That's not the argument here.
A) It is safe for him to be on a plane with 200 people who may or may not have eaten peanuts prior to getting on.
B) It's unsafe for someone sitting 20 rows back to eat peanuts.
A and B cannot co-exist.
Could people please not eat peanuts on this plane?
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
That's not the argument here.
A) It is safe for him to be on a plane with 200 people who may or may not have eaten peanuts prior to getting on.
B) It's unsafe for someone sitting 20 rows back to eat peanuts.
A and B cannot co-exist.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
I doubt it's a situation where someone will die if they come into contact with it, if the allergy is that severe then they will carry an EpiPen with them. I think the point is that it's supposed to be used when there's no other option, not as a normal method of treatment. Where possible you should try to avoid situations where a reaction might be likely.
That's where you come in. Does that mean they should have a lower quality of life because of it?
To put it bluntly it does. They have to be extremely careful what they eat and virtually all supermarket food has a nuts warning on it. No matter what we do we can't make things normal for them.
That, however, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If me not eating peanuts makes someone's trip notably better then I'll of course do it- gladly. If me not eating peanuts cuts the medical risk of someone dying or being seriously ill then of course I'll do it.
However I do not believe that the peanut warning given on the plane was in any way reasonable, accurate or realistic.
Yet again - if there was a risk of an adverse reaction from someone sitting rows back then the person with the peanut allergy would not be safe to get on a plane without pharmaceutical levels of cleanliness. It just couldn't happen.
I'd of carried on eating them and claimed I had an allergy not not eating peanuts.
i like this !!
what would they say xD
nothing wrong with minimising risks... no doubt the allergy sufferer will be careful holding doors etc... anyway and while the airline can't do too much about someone who's eaten peanuts in a bar an hour earlier, not consuming them when the air is being recycled could be helpful.
There really, really is. Wearing a helmet will cut your risk of dying from a meteor strike by 80%. That's minimising risk. It's also laughable. Minimising risk is only appropriate in certain circumstances, there can be plenty wrong with it.
Or what about those big monster SUV type cars which mums use for the school run because if they ineptly get into a collision their kids will be safer, but other kids will be guaranteed dead. That's minimising risk.
I think it's a cop out. Were it my airline and someone said that someone else eating peanuts 10 rows back may cause them serious medical distress then I'd refuse to take them on the plane.
Or you could just make a simple request that people not eat peanuts...
tis not comparable to helmet/meteor strike... rather its a fairly practical, easy precaution to take to make a slightly rare but rather serious event even less likely
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
The funny things is, I felt less inclined to eat the nuts I'd bought than vape, although this was before the M6 incident.
You don't understand risk control... it's a ridiculous step to control an extremely unlikely event which is likely to have no effect on it any way.
In the US for example 10 people die per year from peanut allergies.
It's not a significant cause of death, and the attempt to mitigate it on planes will cause how much of a reduction? Nil?
It's not slightly rare - that's vastly overstating the problem.
Using bad maths... the only statistic I can find about in flight deaths is 16 per year in the US. 2.5mil people die each year in the US and 10 of those from peanut allergies. So 0.000004 of each death is from a peanut allergy. Which means there are 0.00000064 peanut allergy deaths on airplanes each year in the US.
That's a risk you want to control? No. It isn't.
It's not something you need to control because there is no risk at all.
There is absolutely no serious risk unless you ingest the damn things. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary then off you go - prove me wrong. But as someone who has spent a large proportion of their life treating anaphylaxis I can tell you there is absolutely no evidence that this would happen.
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. You don't get the protein that the body reacts to in the odour and you get nothing more than a localised skin reaction at worst skin contact. There was a study about ten years ago that directly tested this.
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Still no one has answered why it's unreasonable for the allergy sufferer to 'minimise risk' themselves by wearing one of these instead of getting everyone else to feel responsibility for them.
On the "being in an environment where they are being ground and the particles become airborne", one article I found suggested (alongside the mechanisms you suggested) the specific possibility of this occuring on airplanes:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...w-SkBw&usg=AFQjCNHO0MFExBcjzf4jXva5harZQpOu0w
While this document does go on to say that the risk of anaphylaxis from such an exposure is "very small", I guess that means the risk is present. It also addresses that this is essentially impossible in a well ventilated, unpressurised environment. I am lead to the conclusion that the airline implement such risk management because of the specific conditions on an airplane.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,623
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
So basically one packet would do bugger all.
Well sure, but the point is there wouldn't be one packet, right? Who gets to open the one packet? Do we draw straws?
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Well sure, but the point is there wouldn't be one packet, right? Who gets to open the one packet? Do we draw straws?
There would never be 'hundreds' either. Surely on a plane of say 200 hundred people it's unlikely there'd ever be more than 20 people eating peanuts at any given time at most.
Some people's attitude toward this is a joke. I love how there are so many alpha keyboard warrior responses to this simple request. I can't believe that a request to minimise the risk of someone getting seriously ill in a confined, pressurised space, would be dismissed by so many of you in here.
Let's turn it around a bit. What if one of your loved one's was the reason for the request? Would you still crack open that bag of peanuts and start munching away? Yeah, I don't think you would in all honesty. So why should there be a difference just because you don't know the other person? Would you really willingly endanger them by ignoring the request?
I also find it utterly ridiculous that people say he shouldn't be flying. What should he do? At the end of the day, is it really such an inconvenience to not eat a bag of bloody nuts until the plane lands again?
I don't know anyone with a nut allergy, but I know that they can be pretty nasty. It's so easy to transmit airborne viruses on a plane with the air being recirculated so much, so it would seem reasonable that other particles can trigger allergies and such as well. It isn't their fault that they have such an allergy, and I actually can't believe that people would risk their health just so that they can have a little snack. Utterly selfish in my opinion. No wonder the world is in such a sorry state.
Let's turn it around a bit. What if one of your loved one's was the reason for the request? Would you still crack open that bag of peanuts and start munching away? Yeah, I don't think you would in all honesty. So why should there be a difference just because you don't know the other person? Would you really willingly endanger them by ignoring the request?
I also find it utterly ridiculous that people say he shouldn't be flying. What should he do? At the end of the day, is it really such an inconvenience to not eat a bag of bloody nuts until the plane lands again?
I don't know anyone with a nut allergy, but I know that they can be pretty nasty. It's so easy to transmit airborne viruses on a plane with the air being recirculated so much, so it would seem reasonable that other particles can trigger allergies and such as well. It isn't their fault that they have such an allergy, and I actually can't believe that people would risk their health just so that they can have a little snack. Utterly selfish in my opinion. No wonder the world is in such a sorry state.
Not that I am arguing against what you are saying but on short haul I would agree with you. On long haul it is quite possible as peanuts are part of what is handed out as snacks mid flight.
What can I say? I don't know. I guess the potential amount of people opening packets of peanuts may be close to proportional to the aircraft compartment's volume, and so the concentration of nut particles in the air might be accounted for that way. I suppose the airline company are the guys who have all the sales figures for nuts on their flights, they might be able to figure it out better than we can.