Last edited:
Could people please not eat peanuts on this plane?
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
Tell you what - get off your high horse and show us some evidence there is a risk and I'll agree with you.
As a matter of fact, I have read the thread. Sure, I skipped a whole page, but I read the rest and I've seen that a lot of reactions here are positive to the request, but there are also loads of negative comments as well.
But thanks for your patronising, condescending input.
And for clarification, I don't own a high horse at all.
Or they might just say "Nut allergy? Ban nuts!" without looking into it, because if they did look into it they'd dismiss it.
What I think is more likely is some hypercondriac (the US has lots) gets on the plane and speaks to a member of staff demanding the rest of the plane accommodates their ridiculous demands. And the airline staff are too weak to say anything other than "Okay". When what they really should be saying is "If you're that allergic we are not carrying you. You didn't let us know you had this ailment before you booked. Get off the plane."
Playing it safe, and pandering to psychogenic illnesses leads to the ridiculous rules and controls and bureaucracy that we have.
They would probably say stop being an idiot, if you continue to disregard our instructions, we will get your off the plane.
Who's high horse were you on? The page you skipped debunked the idea that there's any risk if someone is eating peanuts on the same flight.
Would you not agree that there is at least some risk involved given that the request was made in the first instance? There's no 100% hard evidence (to be perfectly honest, there might be, but you know what, I really can't be bothered to find it just to prove a point) proving that it can trigger an allergic reaction, but should you really be willing to take that risk when it has already been asked of you not to? Sure, I agree that sometimes H&S is a bit over the top, but should you be risking someone getting seriously ill just to ignore a simple request such as the one the OP talks about?
I guess I must have been on yours then eh?
So you've completely disregarded Lightnix's link to the possibility of airborne exposure in a pressurised environment? Sure, it suggests that hundreds of packets would need to be opened, but that there is still a risk there. Risk is risk, no matter how great or small it might be in the situation. Your meteor-helmet theory does nothing to disprove that fact, other than create a rather laughable scenario.
You've also missed the fact that regardless of the risk, my post discusses the reaction that some people have had to being asked to refrain from eating nuts on a plane. They might be aware that the risks are minimal now, but would they really have been in a position to argue about it if they were in this situation a few days ago?
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,570
- Location
- London
An announcement exactly the same was on our flight to Ibiza a couple of weeks ago.
I thought it was a bit odd, but we didn't have peanuts so it wasn't a bother
Am sure if the OP were true and the only thing you had was a bag of nuts - if you asked the steward nicely they would get you something???
BB x
I thought it was a bit odd, but we didn't have peanuts so it wasn't a bother
Am sure if the OP were true and the only thing you had was a bag of nuts - if you asked the steward nicely they would get you something???
BB x
The meteor theory explains exactly why it's important. It's lunacy to say that risk is risk no matter how great or small. That's crazy.
Are you going to be weighing up the risk of stepping in dog muck against the risk of being run over by a car and decide that since there's much more chance of stepping in dog muck you'll watch the ground rather than look for vehicles?
You have to assess each risk based on the probability and the severity - that's basic risk management. You cannot treat all risks equally.
Airlines won't balance peanut allergy risks against running out of fuel risks for example.
That's a fair point. However how many of those reactions are because people are selfish and how many are because it's so obviously a ridiculous request.
I also had this once on a plane. They asked people not to eat them but they still handed the nuts out but I guess they limited their liability by asking people not to eat them (fat chance)
I could see there being an issue if the person allergic to nuts touched things such as the toilet door handle after someone who had eaten nuts.
I ate my nuts.
I could see there being an issue if the person allergic to nuts touched things such as the toilet door handle after someone who had eaten nuts.
I ate my nuts.
Fixed that for you.
No I wouldn't would you like me to explain:
World's population: c 7 billion
Documented medical reports of people suffering anaphylaxis from casual respiratory or skin contact = 0
Global air passengers per year: c 1.5 billion (http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/intro/airlineindustry.html)
Documented medical reports of people suffering anaphylaxis from casual respiratory or skin contact = 0
The amount of peanut protein in mmols in the odour: 0
The number of children with severe allergies who had a severe reaction from skin or proximity contact (in the earlier study): 0
Simples really. Unless you want to post some evidence based refutation then please stop posting rubbish you quite clearly don't know anything about. If you want to talk about the physiological response to the protein then that would be fine I am more than happy to have a chat about that it's rather an interesting cascade.
Last edited:
I can only really draw an understanding from what is said directly. They say that usually it won't cause anaphylaxis. Okay, fine, that doesn't mean it always doesn't. I was kind of under the impression that you were saying that significant inhalation of airbourne peanut particles could cause such a reaction.
"Anaphylaxis is caused by directly eating peanuts, eating products containing peanuts and being in a environment where they are being ground and the particles become airborne. "
I'm not sure what to make of this. If the reaction being is being caused through airbourne particles in the environment, is it not through inhalation? Or is it through swallowing the airbourne particles? I assume your point is that there would be far more peanut particles in the air through grinding than from lots of people opening bags of peanuts in an enclosed, pressurised cabin, but I don't actually know that that is the case.
They might. How am I supposed to know? They might also see it as costly if somebody has some kind of adverse reaction on one of their flights. I'm not convinced they're working for the good of the individual on this flight so much as they are for their own profit margin.
They might say "here is the cost of not selling peanuts on our flight, and here is the cost of having to turn around because somebody developed a peanut related sniffle multiplied by the probability of that happening", and they might choose to not let people have peanuts as a result of such a comparison. They have all the data needed to do that. That to me would seem like a sensible business 'thing' to do. Speculating is fun!
Right ... so you completely do not understand and yet continue to pursue the point.
Why don't you know that is the case? Of course it is.
You're not - although lots of people who don't know in this thread claim to know. The airline needs to know - and they apparently don't give a **** about anything other than pandering to self centred idiots and protecting themselves from fictitious risks.
And that's my criticism too. It's very common now for that announcement to be made, yet airlines haven't bothered to realise it's all bunk.
It's very simple risk management, if an airline can't manage that then there's no hope for them. Here's a hint, the probability of it happening is 0.
I'm thick. An explanation would be appreciated.
I completely agree that some requests are ridiculous, but in this situation before any facts were known people were immediately throwing around selfish comments about how they didn't care about someone else and that they'd just ignore it and eat it anyway. It's pretty sad that we live in a world were people think only of themselves, and in my scenario of it being a loved one that is at "risk", I bet that none of them would even argue about complying.
My post could have been taken out of context, I wasn't arguing that there is risk, I was more disgruntled about the reaction some people had at the start of this post right up to the point of being made aware that the risk is rather minimal.
It appeared out of context... at a point in the thread where it had been explained that the requirement not to eat nuts was utter nonsense.
Even without the statistical debunk that Xordium has provided I'd point you back to my first post in the thread where I said...
I think that's a reasoned and sensible argument and one that doesn't even need statistics on the number of deaths/incidents/risk etc. If eating peanuts was so dangerous then they'd not get on the plane in the first place.
I don't feel I can fully explain the processes involved in the way IgE, mast cells, basophiles cause a global histamine reaction to someone who feels their education level is at that level.