A scientist who believes s/he has found a new method to explain a relationship and wants to present it to the expert public must prove for their new finding a) validity (method works) and b) reliability (the result found can be repeated regularly with the method). If s/he cannot do this or if such a search (e.g. tests) turns out negative, there are 2 options for explanation:
- Option 1: The connection does not exist in this way. It can therefore not be proven.
- Option 2: The connection exists, but it could not be proven with the method used so far. So you have to try other methods.
This does not happen in SCHINDLER’s work in 2009.
Despite this, the state of scientific knowledge in 2009 looks like this: There is no method for detecting and measuring TCP in human urine.
Publications by other scientists in the USA in 2011 (LYASOVA et al, FURLONG et al) will not advance any further either: TCP or ToCP gets into the human body during a drastic fume event, but it cannot be detected in the urine of humans either in its original state or by means of an adequate metabolite.
In 2013, SCHINDLER, who has since become an employed scientist at the DGUV and BG's own IPA Institute in Bochum (until 2012), which commissioned the publications published in 2009, will publish a further paper: Occupational exposure of air crews to tricresyl phosphate isomers and organaphosphate flame retardants after fume events.
This time the focus was directly on TCP and ToCP and 332 urine samples were evaluated, which were voluntarily handed in by aircrews who thought they were exposed to a fume event. There was no fixed definition for such an event and so it is not known whether this sample included one or more dramatic fume-event incidents, which were registered as "serious incidents" with the AAIB, for example.
Regardless of the statements in terms of content and considerable methodological weaknesses of this study, which we have summarised at www.ansTageslicht.de/Schindler-Study, metabolites have now been defined for the first time, for which, however, no evidence above a self-defined "level of detection (LOD)" could be found.
Original conclusion of the author (SCHINDLER et al 2013):
- "The lack of data on TCP in cabin air during fume events makes it currently difficult to assess the exposure of air crews to TCP" (p. 646)
- "The reported health effects in air crews can hardly be attributed to an o-TCP exposure" (p. 647).
In brief: No TCP could be detected. Ergo there was none, according to the logic of Birgit K. SCHINDLER.
This is in complete contrast to what other scientists, e.g. in the USA, think. But that does not matter for the German statutory accident insurance in Germany. Its argumentation is therefore successful in German social courts all over the country. It was no different with the hazardous substance asbestos: the employers' liability insurance associations have sufficient financial power and political influence to prevent what is unpopular (more on this here Why asbestos is still being fought over: the showdown to date, Asbestos Chronology Part III - only in German available).