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 (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:  

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 ( - German) and documents what is happening in this area.  Or, what is not happening. And why not. This German language blog ( is now also available in English and can be accessed directly via this permalink:

The information we collect in German is translated by Bearnairdine BEAUMONT who operates the network  and the 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?

Other initiatives providing information on the contaminated air issue you can get here (right side).

25th October 2018

"Film without author"? The "public" TV station WDR puts a journalist under financial pressure. Does it want to silence him?

We reported about this case on 22nd October. The Public Broadcasting Station "WDR", Cologne, has now replied:"Due to the ongoing proceedings, we are currently unable to provide you with any information."

That is why we are now asking them again:

"1) Do I understand you correctly that you are (want to, should, must) stating that you cannot (want to, should, may not) say - with reference to the fact that there is a procedure - whether such procedures are customary at WDR? Regardless of this individual case?

2) Can one conclude from this, that this - quite obviously - represents normal case scenario at WDR, regarding:

a) the procedure in question?

b) the fact that you cannot (want to, should not, may not) say anything about it?

3) And can (want, should, may) you - if necessary - answer our questions at all after the proceedings have been concluded?"

We will stay on the ball. Also regarding the planned reconstruction of the entire process.

23rd October 2018

Medical Advisory Board of Experts 'Occupational Diseases' at BMAS

In the meantime, the committee met on 11th September 2018. On their agenda the item "Fume Events".

Prof. Dr. Astrid HEUTELBECK, former lecturer at the University of Göttingen, now Professor of Occupational and Social Medicine at the University of Jena, was heard as an "external expert" who held the so-called „Fume Event Consultation Hour“ at the UMG in Göttingen until the end of 2017. Which however had to close because the BG Verkehr refused to pay the costs for fume-event patients, which would actually be it's duty.

Prof. HEUTELBECK reported mainly on her findings, i.e. experiences and clinical pictures of her more than 350 fume event patients.

However, the committee in which several representatives of the so-called „VALENTIN School“ sit, is not satisfied with this information:

"After examining the findings presented and the documents submitted, the Advisory Board concludes that there are currently no sufficient indications to enter into an in-depth scientific examination. At present the general situation of knowledge is still unclear, it lacks epidemiological evidence and further peer reviewed literature on the topic of Fume Events' , states the responsible BMAS official, Harald GOEKE (Dept. IV a 4) in a letter to the ‚patient initiative’

Now it depends on further studies to confirm these (mostly denied) connections, which requires appropriate funds.

22nd October 2018

Film without Author? The "public" TV station WDR puts a journalist under financial pressure. Do they want to silence him?

For 30 years, filmmaker and journalist Tim van BEVEREN worked, amongst for others, also for the WDR, and produced from 2009 to 2011 several films about fume events and their consequences for the "public broadcaster", thus becoming the first in Germany to bring this problem into public focus.

A large project with the title "Nervengift im Flugzeug" (Nerve Poison in Airplanes), which was broadcast by WDR in „Format“ – „Die Story" (The Story), led to content-related disputes. Tim van BEVEREN's co-author, then Dr. Roman STUMPF, today: Roman RUSCH, who, while being a full-time employed WDR editor , studied at the private Quadriga University in Berlin, whose sponsors include companies such as Airbus and Lufthansa (which obviously posed no problem for WDR), continued working on the film by himself and Tim van BEVEREN was excluded. Lufthansa for example, did not want to take part as an interview partner in a film made by van BEVEREN . (view entry from 7th July 2014 at

DokZentrum ansTageslicht is in the process of reconstructing the origins and oddities of this strange history which ultimately led to a programme complaint by a Scottish lawyer, which mentions amongst other things, "deception of the audience“ . However,  this was smoothed out by the WDR Broadcasting Council.

As a result, WDR tried to refute reproaches and critical inquiries in "Fact Check", by disseminating partly untrue factual allegations about Van BEVEREN. For a freelance journalist this can leed quickly to a journalistic 'death sentence'. 

Tim van BEVEREN tried to defend himself against these claims in court. Unsuccessfully. The Landgericht Mainz was of the opinion that he had to accept (this is inaccurate) "factual allegations" which "cannot have a significant effect on the personality of the person concerned". 

Now the WDR wants to recover its lawyer's fees. At court. Tim van BEVEREN should the 'oath of disclosure'.

It was in this context that we asked WDR these questions today:

1.      Is it normal for the WDR that you want to financially gag journalists with whom you have a content-related dispute?

2.      If this is not the normal case, why are you doing it in this case?

3.      Have you ever thought about another solution?

4.      And what exactly are the reasons why you are putting such financial pressure on a former employee?

We will stay on the ball. In every respect.

(Additional information:

The film in question was never broadcast again, although the topic has come more and more in to the public focus.

In order to make sure that WDR will not sue us as well - for example for any copyright infringement of its logo - we made this one ourselves. It is not the original logo).

October 18th, 2018

Contaminated cabin air now brought before the International Criminal Court

In an Open Letter the Aerotoxic Association called upon the public prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, to take action, stating that the existence of potentially poisoned cabin air violates several international regulations. Among other things, it violates ‚The Right to Healthy Indoor Air’, as demanded by the WHO;  also against the „Air Quality Guidelines“, Global update 2005: „Particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide“.

Even EASA demands in its regulation CS 25.831 the same as does the Code of Federal Regulations of the USA regarding air traffic:

"Crew and passenger compartment air must be free from harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases or vapours" (p. 1 D 38f)

And this in fact, is not the case. Especially not when fume events occur that are more than just "smells".

The original Open Letter is accompanied by 2 full folders of documents, scientific evidence, previous court documents, supporting documents and testimonials from more than 100 affected persons, documenting this disastreous calamity that has persisted for decades.

October 17th, 2018

British coroners to look out for toxic cabin air effects in their investigations

In connection with the investigation of a deceased former flight attendant, the responsible coroner (official investigator into deaths) has asked the chief coroner to look into such cases in the future to verify whether the contaminated cabin air might have played a roll.

The British trade union UNITE, which is currently involved in more than 100 court cases concerning injuries to the health of flight crew, wants to take this opportunity to publicly discuss this fundamental problem, which airlines and manufacturers are still largely ignoring.

More under ‚Call for Public Inquiry’ following coroner’s warning of toxic cabin air