The Aerotoxic Logbook (ATLB) in English (EN)

The problem has been known since the 1950s - roughly 70 years and nothing has ever been done about it.  The air in the cabin is still ‚bled off’ (the engines) in airplanes - with the well-known possible consequences for flight safety and health, in particular that of  flight crew. We have the cultural history on 'Flying is safe' and the ongoing problems investigated at www.ansTageslicht.de/cabinair (EN).

Although the cabin air is 50% re-circulated in modern aircraft types, the basic problem remains unsolved. With one exception: the Boeing B787.  This is/was also the state of knowledge at the first big conference on this topic in London in September 2017. The presentations can now be viewed here: www.aircraftcabinair.com  

There are many reasons why no solutions are found: the targeted influencing of scientific discussions, the airlines’ economic interests, the links between politics and air transport industry and other reasons.

The ‚Aerotoxic Logbook’, launched in January 2017, is a first comprehensive documentation addressing the problem of potentially contaminated cabin air (www.ansTageslicht.de/Kabininenluft - German) and documents what is happening in this area.  Or, what is not happening. And why not. This German language blog (www.ansTageslicht.de/ATLB) is now also available in English and can be accessed directly via this permalink: www.ansTageslicht.de/ENATLB.

The information we collect in German is translated by Bearnairdine BEAUMONT who operates the network www.aerotoxicteam.com  and the blog www.aerotoxicsyndrombook.com/blog.

With the ‚Aerotoxic Logbook’ we want to achieve international networking,  bringing together all initiatives and activities to communicate about this unsolved problem and to initiate solutions. At the same time it is a scientific experiment: What must happen before a problem is addressed?

October 17th, 2018

Occupational Diseases in Court: Only 10% of all cases are successful

Last year the Federal Government had „no idea“ when they answered the LEFT Party (printed matter 18/13543) "due to lack of statistic data by the DGUV", regarding the question how many cases exist that have actually received occupational ill health acknowledgment before the Federal Social Court, thus were successful,  or failed.

Now, all of a sudden, the Federal Government, in the person of Parliamentary State Secretary (BMAS), Ms Kerstin GRIESE (SPD) announced in an answer to the Greens (printed matter 19/4093 - see entry v. 18.9.):

"For decades the decisions of the accident insurance institutions have been confirmed in about 90% of the Federal Social Court proceedings. From this "the quality of the experts employed and the administrative procedures" can be seen.

We have a somewhat different view of things, as we have documented in many examples (www.ansTageslicht.de/Letzel; www.ansTageslicht.de/Lehnert; www.ansTageslicht.de/BK1317 etc.).

We have therefore added  thefollowing section to the chapter "What can one do?" (WKMT): "In Court". There you will find information on how to proceed when you wish to reject an expert, or his expert opinion because of "bad expertise“,  and if the judge refuses this, how to reject the judge. In the latter case, it is not the "bias" that is important, but the potential "concern of bias".

That this does not work in most cases is due to the fact that neither the judges nor most lawyers are familiar with the right of bias.

We can help and give tips & hints: at www.ansTageslicht.de/WKMT

Mid October 2018

We are waiting for several answers:

1) We had asked BG Verkehr (employer’s liability insurance association) and Dr. HEDTMANN, which experts’ (names) represent the "doctrine" that there is no connection between fume events, which are now recognized as "occupational accidents", and long-term health consequences.

So far, only evasive responses have been made, aimed at ensuring that all limit values are complied with in commercial aircraft. And that this is probably the reason why there could be no causal connection.

The answer to the question as to which limit values were meant was: all the "air limit values" listed in the TRGS (Technical Rules for Hazardous Substances).

However, they do not include all of those identified by EASA, for example. And there is also no information on the (additive and/or multiplicative) effects of such substances with changing air pressure values, oxygen saturations and temperatures.

We are now waiting for further explanations.

2) The BFU (entry from 13 August) is apparently of the firm opinion that the two pilots of the 19th December 2010 (Cologne-Bonn airport) accident, are not allowed to view their own medical reports because "data protection" prohibits it.

Now we want to know exactly what the BFU understands by "data protection". And why, according to Article 14 of EU Regulation 996/2010, the interest of those affected in finding out something about their state of health is not a "legally permissible purpose" , that allows such information to be "passed on".

3) The Medical Advisory Board for Occupational Diseases at the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS) met on 4th October. Allegedly on the agenda: Fume Events.

We asked whether the topic had been discussed, and if so, what would happen next.

4) After the Federal Government has answered the „small inquiry“ of the Bundestag faction Alliance 90/The Greens (see 18th September), we now asked the members of 4 relevant Bundestag committees, whether they intend to be satisfied with the partially distracting from the problem and partically misleading answers by the Federal Government. Or what else they intend to do.

October 1st, 2018

"Those who work make mistakes. Those who work a lot sometimes make more mistakes.

This is exactly what happened to us, for which we apologize.

In collaboration with the Süddeutsche Zeitung and simultaneously here in the Aerotoxic Logbook, we had reported about the new, 3rd edition of the DGUV report regarding classification "BK 1317". Headline: TRIEBIG withdrawn from circulation ? (see entry 18th September). 

We had reported in detail about Prof. Dr. Gerhard TRIEBIG’s scientific working methods and socio-political influences as a 'neutral' expert (www.ansTageslicht.de/BK1317),  who had been decisively responsible for the 2nd edition of the BK 1317 report, but is actually no longer an author.

Up until the end he stood firm in his claim,  which we had long since confirmed as wrong by scientific findings i.e.: incorrectly documented: „Health consequences of solvent exposure can also occur after a longer period of time.“ TRIEBIG denies this and so this - completely incorrect statement is also in the 4th edition text book, which he published in 2014 together with two of his colleagues: "A progression of the clinical picture after exposure avoidance is (also) a counterargument for a toxic genesis".

Two weeks ago we reported in the SZ that in the new, third edition of the DGUV-Report a "decisive paragraph" had been changed: Namely, that from now on it would no longer be excluded that damage to health after a prolonged latency period (for example 10 to 15 years) occurred,  spoke against (such) a professionally acquired disease.

And that this had been changed by the DGUV after our big publication on 26 May.

This was not correct, as we were advised by the DGUV. In fact, what we assumed to be new in the 3rd edition is already mentioned in the 2nd, 2007 edition, and almost identical in wording. This escaped our attention and that is where we  made a mistake, in the heat of battle: - we had set a personal dead-line and had not cross-checked a reference carefully enough.

This is partly due to the somewhat contradictory statements in both reports. On the one hand the phrasing is (2nd edition p. 129, 3rd edition p. 91):

"Basically, there is a close temporal relationship between the disease-causing exposure and the onset of the disease, i.e. the disease develops during or shortly after work-related exposure. A longer interval between the last exposure and the onset of the disease is toxicologically not plausible, which is also due to the short biological half-lives of the neurotoxic solvents.

This does not exclude the possibility that the disease may be perceived as serious by the person concerned,  only in the later stage of the disease and that it may only be diagnosed by a doctor at a later stage." (Text of the 3rd edition., p. 3). 

In this presentation, the later occurrence of the clinical picture is explained in the first paragraph as "toxicologically not plausible", but in the following paragraph it is not completely excluded, because - and this is a completely different argument compared to the discussion in the scientific literature - the affected persons only later perceive the health consequences as "serious". 

At another point the opposite is again to be found; both in the 2nd (p. 144) and 3rd edition (p. 100):

"Against BK 1317 speaks:

... longer latency period between end of exposure and onset of disease".

We do not consider all of this to be a clear or unambiguous description.

However, the DGUV has now clarified one thing on their website, where they  state concerning the  "Report in the Süddeutsche Zeitung": (here they naturally must correct that which we reported incorrectly - that's why it now literally says): 

"According to this, it has since 2007 already, not been ruled out, that disease damage can after exposure to solvents occur later.“

In other words: Now - due to our mistake and their correction - it has become official: Disease damages can also occur later. Irrespective of whether they are subsequently perceived as "serious" by those affected and/or can therefore only then be diagnosed by a doctor.

We recommend that all those affected take this as an opportunity to initiate a re-opening of proceedings in cases where recognition was refused for this reason.

We will not deal with further criticisms raised by the DGUV regarding our detailed presentation with the title „The Cartel“  in „BOOK 2“ of the SZ . Even in a three-page dossier one cannot describe everything in detail as precisely as should be the case concerning such complicated and 'dry' material. That's why all of this is presented - very precisely - in the corresponding online documentation: at www.ansTageslicht.de/krankdurcharbeit , which is explicitly mentioned in the SZ dossier.

But the DGUV apparently does not want to deal with this. They probably know why. Because they would no longer succeed with their usual counter-strategy: to distract from the actual problem, to belittle everything to the point of deliberate misleadings.

September 2018

The Federal Government responds to the „small inquiry“ from „BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN“ (Green Party):

Following our publications at the end of May, THE GREEN PARTY wanted to know from the Federal Government whether they saw a need for action in the statutory accident insurance system, in particular regarding the DGUV, and if so, what?

The answer given by the Federal Government, represented by Kerstin GRIESE (SPD), Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS): "No need for reform of accident insurance".

We take a critical look at the most important answers at www.ansTageslicht.de/wieweiter.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung (September 18th) is highlightening "Teilsieg für Menschen, die der Job krank machte"

September 2018

Occupational physician and expert "Prof. Dr. Gerhard TRIEBIG" removed from circulation?

Since about 3 weeks a third edition of the BK-Report exists, concerning the classification "BK 1317  - the health consequences of solvents and their mixtures” published by the DGUV.

In 2004, the manipulation of the scientific leaflet originating from the "Ärztl. Sachverständigenrat Berufskrankheiten" (Medical Advisory Council for Occupational Diseases) was uncovered at the Federal Ministry of Labour, which is why a new one had to be drawn up. The second edition of the BK 1317 report, three years later, was different: the occupational physician and author TRIEBIG continued insisting on long outdated medical findings. Now, in the 3rd edition, the name TRIEBIG no longer appears as author. A (partial) success, about which Peter RÖDER, who got the ball rolling following the comment by Labor-Minister Norbert BLÜM, who stated at the time that it was an:  "organized wrong representation". He will now request a readmission of this case at the Social&Labour Court.

That what has been 'sold' as expert wisdom and latest scientific knowledge by several evaluating occupational physicians at court is now, latest since the 3rd edition, officially no more.

More can be found in the detailed chronology to the BK 1317 at www.ansTageslicht.de/BK1317 .

The Süddeutsche Zeitung (September 18th) is highlightening "Teilsieg für Menschen, die der Job krank machte".