The Aerotoxic Logbook (ATLB) in English (EN)

Once again 22 years on the DGB puts the subject of occupational disease on its agenda

The German GroKo coalition agreement states that politicians want reform, so something must be put on the table. The last legislative changes date back to 1997 - so some time ago. In these more than 20 years, a little more than 1 million people have probably been left empty-handed in the statutory accident insurance system, although they fell ill and with a (very) significant probability became unable to work on the job. Every year over 50,000 people fall from the social grid.

The DGB, German Head of all trade-unsions, and in particular also the, in the meantime active industrial union "Metal" had invited IG Metall to a conference: When the job makes you ill - the BK rights on the test stand.

Representatives of the parties CDU/CSU, SPD, LEFT and GREENS were invited to the panel-discussion - along with the leader responsible for social policy, Markus HOFMANN, DGB - CDU/CSU. They were able to present their ideas on reform in general and, in particular, on the Federal Government's draft bill (see entry October 17th).

Without repeating the discussion here, this insight emerged above all:

• Not all politicians know about the problems of the GUV system and of the difficulties of those affected
• Not all politicians take the trouble to take note of them.

We had informed all on the podium beforehand, drawing their attention to our compact summary here www.ansTageslicht.de/Reform.

In connection with the research project Risk Perception, we will evaluate who expressed which needs for reform and how and who addressed which fundamental problems.

If we were to give school grades, the parties and their representatives  performed like this: (= 1 equals best) 

•     LEFT-WING Party (MdB Jutta KRELLMANN): 1.3
•     SPD (MdB Bernd RÜTZEL): 2.3
•     GREENS (MdB Beate MÜLLER-GEMMEKE): 3.7
•     CSU/CDU (MdB Max STRAUBINGER): 4.3

In summary: only the representatives of the parties the LINKE and the SPD are real contact persons for these unsolved occupational health problems.

Summary of the London International Aircraft Cabin Air Conference 2019

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter SCHOLZ, himself a speaker at the conference in London, has summarized the results of all lectures and discussions in a condensed form: "Congress on poisoned cabin air in aircraft". 

The problem is complicated because it affects many specialist areas: Medicine/Aeronautical Medicine, Toxicology, Occupational Medicine, Aircraft Systems and Cabin Air Technology as well as legal aspects such as labour law. Everything is regulated differently in different countries.

In focus, among others: the strategic behaviour of the aviation business. "A tactic of obfuscation and delay is generally observed," says Prof. SCHOLZ. "For proactive companies, however, new business fields are opening up, which is also the case in the industrial area of environmental technology, in which Germany has an excellent standing worldwide.

New filter technologies were presented; however, it remains the fact that only RAM-Air techniques can completely eliminate the central design fault with bleed air. The Boeing 787 already uses this principle and also saves fuel with it.

Aircraft must be able to fly without polluting emissions and must have sensors installed for this purpose, something that is stated by FAA and EASA regulations. Indes: Nobody follows them, and no supervisory authority nor politicians intervene.

How strongly the FAA supports these concealment tactics, for example, is described by SCHOLZ using the model of a study by Judith ANDERSON from the Association of Flight Attendants, who had evaluated FAA databases according to Fume Events: 3000 incidents. However, the agency had only reported 18 of these incidents to the US Congress.

Similarly here in Germany - as we have described several times here in the Aerotoxic Logbook using the keyword, e.g. Fume Event (Screen: see right navigation bar; Smartphone: right at the end below).

Immediately following the end of the International Aircraft Cabin Air Conference held in London on September 17th and 18th, the international Network Aerotoxic Team posted a selection of images. The images offer an overview of the speakers and their subjects.

The conference was the second on the topic of Aircraft Cabin Air Quality. Participants and speakers are mainly the critics and warners who have been pointing out these unsolved problems for a long time. The aviation business, in particular, the airlines and the manufacturers, refused attendance yet again. Only PALL Aerospace and BASF, who both produce filter technologies, presented their products.

Below are the most prominent speakers and their topics, to be viewed on Aerotoxic Team's website:

• Prof. David MICHAELS, author of the book "Doubt is their Product" (and other publications) with the subject "Chemicals are not innocent until proven guilty".
• Dr. Daniel DUMALIN / Prof. VYVYAN on nerve damage
• Susan MICHAELIS PhD: Is this a safety issue? The EASA way
• Prof. Byron W. JONES on particles and ultrafine particles in cabin air from burnt oil residues
• Prof. Dieter SCHOLZ from Hamburg on "Flight Mechanics Aircraft Systems". His original presentation among other topics can be found on his website.

Updates to follow as they arrive.

The London Economic (TLE): New Article On Toxic Substances In Flying

Once again, the TLE discusses the problem concerning in particular  the cocktail of chemical substances identified in the cabin air by EASA themselves, respectively in a study commissioned by EASA.

„What toxins are we being exposed to in air travel?“ is the headline of the article written by Bearnairdine BEAUMONT, who is in charge of the aerotoxicteam.com network.

Literature Study on Cabin Air by the BDLI In 2017 and 2015: Today, two respectively four years later.

We inquired about the outcome a third time on June 17th. And again, we didn't get any answer although the literature evaluation was adequately carried out by the German Aerospace Center (DLR) as the contractor and handed over to the BDLI.

Now we wanted to investigate by telephone, but we were unable to get through to the press office. A request we left on their a.m. for a call back has been ignored.

We now give up,  with the conviction that the results of the entire literature (FuSe study - Fume and Smell Events) concerning the problem of potentially contaminated cabin air did not have the desired outcome for the aviation business. There is no other explanation for BDLI’s behaviour.