, and follow up their implementation regularly. In the mean time an International Public Inquiry is under way, organized by the Aerotoxic Association Ltd and supported by affiliated organisations such as the Aerotoxic Team, who will together continue to bring awareness to the public and help the already affected Aerotoxic Syndrome sufferers, until this issue has been properly addressed and dealt with.
 EASA Cabin Air Quality onboard Large Aeroplanes
 EASA Preliminary cabin air quality measurment campaign
An uncovering of Tricks, Methods and Strategies - Professor J. Ludwig, DokZentrum/www.Anstageslicht.de
more science here
NOTE regarding above citations/ quotes from the WHO website: © World Health Organization – 2000 states:
All rights in this document are reserved by the WHO Regional Office for Europe. The document may nevertheless be freely reviewed, abstracted, reproduced or translated into any other language (but not for sale or for use in conjunction with commercial purposes) provided that full acknowledgement is given to the source. For the use of the WHO emblem, permission must be sought from the WHO Regional Office. Any translation should include the words: The translator of this document is responsible for the accuracy of the translation. The Regional Office would appreciate receiving three copies of any translation. Any views expressed by named authors are solely the responsibility of those authors.
FROM THE AEROTOXIC LOGBOOK:
An UNCOVERING Of Tricks, Methods & Strategies: How To Downplay Fume Events
(Excerpts from DOKZENTRUM www.anstageslicht.de researched and published by Professor J. LUDWIG, May 26th 2018.)
Investigations of EASA
The European Aviation Security Agency is Europe's supreme supervisory and licensing authority for aviation and is based in Cologne. According to their specifications (e.g. EASA CS 25.831 and 25.832, pp. 127 f or in the original pagination: 1-D 29 f) „it must be ensured that no ‚dangerous substances’ may be contained in the breathing air during a flight“. In addition, construction regulation 25.1309 stipulates, that sensors must be installed to enable the crew to don oxygen masks in an emergency. So far, only the cockpit is equipped with oxygen cylinders, crew and passengers are not. The oxygen masks, part of the emergency demo before each departure, which are only automatically deployed in case of a rapid decompression emergency case, provide a mix of cabin air and oxygen.
Because across the board prevention is not prelevant, EASA commissioned two studies in 2013. On some flights, the contractors were to measure whether the cabin air contains "dangerous substances" in dangerous doses.
An appropriate approach in such situations if you want to avoid any changes to remedy an inherently awkward situation, are these two options:
Method 1: The permissible limit values are increased. Prof. Helmut VALENTIN, for example, successfully proposed this in the field of mercury. And that is how it was handled. (cf. The Erlangen VALENTIN School).
Method 2: You simply cannot find problematic values. All you have to do is use the appropriate method. For example, measure something that is not important at all.
This study is that important to EASA that they a) tender two studies, and b) invest a total amount of around €500,000 in order to be able to communicate in the future, official clarity to just over 500 million people.
Converted to per member state (investment) that amounts to just under 18,000 Euro. In terms of population size in the 28 countries, Germany accounted for 80,000 Euro of the total cost. The importance EASA attaches to this problem can be clearly seen from this scale.
And so, the results are not too surprising.
The study, which investigated the toxicity of the chemical substances in engine oil, states: It concluded that neuroactive products are present, but that their concentration in the presence of an intact lung barrier is too low to be a major concern for neuronal function.
It was carried out by a Dutch team.
The study, which tested cabin air quality on a total of 61 test flights, states: "The results show, that the cabin/cockpit air quality is similar or better than what is observed in normal indoor environments (offices, schools, kinder gardens or dwellings). No occupational exposure limits and guidelines were exceeded."
This study comes from Germany. It was also carried out by a team: the Fraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine and the MHH in Hannover. Their responsible "Project Manager": Wolfgang ROSENBERGER (now, that has of course been changed, read below).
61 test flights are few. One could speak of a statistical zero-relevance. If you take a closer look at the figures, such as the one of the ex-pilot "MK", who was signed off as unfit to fly because of a serious fume event (see: „Once a pilot - never again a pilot“), it turns out that, additionally, they often used the same aircraft from Lufthansa and Condor.
On which - for example the consequences of (not) leaking labyrinth seals - were measured on return flights. To use different planes (or flights) would have made more sense than return flights on the same aircraft, but in view of the much too small sample it doesn't really matter anymore.
The fact, that even during 8 test flights with the Boeing 787, the so-called Dreamliner, which does not ventilate its cabin air with bleed air from the engines, low pollutant levels could also be measured due to the presence of flame retardants in the interior cabin infrastructure, is no argument for the fact that the bleed air principle would therefore not be less dangerous or harmless.
Ultimately, one did not measure what one would have to measure if one wanted to get to the bottom of the problem. With a statistical probability of a serious fume event of 1:2000 you simply have to make more effort.
And it would make sense to compare such substances in the cabin air simultaneously with what can be detected immediately afterwards in the "biological material", i.e. in blood and urine. And then to compare this - as epidemiologists would - with the data of an uncontaminated control group. Not just once. Several times.
But this is not the approach of the VALENTIN school in Erlangen. And the aviation business does not want it. And this also explains the standstill in this problem: who has an interest in it and why.
Ultimately, one did not measure what one would have to measure if one wanted to get to the bottom of the problem
Wolfgang ROSENBERGER, a project manager working at the MHH-Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover / Germany and frequently comissioned by the industry (also EASA), is involved in (another) investigation. This time measuring beryllium exposures in commercial aircraft on behalf of the aviation industry. Beryllium is a very hard, light
metal and is used in the form of alloys in aviation and space travel, but at the same time it is not only highly toxic, but (unfortunately) also carcinogenic ("berylliosis").
Result, in brief: Beryllium in the cabin air can be excluded. It is a study that Wolfgang ROSENBERGER is responsible for as "project manager".
ROSENBERGER is also busy in 2012. Using "third-party funds from industry", he is responsible at the Institute of Occupational Medicine at the MHH as "project manager" for "investigations into the presence of mono- and diortho-tricresyl phosphates (CPM) in the interior air of aircraft".
ROSENBERGER describes the background of his assignment by the aviation industry as follows:
"Individual symptoms, or the sum of numerous symptoms are summarized under the terms 'aertoxic syndrome' or'sick aeroplane syndrome'. This is not a recognised clinical picture. Many of these symptoms are also described in other interior-associated symptoms, such as sick building syndrome, building related illness and multiple chemical sensitivity. However, in connection with contaminated cabin air a neurotoxic effect is suspected", caused mainly by CPM.
This is what ROSENBERGER now wants to measure. To this end, he examines 117 air samples from 30 flights and examines one can of fresh, and one can of used engine oil.
30 flights are little. Experience to date has shown that 1 fume event occurs in every 2,000 flights. ROSENBERGER's results are not surprising: 1) whether certain components of the oil get into the cabin depends primarily on their concentration in the engine oil. 2) no toxic CPM variants (o-TCP) were measured at relevant levels in the two oils. And all in all:
Overall, all measurement data generated so far, suggest that tricresyl phosphates are not responsible for the observed health complaints. It remains unclear which other substances and/or other influencing factors are causally associated with the described health disorders.
ROSENBERGER did not do what Prof. Chris NETTEN had done in Canada: he did not heat the engine oil to temperatures that are realistic in the compressor of an engine.
ROSENBERGER continues his "Investigations on air quality in commercial aircraft" in 2014. The research report of MHH shows that ROSENBERGER has investigated 20 of a total of 200 substances that can play a role in contaminated cabin air.
ROSENBERGER focused on the analysis of the different variants or isomers of tricresyl phosphates and the chromatographic separation, identification and quantification of these substances. A trade which he obviously masters and which is to be regarded as a basic prerequisite for a subsequent toxicological assessment.
However, ROSENBERGER's efficient analysis has only documented the achievable detection limits for a number of around 20 substances. This means that no statement can be made about the potential danger that may arise.
Such a statement is possible - and only then - if the corresponding measurements are carried out in cases of actually occurring fume events. However, a number of at least 5 - 10 fume events should be available as a basis for a well-founded statement. And then all of the 200 potentially occurring harmful substances mentioned above would have to be included. That would be the requirements of seriously working toxicologists.
Project manager ROSENBERGER put the current state of his findings of his research on paper as follows:
"The investigations described above are still ongoing. As an interim balance so far, it can be seen that no noticeable contamination has been determined with reference to existing limits and/or guideline value systems for assessing the air at the workplace or indoors.".
What does he mean? "There are no "limit and/or guideline systems" for organophosphates - in Germany. But this is not known to every reader or listener and so one can get the impression that there is - actually - no problem.
With this knowledge ROSENBERGER is busy on tour. For example, on October 31, 2014 he is at the German Academy for Aviation and Travel Medicine in Seeheim: his "Investigations into the air quality in Aircraft Cabins" show, that "even during documented odour events no noticeable chemical pollution can be detected".
As we show in the chapter „Tricks, Methods and Strategies in Occupational Medicine“, this approach is common practice in occupational medicine:
To mitigate real problems by distracting to less relevant aspects. Thus, the focus is not on "fume events" to be taken seriously, but is repeatedly downplayed as "olfactory events".
Instead of mentioning the chemical cocktail, which can play a role, the argument is primarily focused on one (single) substance: Tricresyl phosphate (TCP).
It is not said that one has never measured a dangerous "fume event".
Lufthansa’s measuring kit, developed by Wolfgang ROSENBERGER.
There is also talk of the measuring kit, which Wolfgang ROSENBERGER has developed and which is used by Lufthansa on various aircraft types.
In its February 2017 „Cabin Air Quality Crew Info“, Lufthansa reports the following result of a total of 108 flights on page 2, to its employees:
"On these test flights, some smelling events (smell events) were reported by the cabin and cockpit crew. The analysis, which we had carried out by various independent institutes and laboratories, has shown, that in the onboard odour incidents reported in this study, neither a health hazard from the cabin air nor a connection to neurotoxic o- TCP or other chemical substances in harmful concentrations, was percepted".
108 measurement flights related to a number of 1: 2,000 flights on which a serious fume event occurs on a statistical average, is 5.4 % of the quantity actually required - according to the probability calculation. In a statistics seminar (which is not part of an occupational medicine training) such an interpretation would probably spark amused laughter. Students would probably think of the book written by Walter KRÄMER, professor of statistics at the TU Dortmund: "So man lies with statistics".
The year 2014 is one in which ROSENBERGER is on tour several times. He had already presented his technology at a conference on indoor hygiene organised by the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) in May.
In July in Marseille, France, where the 8th AIRMON Conference took place: International Symposium on Modern Principles of Air Monitoring and Biomonitoring. A curriculum vitae of ROSENBERGER also appears on the list of announced speakers, with several functions and activities that are abundantly exaggerated. This will be revealed by journalist and filmmaker Tim van BEVEREN 2016 in a lengthy article on the Austrianwings.info platform: "Contaminated cabin air: The Captain of Hannover".
ROSENBERGER has neither completed his doctorate nor other academic studies
ROSENBERGER also does not function as a "lecturer", does not give independent lectures at the MHH, as this term may suggest and which is reserved exclusively for academics. ROSENBERGER is also not a "scientific assistant" at the Hannover Institute of Occupational Medicine. "Project manager" ROSENBERGER is only "technical laboratory manager", later admitted by the MHH .
Enter: "Wolfgang ROSENBERGER" on March 9, 2018
The entry of the name "Wolfgang ROSENBERGER" on the MHH homepage provides further interesting information: "changes" to the research reports of the Hannover Medical School are displayed .
The changes do not apply to the content. The changes all only concern the name of his boss: the Erlangen VALENTIN student Prof. Dr. med. Renate WBRITZKY. Where the name ROSENBERGER as "project manager" used to be, now it is WRBITZKY. ROSENBERGER is suddenly only an "employee", as can be seen, for example, in the 2012 research report.
Apparently it has become too 'hot' or even embarrassing for the VALENTIN student to expel her "technical laboratory manager", who goes on tour all over the country to preach the unproven connections at Lufthansa events, the "Berufsgenossenschaft Rohstoffe und Chemische Industrie", and other institutions ... as "project manager". The excerpts from the three research reports mentioned above show the original wording in the print form.
Subsequent changes to authorship, for whatever reason and regardless of whether in journals or research reports, do not comply with the rules on "safeguarding good scientific practice" set by the German Research Foundation (DFG). According to the DFG, "honorary authorship" or "management of an institution or organisational unit in which
the publication has appeared", or "mere organisational responsibility for the procurement of funding", are considered "fundamentally unacceptable".
But apparently are acceptable for an occupational medicine institution dedicated to the spirit of the VALENTIN school in Erlangen.
We asked Wolfgang ROSENBERGER and his former boss, Prof. WRBITZKY, who has since retired, how these subsequent changes came about. Neither of them felt obliged to answer either the DokZentrum ansTageslicht.de or the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Only the MHH press spokesman made a statement about ROSENBERGER: "Errors have occurred in MHH research reports - certainly also because of the high regard of his superiors. ... We are sorry for these errors, we have corrected them in the pdf version of the research reports."
SOURCE : Excerpts from DOKZENTRUM www.anstageslicht.de researched and published by Professor J. LUDWIG, May 26th 2018. - Translations: Bearnairdine Beaumont/June 2018
01/28/2018: Spirit Airlines flight NK517
from Akron/ Canton (OH) to Fort Lauderdale (FL) in USA
Warnings about danger from toxic gases on aircraft causing not only a serious safety risk but also severe health issues for passengers and crews are increasingly becoming a daily news item.
This time it is a Spirit Airlines Airbus 320 flight number NK-517 from Akron/Canton to Fort Lauderdale (USA) on 28th January 2018. They were en-route and cruising at altitude FL380, when about one hour prior to landing a passenger complained about an abnormal smell on board.
Cabin crew confirmed the smell, which became increasingly stronger until the cabin air became nearly "not breathable", sources report. The flight deck was informed and they in turn informed ATC about the fumes on board. About 20 minutes prior to landing the captain confirmed the bad smell in the cockpit as well, causing both pilots to don their oxygen masks. Flight attendants felt increasingly nauseous; several indicated they nearly passed out. Descending fast to below 10.000ft the captain depressurized the aircraft and the cabin air improved. The aircraft landed at Fort Lauderdale about one hour after the first passenger had complained. Emergency services treated cockpit and cabin crew while still on board, after which the entire crew were taken to hospitals. (source Aviation Herald) In other such scenarios involving toxic fumes, the pilots from a different airline declared pan-pan-pan, for a quicker emergency landing.
First medical findings indicated a seriously high level of carbon monoxide in all members of the cabin crew, with several flight attendants’ levels reaching near lethal values!, sources report.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is not only produced by (aircraft ‘APU’) ‘exhaust’ fumes, CO is also generated (amongst other toxic particles) through thermal degradation from chemicals which are present in the jet-oil fumes, presenting severe health dangers by route of inhalation and dermal exposure. These people, passengers and crew, were exposed to the poisonous fumes for over one hour!
One flight attendant suffered a heart condition, which, as currently cannot be ruled out, could become a serious health issue. Another flight attendant suffered from disorientation, migraine and loss of memory, and a nerve ending inflammation was diagnosed. The flight attendants were kept in hospital care until Jan 31st 2018, after which they were released into home care, but they still feel ill. (source Aviation Herald)
The captain felt first symptoms of incapacitation during the landing phase. Maintenance who boarded straight after landing said they could not detect any ‘odor’ and were intending to return the aircraft to service, when the captain intervened stating that there had been a serious fume event. One of the engine ‘s ‘wet seals’ was subsequently found breached. Just because there is no smell left, does not mean there was no fume event - plus, not only are the mechanics and technicians constantly exposed to such smells, but one also has to consider the fact that not everybody has the same sense of smell and the olfactory nerves very quickly get used to a smell, sometimes within minutes or even a few breaths.
At this time we have no information regarding how the passengers are faring and if Spirit Airlines is attending their needs.
This is not the first such severe FUMES incident, which is deemed ‘air accident’ by authorities. The airline industry likes to downplay these incidents as harmless, and just some 'odour' – often even trying to explain these events away with: inconvenient but harmless smell, or new carpet, galley oven on fire, or recently even a suggestion that a passenger had opened a tin with toxic contents, which they say they had brought on board, was found in the media.
What they don’t want to admit to is, that this wet seal defect/ bleed-air issue is a known factor, with first warnings about the dangers already published as early as 1939 by Dr. H. Armstrong talking about CO poisoning of pilots, followed by more, serious warnings in 1955 by Henry Redall; in 1956 Boeing submitted a patent proposing changes from the ‘bleed air’ system to ‘ram’ air, which takes in the air through an outside inlet, with the result that the breathing air would not be laced with bleed-air emissions, heavy metals and other toxic (nano-)particles coming directly from and through the engines.
Since then, nothing has changed, except that Boeing suddenly launched their Dreamliner B787, which does not have the bleed air system, in 2011. Reports about better air on board raise the questions yet again. So one could wonder why these changes have not been implemented in other models and by other manufacturers?
In the mean time, countless pilots and cabin crew from airlines throughout the world have become seriously ill and often are forced to retire on medical grounds, losing their livelihood and licenses to fly. Many have serious ill health issues that last their entire life, some have even died at very young ages, many most likely from neurotoxins contamination in their workplace affecting the central nervous system and brain. Many are plunged in to financial crisis, as they have to pay their medical diagnosis’, treatments and therapies themselves, since the health insurers refuse to do so and the airlines don’t want to know.
Spirit Airlines’ Captain James Anderberg died in Sept 2015 after an extended illness from an extremely severe fume event in July 2015 on a Spirit Airlines flight. He and his first officer were rendered nearly unconscious. This was the most serious close call by the airline to date, coming extremely close to crashing which could have taken all life onboard. (source)
Flight Attendant Rishi (Ricky) Jeethan checked in to operate an empty ferry flight with his crew on Feb 4, 2016. The aircraft was a Spirit Airlines Airbus 319 which had been involved in multiple fume events. It was technically very damaged and had been removed from service by airline maintenance for a minimum of 5 days. As they were trying to get it scheduled at the ‚Lufthansa Technik’ in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, the maintenance logbook showed the mandatory 5-day service removal for heavy, high-velocity maintenance, engine tear down, C-check overhaul and engine wet seal replacement. Nevertheless, it seems that the airline made the very dangerous management decision to operate the aircraft anyway. The aircraft was to fly ‚ferry’ (ed: = no passengers) as 8427 Fort Lauderdale to Boston.
We are told by our sources that the pilots were advised to ignore the logbooks’ entries and to operate the aircraft regardless. They were also advised to wear their emergency quick don oxygen masks for the entire 3,5 hour flight, which would be advise given only if it was expected that fumes would be entering the aircraft; but no advise was given for the flight attendants’ health, safety and well being. Promptly, the engines leaked toxic fumes into the cabin which subsequently became "comparable to a flying gas chamber for the flight attendant" (source), who had no protection for the entire flight! Upon arrival at Boston the crew were seen and treated at Concentra Medford, MA., and Rishi filed a Spirit Air Safety and FAA Hotline report. Rishi continued to suffer from this event for most of that year with chronic, debilitating symptoms and increasing health problems. Rishi died suddenly on July 8, 2017 of unexplained kidney failure after 12 months of chronic ill health following his exposure to toxic fumes on that last flight.
Spirit Airlines is not the only airline mind you.
In 2012 British Airways pilot Richard Westgate died after suffering from debilitating ill health which he and his physicians attributed to constantly inhaling toxic fumes in the cockpit. He donated his body to research, due to which several expert scientists were able to publish their findings, warning of the severe health effects caused from the inhalation of fumes laced with neurotoxic chemicals present in thermally degraded jet oil compounds.
On Jan 30th 2014, Matt Bass, a BA flight attendant, returned from a trip and spent the evening with his friend. While everyone tidied up the dishes and cleared, Matt went to have a rest on the sofa. He went to sleep and never woke up. His friends’ dog started barking and she went upstairs to see why and found Matt had stopped breathing. She started CPR as all trained crew know how to, while the other friends called an ambulance. The paramedics took over and continued to try and revive him but to no avail. Matt’s parents decided to have a second post mortem done by a specialist forensic pathologist in Holland after the first one had brought no results. He found evidence of chronic exposure to organophosphates (i.e. the afore mentioned TCP/ TCoP), which then was confirmed by one of the world’s leading authorities in organophosphate poisoning.(source Matt Bass website).
And there are hundreds more who died far too young in their early 30's, 40's - too many not reaching the age of 60! This dedicated website publishes the sad count and honours all the British Airways crew members who have taken their final flight. One can only assume the number of premature deaths adding up from all other airlines ...
For over 70 years now nothing has been done about this scandalous problem – on the contrary the maintenance procedures seem to be getting worse rather than better, causing a massive increase of these toxic fume events which contaminate the air you breathe. The residue sticks to the aircraft interior, on walls, carpets and seats and is not washed off, so it builds up leaving toxic grime to be touched by little kids, who then put their fingers to their face or in their mouth and so ingest the poisonous left overs – never mind inhaling a constant low-level contamination of always present, nano-sized particles, findings which have been published here.
If you log onto https://planefinder.net/ and type in this tail number in the search box: N902NK it shows the history of where this above mentioned fume event plane was. It since flew multiple legs without repairs for several days, further exposing countless other crews and passengers. The plane has now disappeared off the radar. It seems it had a final flight from MSY to FLL, then: gone.
This quote is more explosive than ever: „We are looking for tombstones „ a senior Boeing engineer warned some years ago, „unless we tackle the problem.“
How many more years must go by for the industry to address this potentially deadly and accident prone safety issue, when pilots suddenly become incapacitated and don't remember what they are doing? When will they stop their obviously flippant disregard for human life, health and aviation safety? Slowly some concessions are being made, some airlines are talking about fitting filters, but it is doubtful that these filters will actually remove all the dangerous particles - others talk grandly about comissioning new studies (how many more?), and yet others, past and present are forced by court orders to take air measurements and get them analysed. Their stalling for time to find yet more excuses and flimsy 'explanations' is becoming more and more deadly, as more and more severe fume events happen.
Clearly, the Boeing engineer, as well as many others, was expecting an increase of this scandalous behaviour: the turning of a blind eye concerning the poisoning of pilots, who are supposed to be fit and clear headed to fly their passengers safely to their destinations; and no concern whatsoever for their cabin crews who are responsible for safety&health and who are life savers in emergency cases, but who become incapacitated and therefore unable to function. And what about the passengers and their health? Many fly nearly as often as crew do and subsequently are exposed over and over again! If you have been wondering about your health lately after flights, please check in here.
The evidence is piling up and hundreds of testimonies are overwhelming – when is enough, enough? When will those responsible for these disastrous conditions take action and do the right thing?
Find information on the following websites as well as books and documentaries/films that have been published high-lighting the fume event problem and offer help. Several social media groups and pages offer news and information and are campaigning for changes to be implemented.
This accident was researched and reported first by Aviation Herald - with thanks for the source referencing.
Information and scientific resources from www.aerotoxicteam.com and www.aerotoxic.org and partners.
Author © Bearnairdine Beaumont - Global Aerotoxic Team
Passengers please contact us via the websites or/and report any concerns and your experience to the FAA and submit a formal complaint to the airline.
... a few months later I left on an Airbus four-day flight rotation, covering three to four legs a day to various European destinations, never suspecting it was to be my last!
I had been feeling very poorly for a very long time now, in fact I got worse since re-training on to Airbuses. I had to take sick leave more often than not, struggled to go to work, and felt worse with dizzy spells and constant headaches on practically every flight. I couldn’t stand those smells of dirty wet socks (or was it wet dogs?), which seemed to be present on every aircraft and always more intense than the previous time, which we still thought was normal after a long night flight and full house; the fumes of kerosene before take-off, and exhaust fumes that wafted through the cabin while on blocks or taxiing made me feel nauseous instantly. I continued having trouble with my balance and started having problems when the pilots changed heading, and when the aircraft moved to change direction or if descent was too fast. The movement made me feel dizzy; it felt like my brain was detached from my body, and my skull felt too tight with that pressure building up that felt like my brain was swollen and inflamed, putting pressure on my hearing. Often it took a day or two for that to settle down again. Now my doctors thought I was having low blood pressure problems...
Over the past months a new symptom had appeared. I was now in constant pain. Excruciating sciatic nerve pain had joined the muscular flu-like ache. Often I could barely sit or stand, never mind walk, without being bent over double. I had been receiving up to thirty injections of pain and muscle relaxant medicines which were administered along my spine twice a week to help that, but it always only lasted a couple of hours. The muscles were rock hard, the sciatic nerve area remained so painful, I could hardly move. Puzzled because other typical symptoms such as damaged or slipped discs weren’t apparent, the orthopaedic surgeon’s only other solution was exploratory surgery to ‘perhaps find something that way’, which I refused.
Who would have thought that toxins could also affect the spinal cord, which is the central trunk of nerves connecting the brain with the rest of the body?
Nerves and nerve roots become irritated and radiate pain from chemicals! The central nervous system (CNS), which is in the spinal trunk, was already irritated and damage was done, and the muscles were filled with toxins. So the sciatic nerve wasn’t jammed at all, it was radiating pain from the toxins! Again, another symptom of peripheral neuropathy due to toxic stress.
And as for the muscles, the toxins concentrate in parts of the muscle and that irritates them to contract; they stiffen and feel like rocks, immovable and pulling in all the wrong directions. I couldn’t walk, sit or lie without pain. And again, no matter what I said, they dismissed the thought of a chronic poisoning being the possible reason.
Flying frequently can be hazardous to your health. This is especially true for those who do it for a living. My whole system finally broke down.
© excerpt from The Air I Breathe -it’s classified by Bearnairdine Beaumont
join : Global Aerotoxic Team
After becoming unfit to fly and being medically 'retired' Bearnairdine became involved in scientific research for the campaign 'improve the quality of aircraft cabin air' and the helping of victims to understand their ill-health; coming from a medical background she is also a health consultant & educator with over 25 years professional and personal experience ; she is a published author of three books in two languages and the founder of the " AEROTOXIC TEAM" and 'Global Aerotoxicteam', educational website and socialmedia pages. She not only became unfit to fly, but also unable to work in her former profession due to her severe central nervous system injury; she receives a small disabilty allowance and is still fighting to receive her workplace related ill-health pension. She lives in a beautiful, but secluded area of the Swiss alps and continues to support the aerotoxic campaign via computer and telephone. She is available for media inquiries.
Cambridge Mask Shop enter the code
FLYERS FRIEND and receive a 10% reduction!
Research Gate: Aerotoxic Syndrome and Low Level Exposure to Nano Particles. 2013.
© All rights reserved.
You may copy and distribute these articles so long as you don’t alter them in any way, the content remains complete, and credit is given to the author and this URL http://www.aerotoxicsyndrombook.com/blog and copyright notice is included. Making videos using other people’s copyrighted articles is copyright Infringement. Thank you!