Talk:Aerotoxic syndrome/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV

I've added some references. If the neutrality is still disputed, I'd appreciate any feedback to correct it, or any other feedback generally. Cheers, --TCP146 (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically all of the references to aerotoxic.org need to be deleted, because it isn't a reliable source. I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:COI. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you'd be better off citing proper journal articles like PMID 12017442 than a POV-pushing website. Also, you might consider reading articles on the general issue of cabin air, instead of focusing exclusively on those that use the precise name adopted by proponents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article to make it more balanced. The references still aren't great (none of them would pass WP:MEDRS). As far as I can tell, very little peer-reviewed research has been done on aerotoxic syndrome, so this is probably the best we can do for now. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To balance Bagshaw's report, I've re-introduced the BALPA conference report as it contains a lot of good evidence to support Aerotoxic Syndrome and has the backing of leading specialists in this field --TCP146 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I took most of that out, it was obviously POV and the quotes you added don't add anything and are also VERY POV and unsupported by their research, they are speculating about a subject they have yet to find definitive evidence actually exists, and your choice of quotes misrepresent both the research and the viability of its conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.29.215 (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reason to believe this blocked user. The quotes seemed to present a reasonable counterpoint to the rest of the article, so I replaced them. 99.60.1.84 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

But the BALPA report doesn't actually provide any 'evidence' at all. Just because you suffer CFS or whatever after a career of flying doesn't mean that your illness was caused by oil fumes. Lots of office workers suffer CFS etc. from stress alone. I wonder, is being a pilot or FA stressful at all? --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with stress. Anyway, being aircrew is not particularly stressful. All pilots and cabin crew I know who have the health problems and have stopped flying all have a similar profile of petroleum-related toxins and nickel in their blood and the same pattern of autonomic nervous system damage, enzyme damage, liver damage and mitochodria damage. This is not "stress". Unfortunately the aviation industry and government regulating bodies are doing a fine job of ignoring or discrediting any research that shows a problem. And any research they do themselves never comes to any useful conclusion, but just calls for more studies. Therefore the issue is never resolved. Bagshaw gets paid by the aviation industry so he would say what he does. --TCP146 (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If the research has been done, where is it? The symptoms you mention are pretty typical of a stress related illness, and being a pilot I know for a fact that the industry can be very stressful. However that is WP:OR and is irrelevant for the article - I'm just giving you a likely explanation for these symptoms. The problem is, a lot of people don't like the stress explanation for some reason, so they invent an external cause for their health problems. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The BALPA conference proceedings is full of references to various research and the Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual is also a very good source. --TCP146 (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had another look through this, and although it wouldn't normally be considered a WP:MEDRS, it's about as reliable as the Bagshaw paragraph we already have in the article. The problem is that they don't have a summary or abstract so it's difficult to summarise. If you want to expand the paragraph, go ahead, but try to do it without making it too WP:POV. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just now entered a request for deletion of this article.

The article is a travesty. An alleged medical syndrome that has no scientific basis.

If one reads all the links to support it, you find that there are only anecdotal complaints about illness from those who have a strong financial incentive to blame the alleged maladies on their work environment. No evidence to support their claims that the airliner cabin air they breathe, is the source of their complaints. Not one, single shred of valid evidence to support those claims. All the scientific testing that has been done, finds there is no hazard at all.

This syndrome, has a political agenda (promoted by two labor unions) behind it and the chief "authority" they cite is Dr. Malcolm Hooper, who has attached his name to a variety of other environmental political agendas.

If Wikipedia is to have articles about the alleged anecdotal reasons for illnesses, then lets get cracking and include all the superstitions for causing other illnesses too. This article has no more scientific support for such a claim, than those do, so why not?

The only way to establish the source of any illness, is with a thorough examination of the patient, including body and fluid samples. No one can say that "I got a headache, and it was the result of Joe Brown blowing smoke in my face," and have that put down as the finding of science. Yet, when I read that list of "surveys" of those who filed complaints, that is all they ever have: they make their own anecdotal diagnosis and then that goes into the "literature" of the political agenda group that is promoting this "disease," as if it was a scientific finding.

Got news for you, 20,000 people complaining about the upset stomachs they got, after watching an eclipse of the moon, doesn't prove that the eclipse caused their illness. Hey, make it one million----but that doesn't improve the science one iota. Yet, that is all that they have, to "prove" this new found medical syndrome.

The tactics of the group that is pushing this "illness," is the real tip-off. They list page after page of links to articles that allegedly support their complaint, but when one reads them, they are only about distantly related subjects (like the Australian study which examined the incidents and risks of pilot incapacitation). Most of the articles do not discuss the alleged dangers of cabin air, and they certainly provide no evidence of any proven case, where any pilot or flight attendant has ever been incapacitated by polluted cabin air.

Their supposed scientific studies, amount to nothing more than a giant snow job, with hordes of articles that have no relevance at all. The BALPA paper, referred to above, is a total joke. I suggest reading pages 107 - 112, and then tell me if they established any correlation at all, between the alleged "injuries" on the job and the (anecdotal allegation) "cause" of those "injuries." It isn't there. Page after page of snow job, without any scientific evidence at all that can establish cause and effect.

The article starts out with these weasel words: "Aerotoxic syndrome is the name for the long-term ill-health effects that the affected person attributes to breathing contaminated cabin air in an aircraft." Note who establishes the cause and effect: the one claiming to be injured. I challenge any other Wiki editor to show me any literature which gives valid scientific evidence to support the cause and effect allegations of those promoting this phony syndrome. EditorASC (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Robert. As you say, there isn't really any evidence for this illness. The BALPA report is just a bunch of conference papers from people who believe in the illness. The situation is similar to that of MCS, which we also have an article for. Just because there isn't any evidence for the illness doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article for it (look at MCS, homeopathy, etc.) But we do need to ensure we follow the WP:MEDRS, WP:RS and WP:Weight policies to ensure that we are giving a fair picture of the scientific evidence. If you read the article you'll see that we do spend a lot of time in the Research section debunking the illness. Certainly there might need to be more work done on the article. Currently the bleed air section doesn't cite any references and I'm not sure how accurate it is. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is my first attempt, in 4 years of Wiki editing, to request that an article be deleted. Thus, lacking any previous experience in making my case for that kind of situation, I probably left out some of the more important issues. But, you have mentioned some that are pertinent, namely WP:MEDRS, WP:RS and WP:Weight. This article violates virtually every rule that is listed in all three of those guideline articles. There is no reliable source to verify the claims, thus it violates the verifiability rule. The article was obviously begun by a person associated with the political agenda group that is pushing for recognition of this phony syndrome. That violates the NPOV rule and also might be considered as using Wikipedia for free spam advertising to benefit this site.

Additionally, it makes false statements which are not supported by the citation added, to justify that statement. Here is one example, in the Research section:

BALPA, the UK's largest pilot union produced a report in 2005 detailing the proceedings of the Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality conference. The 320 page report details research supporting a link between contaminated cabin air and health.

That statement is blatantly false. The "research" that is discussed in that report is not linked to alleged toxic cabin air in any way. There is nothing in that report that amounts to scientific evidence that there was dangerous toxic cabin air, nor that anyone suffered any kind of injury from the non-existent toxic air. Thus, the statement is not supported by that citation and that, to me means both the statement and the citation should be removed.

To the contrary, The British CAA paper of 2004/04, entitled "Cabin Air Quality," states in its conclusions that:

• A general assessment of the toxic potential of the components and thermal degradation products of aviation lubricating fluid, as collected by Marshman, has been carried out and no single component or set of components can be identified which at conceivable concentrations would definitely cause the symptoms reported in cabin air quality incidents.

• There is no single symptom or set of symptoms which is characteristic of cabin air quality incidents.

• The major constituents of aircraft lubricating fluid, i.e. high molecular weight esters, are recorded as having very low toxicity. It is concluded therefore that these components do not pose a risk even at high lubricant leak rates into the cabin air supply.

• The occurrence of symptoms is not necessarily related to the presence of an odour in the cabin.

• Based on a review of the readily available literature, we do not believe that either of the meta and para isomers of tricresyl phosphate identified following pyrolysis can be associated with neurotoxic effects.

• There is no rational basis for drawing conclusions about the toxicity of the contaminants reviewed under conditions of reduced pO2 as in the cabins of pressurised aircraft.

Finally, there is the issue of weasel words: If the article is allowed to remain, do we cut them out, or let them stand?

"...long-term ill-health effects that the affected person attributes to breathing contaminated cabin air in an aircraft." Since there is no science to support "long-term ill-health effects" being caused by alleged toxic cabin air, that is not proved to exist, doesn't that phrase amount to weasel words, again in violation of Wiki policy?

"...and some aircrew and passengers say that they have been made ill by toxins in engine oil that can enter the air supply." How about that one? More weasel words,to me. EditorASC (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The statements about the bleed air system are accurate, in one simplistic sense (the air is tapped off of the compressed engine air sections, prior to the combustion section), from high and low pressure bleed valves, which are automatically controlled by computer logic. But, the article wants us to believe that the oil leaks into the air, and the truth is that kind of situation is extremely rare, and when it does happen, the air is not contaminated to anywhere near what could be dangerous to anyone. I never experieced a single case of bad air in an airliner (aside from when there was a long taxi line before takeoff and the wind was blowing the exhaust from other planes,into our intakes), during the 33 years of my airline career. Boeing has a very good document that explains how the ECS system works, at this site. EditorASC (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So why don't we just fix the POV issues with the article? Having looked at the article again this morning, I also noticed that issue with the BALPA conference sentence. Also, in the sentence about bleed air, can we put in some research giving actual levels of TCP found in the cabin? I seem to remember someone doing research on this. As for deleting the article - I wouldn't be against that. However is it not better to have a factual, scientific rebuttal to this factitious disorder rather than having nothing at all? That is essentially what we do with homeopathy and MCS. The issue is whether this 'syndrome' is sufficiently notable that people will have heard about it, and I believe that is the case. Certainly we do need to abide by the policies you mention, but I think that can be done with some minor tweaking to the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will give it a shot and see what we end up with. EditorASC (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for articles that contain medical information/claims

Referencing WP:MEDRS, I have removed the following references, because each amounted to a self-help popular press article (all by one author), that have a political advocacy POV:

• Learmount, David.

UK aerotoxic inquiry may head down the wrong path". [[Flight

International]]. 8 February 2008. Retrieved 13 January 2010. *Learmount, David.

"Engine oil may be cabin air culprit". Flight International. 11

February 2008. Retrieved 13 January 2010.

"[http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/06/223448/toxic-fumes-in-airliner-cabins

-ignored-by-authorities.html Toxic fumes in airliner cabins ignored by authorities]".

Flight International. 6 May 2008. Retrieved 13 January 2010.

The three articles not only have a political POV (in favor of the allegations made by two airline labor unions, against the managements of their companies), but they fail to meet the criteria for articles which are to be used to verify alleged medical illness and their alleged causes:

"The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits,[6] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[7] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease, or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center.[8] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms." From [1] EditorASC (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Flight International is most definately a Reliable Source in the field of Aviation and Aviation Safety - which this subject is clearly related to.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

While it is a WP:RS it is not a WP:MEDRS, but as long as you're only using it to support technical or aviation information it should be fine. I did notice, however, that the BAE incident takes up a lot of space in the article, even though it (apparently) just caused short-term symptoms (and therefore not "aerotoxic syndrome", which is what the article is about). --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Birmingham BAe 146 incident is one of the incidents where the apparent symptoms were most severe - while they were short term, they were claimed to be bad enough to put the co-pilot out of action and significantly affect the pilot and potentialy hazard the aircraft. Such short term effects are of course easier to pin down, even if the causes aren't fully known, that the more vague symptoms alledged for long term exposure. The article would probably benefit from more of a focus on the better defined short term effects of smoke/fume events rather than just cover the long-term "syndrome".Nigel Ish (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to this statement:

It should be noted that Flight International is most definately a Reliable Source in the field of Aviation and Aviation Safety - which this subject is clearly related to.

While that source (Flight International) can be a RS, for a specific factual issue in aviation, that does not mean that the particular article in question is a RS for the issue that you are trying to promote. In fact, that particular article is not a reliable source for this claim of a medical syndrome. It clearly is a political advocacy article, which amounts to a blog form. It clearly fails to "discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits..." (quoting excerpt from WP MEDRS above). That article simply assumes that the reports were made in good faith by each of the alleged victims, and assumes that they somehow knew what it was that made them sick. The article itself does not lay out any solid, scientific evidence to support its acceptance of those claims and their alleged causes. AND, it did not contain the quoted phrase either. So, on both counts, it failed as a RS citation. Blog articles almost never qualify as RS, even for non-med wiki articles.

And, I will remind you that the hospital examination found nothing wrong with either pilot. No physical evidence of any kind. All we have are the allegations. Nothing more. EditorASC (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

May 10, 2010

Here we go again. Popular press articles are usually not a reliable source for WP:MEDRS support citations. When a statement says that the PPM of toxic substances did exceed the known safe levels, then you have to support that with actual scientific research that proves that actually happened. Popular press articles, which simply regurgitate the ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS made by political agenda groups, does NOT meet that WP:MEDRS standard, for articles which are about medical issues. Here it is again. Please read and heed:

"The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits,[6] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[7] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease, or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center.[8] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms." From [2] EditorASC (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

April 2013

The deletion of the advocacy link, * Ill health Following Exposure to Contaminated Aircraft Air: Psychosomatic Disorder or Neurological Injury?, S Mackenzie Ross, A Harper, J Burdon, 2006 under External Links was appropriate but shouldn't it be placed as a reference for the Research or Media mentions of Sarah Mackenzie Ross. The link leads to a full text PDF of an article published in The Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia & New Zealand. Obviously a link that lead to the article at it's publisher or neutral site would be better, but I have not been able to find one. Other than that the recent edits seem to have greatly improved the article. MrBill3 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The use of bogus links

By "bogus" links, I mean a citation link that is attached to a statement, which is supposed to provide a RS for that statement, but in fact it does not. I have found at least two instances where the links provided, did not support the statements that were made. In the latest instance, a link to another David Learmount article was the citation for the quoted phase of "wet seals." Yet, when I read the article, I found no such phrase in it. The word "wet" is not in that article at all. Thus, I removed that citation, which did not support the quoted phrase.

It seems to me that this kind of tactic (adding links which do not in fact, support the statements made by the editors who are promoting the existence of this alleged syndrome), is a reason to suspect that some edits in this article are not made in good faith. Either the editor, who has offered the link as support for his edit, has not actually read the article, to ensure that it does support the edit, or he has read it, but has calculated that no one would notice that the link was not actually supportive of the edit. Either way, that amounts to a bad faith edit in my book.

That then raises the question of the reliability of other citations links, which have no Internet access, and which would be very difficult for other wiki editors to access and verify. If they are alleged to be scientific research papers, but are very difficult to read and verify, then I question if those links should be allowed to remain, since it appears they too have been supplied to support the alleged syndrome.

I hope to get some opinions on how much we should assume that such links are RS for an article which alleges medical cause and effect, especially since previous citations, which were available for verification, proved to be "bogus." EditorASC (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

While the Flight International article (and Flight International is certainly a reliable source for what goes on in an aircraft engine) that was used as a reference did not refer to "wet seals", it did refer to seals and the fact that according to BAe Systems - "Every engine leaks oil from its seals and bearings" - in fact, as seen from the AAIB report the engine seals on the BAe 146 are "lubricated and cooled by the oil within the various bearing components", with "Any oil escaping from such a seal, particularly at the No 1 bearing position, is likely to find its way into the main engine gas stream", while the APU employs an oil seal where "Leakage of oil past this seal, which has been known to occur in service, can enter the APU air inlet plenum chamber and be drawn into the engine" (pp. 6–9).

In addition text has been added that "It has been alleged, by two airline labor unions, that flight crews..." - In fact these claims are backed up by the AAIB report - on pages 21-34 it discusses a number of similar but less severe incidents - although it does not establish cause and effect between oil additives and the observed symptoms - with one of the incidents showing signs of CO exposure.

Finally, I resent the accusation that my edits are done in bad faith - this sort of accusation does not aid in producing a better article or establishing a neutral POV.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The clear implication of the wording you used (within the context of the paragraph), was that the seals were "wet" because they were designed to leak. But, I can find nothing in the sources you cited to prove that is in fact how they were designed. Again, the article you cited, did not contain the QUOTED words you put within quotation marks. When you put quotation marks around a phrase or word, then you are required to give the source of that quote. You gave an article that did not IN FACT contain such a quote, so the link has proved bogus. As I pointed out before, either you did not bother to read the article, to ensure it contained the quote that you alleged it contained, or you knew it did not contain the quote you alleged it did, but posted that link anyway, in hopes that no one would catch it. Either way, that amounts to a bad faith edit.

It is one thing to say that if the roof leaks, we may get wet. It is quite another to say that that we will regularly get wet, because the roof was designed to leak. Once you understand that difference, you might be on your way to understanding why a horde of anecdotal allegations about alleged health symptoms, does not establish in any way that the alleged symptoms really occurred in those persons, and it certainly does not establish that the alleged cause of those alleged symptoms is the cause that the individual "victims" (my quote) allege to believe is the cause. The 320 page BALBA convention report does not contain a shred of scientific evidence to establish cause and effect of the alleged complaints. The whole subject appears to be a sham so far, and if you desire to have the credibility you seemed to demand, then you might try avoiding posting citation links that do not support your statements, and then find REAL valid scientific evidence, that can prove cause and effect, and which actually supports (under the WP MEDRS) your statements. EditorASC (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to the following statements:

While the Flight International article (and Flight International is certainly a reliable source for what goes on in an aircraft engine) that was used as a reference did not refer to "wet seals", it did refer to seals and the fact that according to BAe Systems - "Every engine leaks oil from its seals and bearings" - in fact, as seen from the AAIB report the engine seals on the BAe 146 are "lubricated and cooled by the oil within the various bearing components", with "Any oil escaping from such a seal, particularly at the No 1 bearing position, is likely to find its way into the main engine gas stream", while the APU employs an oil seal where "Leakage of oil past this seal, which has been known to occur in service, can enter the APU air inlet plenum chamber and be drawn into the engine" (pp. 6–9).

This Flight International article:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/06/223448/toxic-fumes-in-airliner-cabins-ignored-by-authorities.html

makes this statement:

“BAE Systems, manufacturer of the BAe 146 and the derived Avro RJ Series of aircraft: 'Every engine leaks oil from its seals and bearings' (Official record of evidence presented to the Australian Senate inquiry into cabin contamination.)”

So, I presume that means that FI article (link above) is the source of your quoted statement above Every engine leaks oil from its seals and bearings Is that correct?

I searched that phrase ( Every engine leaks oil from its seals and bearings) in both the AAIB report on G-JEAK (72 pages, November 5, 2000) and the Australian Senate report (188 pages, October 2000). Not found in either report. So, I searched the phrase “Every engine” in both reports. Again, not found. So, I then searched for the phrase of “engine leaks” in both reports. Again, not found.

So, what is the REAL and original source of that alleged BAe Systems statement? Reading thru both of those PDF reports, it seems to me they were ALWAYS talking about the possibility of oil contaminating the air system, IF A SEAL FAILED. I see nothing in either report that intimates that the seals were ever designed to leak, OR that there was a history of all engines having leaking seals at all times. If BAE Systems actually did make that statement, my guess is that the context of that statement will reveal that they were talking about when and if seals fail, and they never intended to imply that the seals leaked all the time on all engines, OR that those seals were designed to leak.

I wait for more information from you, that can clear up where that statement came from and for the context in which it was said (if it was said). EditorASC (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I originally wrote this article and with some sensible debate and some tweaks it was beginning to look quite balanced, I think most would agree. Then EditorASC appeared on the scene and totally slaughtered it to suit his own agenda, so now it is a nonsense. I appreciate the concept of Wiki that anyone can have a go, but I feel the article has been butchered beyond reasonable repair and has certainly lost its balance. Is there some way we can revert to a previous version, say 2 Nov 2009 before it got out of hand, or at least restore some of the good references, notably the BALPA document?--TCP146 (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. Since you have avoided responding to the question of documenting the alleged BAe Systems statement, then it becomes clear that what I suspected all along, is true: Someone, somewhere just made up that alleged BAe Systems statement, then it got picked up by aviation writers like Learmount, and that somehow is supposed to give it credibility, because he is a well-known aviation writer and that means he would not be in error in repeating a statement that someone else allegedly made.

Your reply here is a classic "copout" argument, which means no argument at all. The issue is what amounts to WP:RS for the alleged statements, which were encased within quotation marks in the article. But, to date, there is no WP:RS for that quotation, and it now appears that is because someone, somewhere, just made it up. So the answer is "no," we cannot just go back to a time when the article was loaded with statements and quotations that did not meet WP:RS requirements, much less WP:MEDRS requirements.

It is against Wiki policy to create articles which are designed to serve as spam propaganda for political advocacy groups like GCAQE and Aerotoxic Association. If you desire this article to survive, then Wiki policy requires that allegations of cause and effect for alleged medical injuries, that were allegedly caused by the work environment of the "victims," then you have to document that in a non-POV way. That means any statements made, which argue for the existence of that alleged toxic syndrome must be supported by RS scientific studies. Articles which do little more than make references to a lot a claims, by alleged victims, does not meet that Wiki standard.

The fact that complaints about the alleged syndrome increased significantly, after the pilot and flight attendant labor unions created a form to use to "document" alleged incidents, and then passed those forms out to members of their unions, tells me that those political agenda organizations are trying to create credibility with the tactic of "everyone believes that" (the "bandwagon" logical fallacy). When piles of complaints are filed, the appropriate regulating authorities are forced to investigate. That alone gives those labor union backed organizations more fodder for their cannon, by enabling them to reference all of the investigations that are "ongoing." As if that says anything valid about the science---or lack of science---behind the alleged syndrome.

If you want your statements to survive scrutiny, you will have to provide citations that meet WP:RS and/or WP:MEDRS requirements. It's that simple. EditorASC (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In respone to this question:

"...or at least restore some of the good references, notably the BALPA document?--TCP146 (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)"

If you want to use that BALPA document as citation to support any claim you make in the article, then you need to show us what SPECIFICALLY in that document, supports any statement in the article, in a manner required by WP:MEDRS. I have gone thru that document, and I haven't been able to find anything in it which is supportive of claims that were made in the article. So, show us where we might have missed something that amounts to a valid WP:MEDRS. EditorASC (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken "alleged" out of the contaminated bleed air section as it is clear that this happens (or can happen, as that is what the paragraph is explaining. I've included reference to a BAE System document that indicates that this may happen on their BAe 146 aircraft.--TCP146 (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for digging up that document. It contains additional information, which throws a lot more light on the subject, so I have added that too. Looks like we may be approaching consensus. EditorASC (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Put "contaminated" back in the first sentence: " ... which are alleged by some to have been caused by the breathing of cabin air in an airliner". The allegation is that the air is contaminated, not that they are breathing "cabin air" (which I think that's a given in an airliner) --TCP146 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have re-worded to accommodate both you and the standards set by WP:MEDRS (please review that policy guideline for articles which allege medical claims). Until such time as you can produce a WP:MEDRS citation that proves that the PPMs actually exceeded known safe levels, during the alleged occurrences, then the word "alleged" has to remain, since to remove it implies that "contamination" was a documented fact (documented via a WP:MEDRS citation). So far, I haven't seen one shred of valid scientific evidence which documents that the PPMs of alleged toxic substances exceeded known safe levels. EditorASC (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued POV issues

The word "alleged" or "allege" is used 11 times in the article, three times in a single sentence. It is used far too many times and, at the very least, some variation should be introduced.

The "Media Coverage" section is entirely POV-ridden. One example is "Clearly, the most prominent feature of Dagbladet.no's reporting was its sensationalism", which is plainly original research. Other examples include "That implied that cabin air is contaminated on a routine basis. But, that is not true. In another article, the Dagbladet.no contradicted itself" and "In another egregious case of slanted and sensationalistic reporting" and "much of the media seized upon that report and used it to write articles that were outrageously sensational and misleading" The word "sensationalist" is also used far too many times in this section and is a POV word all by itself if it is not being used in a quote of a source.

In fact, the entire Media Coverage section is almost completely slanted as criticism of Aerotoxic syndrome, when there are a plenty of sources that can be used to make the section have a NPOV. Silverseren^C 08:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Baloney! Dr. Barnett is a highly qualified expert on the sociology of media reporting.

"For a detailed analysis of the paper's bias in the matter of reporting the research see: "Bennett, S.A. (2005) The Role of Social Amplification and News Values in the Re-presentation of Risk Research: A Case Study. Risk Management: An International Journal. Volume 7, Number 1." For a wider review of media bias when reporting on the aviation industry, see this author's latest book A Sociology of Commercial Flight Crew, published by Ashgate."

The section on media bias accurately reflects his research and writing on that issue, so it is NOT original research on my part. Have you actually read the entire article? Both Barnett and Air Safety Week are reputable WP:RS. EditorASC (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Anytime a statement is made in a medical issues article, so that an unsubstantiated opinion, which relates to a medical issue in the article, is presented as if it is a statement of known fact, then it becomes necessary to insert words like "alleged," to make it clear to readers that it IS a statement of unsupported opinion, and not a statement of proven fact. The necessity of inserting words like "alleged," could be avoided, if the editor who puts such statements in, in the first place, carefully words them so that the readers will have no doubt that they are someone's unsubstantiated opinion. EditorASC (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Other users have already edited the article and put in some variation of wording. You don't have to use just the word "alleged" every time. It does have synonyms, you know. Silverseren^C 08:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that use of the word "alleged" has got excessive. It's so silly in fact, that reports of the very claims themselves are "alleged" - correct me if I'm wrong, but we're pretty sure that the Aerotoxic Association exists. Now their, err, allegations on the other hand are not mainstream, but we don't have to say that in every sentence to get the message across. So, let's take deep breath please and stop assuming that the readership is completely illiterate. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, the removal of "alleged" before "has been contaminated" [to unsafe ppm levels] turns it into a medical issue fact statement, so I put a tag on it. To date, no one has been able to prove that anyone on any airliner, has ever breathed in air that contains toxic substances in amounts that have exceeded known safe ppm levels. So, when anyone makes a contrary statement, in a medical issues article, a WP:MEDRS citation is required. That is why I inserted the word "alleged" before that "has been contaminated" statement----to make it clear that it was an unsupported allegation, NOT a statement of scientific FACT. EditorASC (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As to this statement above:

"It's so silly in fact, that reports of the very claims themselves are "alleged" - correct me if I'm wrong, but we're pretty sure that the Aerotoxic Association exists."

I don't understand it. Could you elaborate a little more, so I can understand what point you are trying to make? I am not aware of anyone alleging that the Aerotoxic Association does not exist. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

S/he means that the reports of the claims can't be "alleged" reports, as the reports exist, they were made. Unless you are going to say that the Aerotoxic Association doesn't exist, so the reports were never actually made, you can't say that the reports themselves are alleged, because you would be alleging whether the reports exist. Silverseren^C 19:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it was pretty obvious that I was addressing the one who made that statement, namely User talk:Socrates2008. I will wait for his/her response as to what he/she meant. I have no interest in your opinion, as to what someone else meant, when they said something. EditorASC (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Silverseren nailed it in one. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Spam linking internal/external

"Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references in a manner inconsistent with accepted standards. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation."

"Sometimes, people come to Wikipedia with the intention of spamming—creating articles which are mere advertisements or self-promotion, or spewing external links to a web site over many articles." [[3]]

The very first paragraph in this article, has the Wikipedia inline page of Aerotoxic Association. That leads to another article in Wikipedia about this same subject and that article contains a spam link to the Association's website. That is all that is permitted, under the rule above. Reading the history of several different articles in Wikipedia, which are about this alleged illness----that is alleged to be caused by alleged breathing in of toxic substances which come from jet engine bleed air, that allegedly exceeded known safe levels (PPM)----it is not hard to see a consistent pattern that most, if not all, of such sites were started by those who have a COI affliation with AA and other organizations, which are trying to promote the acceptance of the alleged illness. That, in itself, is evidence of intent to use Wikipedia as a source of self-promotion, in violation of long-standing NO SPAM rules.

Multiple Spam Linking (internal or external) is not allowed. One inline citation to the other Wiki article, is all that is permitted. Please read the rules and comply. EditorASC (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've dewikified the second set of links in the Research section. Other than their initial wikification, they (Aerotoxic Association and GCAQE) are not wikified anywhere else in the article, following policy standards. Good? Silverseren^C 22:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw that. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Lobbying groups

This new section is a merge from AOPIS, an orphaned stub article that I've nominated for deletion. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another theory

There could be soft plastic/rubber/etc materials related chemicals "off-gassing" even years after they were manufactured, some don't smell. I would think these could cause incidents in new planes but perhaps less so in older (lets say 5 years old or more) planes. My research on this says theres no way to tell how long the off-gassing occurs, depends on the product/materials and how it was manufactured etc.

I got interested in off-gassing recently when I bought some China made stuff that was off-gassing so much, even *through* plastic it was contained (transparent "air, but not gas-tight" bag) that I barely could breath near it, had to take it out of the house.

I wish there was some easy system to DIY analyze anything quickly for off-gassing - eg. some type of sticker which you attach to the item you buy and if it changes color due to emitting any gas/compound, then that's good reason to take it back to the seller as toxic waste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.177.76 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NO MOVE however, due to consensus, some information was moved out into it's own article. non-admin closure. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Tiggerjay (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Aerotoxic syndrome → Fume event – I'd like to suggest that this article be retitled to "Fume event", and be rewritten to more broadly discuss the issue of fume events, potential health effects being just one element. Aerotoxic syndrome is not a medically accepted condition, and the current titling pushes a POV toward the existence of aerotoxic syndrome Skrelk (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose You can feel free to create an article on Fume events and include a subsection that links back to this article, but this is discussing a specific syndrome that has received significant reliable source coverage, regardless of whether it exists or not. The title of the syndrome does not push any sort of POV as it is the name of the purported syndrome. So long as the lede explains, as it does, that the syndrome is not recognized as real, there is no issue. Silverseren^C 07:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Silverseren above Tiggerjay (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Silverseren makes a good point. Would any object to the potential sources of contamination section being removed from this article and incorporated into a new fume event article, since it would apply more that article than this one? Skrelk (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• That makes sense especially since the later parts of the section are specifically discussing fume events. Though you should probably leave the first paragraph and the leaflet list, since it's an appropriate section for this article, it just needs to make sure it focuses on this subject. Silverseren^C 07:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me. Skrelk (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed, Skrelk, feel free to BOLDLY create the fume event page, and make the content changes suggested above. :)Tiggerjay (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Done. Fume event has been created, irrelevant info on this page removed. Guess we can close this discussion? Skrelk (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV, OR, and maybe COI

Over the history of this article, there have been repeated attempts to post OR information, that has no valid MEDRS to back the statements. Some IP editors are trying to do the same again, and that simply requires that such edits be removed. Mere generalized claims that new evidence has been found, without any supporting citations that qualify under the MEDRS rule, are worthless and constitute Original Research (OR), which is not allowed at Wikipedia. Please read the following guideline pages, and then comply with the rules that the rest of us follow:

Excerpts from WP:OR:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist....

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." [[4]]

Excerpt from WP:MEDRS:

"Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." [[5]]

There is much more to this medical evidence guideline; very important to those who choose to edit medical articles. I suggest all such editors read it in its entirety. EditorASC (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

My problem with this statement that was posted by the IP Editor this day:

"While there is no conclusive evidence of adverse effects for normal travellers, many air crews have warned against the short-term health effects of cabin air contamination which can compromise flight safety. [2]"

a) Not appropriate for the Lead Section. If we try to rehash every section of this article, in the Lead, it will end up as long as the rest of the article. That violates the Manual of Style guidelines for the Lead, which is supposed to be just a brief summary of the subject matter of the rest of the article.

b) The statement, if revised somewhat, might be OK in the "Lobbying Groups" section of the article.

c) If it is to be allowed in that Lobbying Groups section, it must be revised so that it does not imply more than that some flight crews have anecdotally CLAIMED that flight safety can be compromised by alleged cabin air contamination. The cited source offers no scientific evidence that cabin air has ever been contaminated beyond known safe levels in terms of ppm, nor that anyone, including flight crews, have actually had their health impaired by such alleged events.

In other words it cannot just say that they have "warned" against short-term health effects, because that implies they have scientific evidence to prove cause and effect, which they most certainly do not. If you will read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, you will understand why the statement must be precise and say nothing more than what the cited source actually supports. Thank you, EditorASC (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism Reverts

I just reverted a vandalism edit by an IP editor who repeatedly removes properly cited statements and replaces them with POV and OR statements which have no WP:RS or WP:MEDRS support. He seems determined to keep doing this despite repeated explanations that kind of editing is prohibited in Wikipedia. I tried to explain my last revert as a vandalism roll back, but when I started to type in that explanation box, it suddenly disappeared and the revert was saved without showing any explanation. Not sure what happened, so explaining here that it was intended as a reversion of a vandalism edit. EditorASC (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted another of the IP editor's vandalism posts. He keeps re-installing POV and OR statements and portends to support them with citation links which he knows are not valid WP:RS or WP:MEDRS that support the statements he makes in his posts. Additionally, he refuses to discuss the WP:RS / WP:MEDRS issue on the Talk Page, as he is required to do. That repeated pattern is sufficient to classify his postings as deliberate and willful vandalism posts. EditorASC (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Invalid citation links

Once again, the IP editor has insisted upon a changing the definition of "aerotoxic syndrome," and claiming that it is now a MEDICALLY RECOGNIZED syndrome. I am removing the following links that IP editor attached to those revised statements, because they do not support his revised statements. My reasons for removing each one, are explained below.

Removing this one because it is inoperative: airline operators

Removing this FAA quick reference guide citation health guide because it does not define the term "Aerotoxic Syndrome," nor does it state that alleged syndrome is medically recognized. Further, that document acknowledges there are no current blood tests which can detect the kind of alleged poisonings which are claimed to be the cause of the alleged, but unproven syndrome. And the statement that "It is now recognised by airline operators" because the US DOT has issued that quick guide, is just plain false. That document provides no evidence of any kind that airline operators now agree that the alleged syndrome actually exists or that it has been proven that defective cabin air is responsible for anyone's bad health. And finally, the disclaimer at the bottom of the document states that it is distributed under the sponsorship of the US DOT for the purpose of information exchange AND that the US Federal Govt assumes no liability for the contents of that document. In short, the citation does NOT support the statements to which it is attached.

Also removing this citation link: settled with one airline employee because it is to a newspaper article that discusses the subject of legal damage awards, which are already discussed in another section of the article. Since the terms and amount of the Boeing award was kept secret, it does not provide any significant information which would justify duplicating a discussion of that subject in the lead section.

Also removing this citation link: leading medical and environmental journals The title of this document is:

"Autoantibodies to nervous system-specific proteins are elevated in sera of flight crew members: biomarkers for nervous system injury."

That document clearly does NOT define the phrase "aerotoxic syndrome," nor does it state that such is a now a medically recognized illness. And, there is nothing in it which supports the claim that "As of 2014 this syndrome is now recognized by a number of leading toxicologist" Thus, it is not supportive of the revised lead paragraph, in which the IP editor now claims it has medical recognition. To the contrary, that document states:

"Overall, these results suggest the possible development of neuronal injury and gliosis in flight crew members anecdotally exposed to cabin air emissions containing organophosphates,"

"anecdotally exposed," means the crewmembers said they were exposed to contaminants from engine oil, but there still is no scientific evidence to prove what they BELIEVED to be true. Nothing to show how many ppm of alleged toxins they might have inhaled from cabin air, nor any identity of SPECIFIC toxins, nor that if such were inhaled, that they were causative of their symptoms, to the exclusion of all other known medical etiologies. The phrase "suggest the possible development of," is pure speculation and without scientific evidence to support such speculation, amounts to nothing more than mere opinion of the writer. That does not qualify as a WP:MEDRS citation to support the IP editor's claims.

Also removing this one: concern over cabin air quality It is not supportive of the the revised lead definition of the phrase "aerotoxic syndrome," nor does it provide any evidence to support the claim that this alleged syndrome is now a MEDICALLY RECOGNIZED illiness. This document presents surveys taken from passengers and some crewmembers, which reveal their anecdotal opinions about their exposures to what they believed to be contaminated cabin air. That subject (anecdotal beliefs) is already discussed in a later section of this article and is not appropriate for the lead section.

Also removing this citation link in the lead paragraph: Standards on Aircraft Cabin Air Quality (prEN4618 & prEN4666) Because it has nothing to do with defining "aerotoxic syndrome," nor does it support the claim that the alleged syndrome is now a MEDICALLY RECOGNIZED illness. Instead, it talks about a "victory" because two proposed standards were repealed. But, when checking out WHAT was repealed, we find that one had to do with how many ppm of carbon MONOXIDE should be allowed and how much high temperatures in the cabin and for how long, should be allowed when passengers are on board.

And finally, also removing this link, other reports linking the "fume events" to GCAQE, because the page displayed is a long list of links to news articles, films and press release about alleged contamination of aircraft cabin air. Such a list is not a valid way to support the claim that "There is some evidence of adverse effects for normal travellers and strong evidence of severe health effects for airline crew. An assessment in 2000, over 14 years ago, by the UK's House of Lords Science and Technology Committee found that the claims of health effects were unsubstantiated but this has now been overtaken by other reports linking the "fume events" in aircraft with both short term and long term severe ill-health effects." The statement is incredibly absurd: A long list of links does not itself constitute valid scientific evidence that the syndrome is now medically recognized. Wikipedia has some very specific rules about this kind of spam linking: Not allowed.

It should not be necessary to have to REPEATEDLY remind an editor that citations not only have to be valid MEDRS, but they must also directly support the statements being made by the editor. None of these citation links that I am removing, provide any support at all for the IP editor to change the definition of "aerotoxic syndrome," nor to claim that it is now a MEDICALLY RECOGNIZED illness.

Please read the rules of citations at WP:RS [[6]]. An important excerpt from that page, which explains why all the links I have removed, were not valid:

"Context matters. The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."

This IP editor has been warned several times now that his unsupported revisions violate Wikipedia WP:RS and WP:MEDRS editing rules. Since he keeps repeating those violations and also refuses to discuss on this Talk Page, I believe his actions constitute deliberate vandalism of this Wikipedia article. That would justify an outright revert of his last repeated violations. However, to ensure it is painfully clear as to what is wrong with each link, I will delete one at a time with attached explanation. EditorASC (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

EditorASC obviously has his own agenda for this page and subject matter making it a mockery. Any attempt to try and bring up to date information into the subject matter that EditorASC doe not agree with, US congressional law changes, FAA instructions, legal judgements, journal papers are all rejected. May I politely suggest that EditorASC gives a simple answer to the question, does he or does he not believe there are health issues caused by flight crew and passengers being exposed to toxic fumes on aircraft that come through the bleed air system. I will not hold my breath for an answer although I might hold my breath on my next fight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.72.55.165 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What you or I believe, is of no consequence. What medical science has to say about this subject matter, is what counts.

The above unsigned response amounts to nothing more than an Ad Hominem attack upon the messenger. Once again, you avoid discussing the specific issues I have raised: About why your claims have not been supported with valid WP:RS & WP:MEDRS citations, which MUST support all medical claims, and why they are nothing more than OR & POV statements, which are against Wikipedia policy.

What part of "...nor does it provide any evidence to support the claim that this alleged syndrome is now a MEDICALLY RECOGNIZED illness," do you not understand? EditorASC (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have never made a substantive Wikipedia edit before, but that does not stop me from taking huge issue with EditorASC's involvement in this article. EditorASC's edits all exhibit a clear bias against. The most recent example of this is the description of 'Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines' as a propaganda film. Why is this label attached to this film, and not, for example, An Inconvenient Truth?

Not only that, but I feel that there is deliberate attempt to undermine the article in the very first line!

"Aerotoxic syndrome is a term created by some agenda groups" - This is plainly incorrect, the name is quite clearly derived from the paper written on this OF THE SAME NAME. There is a clear etymological line from this paper and the creation of these 'agenda groups'. Evid787 (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda films

The phrase "propaganda film" is appropriate because it fits the Wikipedia definition like a glove:

A propaganda film is a film that involves some form of propaganda. Propaganda films may be packaged in numerous ways, but are most often documentary-style productions or fictional screenplays, that are produced to convince the viewer on a specific political point or influence the opinions or behavior of the viewer, often by providing subjective content that may be deliberately misleading.[1] Please read the Wikipedia article propaganda film

That is exactly what films like "Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines" are designed to do. They clearly have a political agenda and are used to promote the agenda of those organizations: namely to persuade the general public to accept the anecdotal claims of the Aerotoxic groups, so that laws can be created to favor and support their political agenda. All such "documentary" films ARE propaganda films. EditorASC (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Unserious, undue weight to doubters, incomplete, outdated

The article is not very informative. It gives undue weight to the doubters, is not seriously compiling, leave alone examining existing info, trying to downplay the issue, pushes unpublished pseudoexperts and their opinions with puffery, listing and attacking only sensationalized reports under media coverage, not uptodate, and thus not complete.

Risking to step in a minefield of (paid or unpaid) airline advocates who help to doubt, diffuse or deny evidence by all means necessary, as appears to be the case looking at the discussions above, I am flagging this article for undue weight today!

--Wuerzele (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a lot of problems with the article. Do you have any concrete ideas on how to improve it, or is this just a WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING? You are invited to try to improve this article. The biggest problem seems related to disputes over what WP:RS can be used. Reify-tech (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the allegation of drive by tagging. Look at my edits, edit summaries and edit time. Concrete ideas are in the suggestions.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you are wiling to roll up you sleeves and dive into editing. Removing some of the cruft is a good first step, and I hope you can add some sources with better credibility and balance. Reify-tech (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Some details and possible sources

Imho wuerzele is right. I'm not an expert on the subject but i only took me 5 minutes to potential issues with the research description. In essence that section compiles various research that couldn't find TCP or other toxic substances associated with fume events, while completely ignoring those who did. For instance Clement Furlong's research (TCP in passengers) is not mentioned nor that Norwegian authorities (TCP in cabin air).

Then there's a whole chapter about sensationalized reports in the media. I'm not even sure whether that is meaningful encyclopedic content at all. That the yellow press tend to carry sensationalized reports (on almost any subject) is well known fact or nobrainer, that normally doesn't need to be pointed on Wikipedia articles on those subjects. Instead the article should probably spend more time on reporting what the serious (reliable) press writes on the subject.

Further sources that might useful:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3839637/
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23179756
• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-329220727.html
• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-73578127.html
• http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-77222653.html (Spiegel, German)
• http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44777304/ns/travel-news/t/boeing-suit-settlement-stirs-jetliner-air-safety-debate/
• http://www.aero.de/news/Forscher-weisen-Nervengift-TCP-bei-Flugpassagieren-nach.html (German)
• http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/toxic-fumes-in-airliner-cabins-ignored-by-authorities-223448/
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/759562/Is-cabin-air-making-us-sick.html

--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated Attempts to add material which violates WP rules

I am again forced to remove links (and the POV OR statements they were supposed to support) that violate WP rules for citing Medical Claims statements.

Removed these links on the following grounds:

[16] "You are being gassed when you travel by air" - Dagbladet

Trash tabloid article, not anywhere close to being an acceptable WP:MEDRS for medical claims.

[17] "Contaminated air questions persist" - Australasian Business Intelligence

Trash tabloid article, not anywhere close to being an acceptable WP:MEDRS for medical claims. Both articles simply regurgitate the unsupported claims, made by Airline Labor Union advocacy groups who seek to advance their political agenda. Neither article makes any attempt to examine the quality of the research/evidence that should be the basis for the claims, because there isn't any valid, scientific evidence to support those anecdotal claims.

Such articles have already had their due in the Media Coverage Section.

Those links are also removable on the grounds that it amounts to a form of spam linking, under the phony guise of being support citations.

[18] "AOPIS - Air Travel and Health Follow-Up Inquiry: Call for Evidence" Dead link.

EditorASC (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

EditorASC while I have nothing to do with the material you removed, I d ask you to please stop reverting clean-up that's been done according to wiki rules, as you did in September in this edit with the (sheepish) edit summary "clarified who wrote the article". I had removed the repeated puffery about "Dr. Simon Bennett" here and there, removing the title according to WP:CREDENTIAL. Not even in biographies do we mention Dr, Prof etc. check WP:MOS, leave alone the author of an article. But you restored it.

As far as your passionate removal of dead links: Have you ever tried to find the documents behind them? It doesnt look like it. WP suggests to mark dead links, but NOT DELETE them.

It's clear that your mind is made up, and which side you are on, but please let this not get in the way of writing/editing this article.

And please: Nobody is forced here. ("I am again forced to remove links...") If you feel that way, why don't you stay away?--Wuerzele (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Those kinds of edits have nothing to do with legitimate cleaning up of this Wikipedia article. To the contrary, they are deliberately destructive edits from COI editors -- or ones who, for unknown reasons, seem to support COI editors -- that are promoting a political agenda that hasn't a shred of scientific evidence to support the allegation of the existence of this bogus "medical" syndrome. If your arguments and those of others in the agenda group had any validity at all, then we should bring back the Laetrile cure for cancer movement, and have an official Wikipedia article to support it in the same format as the agenda group has done here.

This article has been about a very controversial subject from the getgo. That alone makes it a valid requirement to provide the kind of WP:MEDRS citation to support any new or substantially different statements, at the time that they are entered. If the editor does't have a valid WP:MEDRS cite link to support such statements, then they shouldn't be entered at all. It also enhances the importance of informing readers of the qualifications of those who are the support for the analysis that there is no valid scientific evidence to support the political agenda claims.

"Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus"

There is no official Wiki credential policy. [[7]]

Additionally, "Post-nominal letters... may occasionally be used in articles where the person with the degree is not the subject, to clarify their qualifications."

Since the cutting out of the mention of his credentials (and his NAME too) was done as part of a regular pattern to get rid of valid WP:RS & MEDRS sources, in the repeated effort to replace such with invalid spamming sources, by those who pretty obviously are infested with COI problems and who are part of the organizations that started this Wiki article, as their personal agenda to spam the Internet with their un-scientific allegations, I think my tossing out those kinds of non-good-faith edits, makes terrific sense.

Just about all of the arguments they have offered amount to nothing more than "the rooster crowed and shortly thereafter the sun rose," -- classic Post Hoc fallacy arguments. I am confident you already know why that kind of "reasoning" is, and always has been invalid. EditorASC (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS applies here but not necessarily WP:MEDRS unless explicipit real medical claims are stated. Reports on gas events, its composition, likelihood or cause do not require WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDRS is only required when concrete medical results of the gas events are (explicitly) described.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

When the word "toxic" is used in reference to fume events or other times when humans have breathed cabin air, that amounts to an implication that the alleged contaminated air actually contained hazardous chemicals IN EXCESS of the known safe ppm amounts. If the ppm was well below the amounts that science has established as being not safe for humans, then the air breathed was NOT toxic. Thus, ANY claim that anyone was injured by breathing toxic cabin air, MUST be supported by WP:MEDRS citation.

Valid WP:RS citations can be used only to report about the CLAIMS and reports made by advocacy groups or individuals, so long as it is clear they are only claims/allegations, and not actual proved cases of toxic poisoning. EditorASC (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what I justed stated?--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Your statement was only a "glittering generality" statement, without any specifics. I described specific situations (the CLAIMS to TOXICITY) which have not been supported with valid WP:MEDRS citations. To be even more specific, the David Learmount article (2009) uses the word "toxic" in a very un-professional way: When referencing the claims and allegations, which were NEVER documented with solid scientific evidence. Learmount didn't provide a scintilla of valid evidence to show that ANY reported fume event ever produced actual TOXIC fumes (where the ppm exceeded known safe levels). THEREFORE, it is inappropriate to use the Learmount article, or other similar articles, to support mere CLAIMS to toxicity. In short, if the word toxic is used in this article, then the supporting citation must qualify as a WP:MEDRS cite. If it doesn't, then then "toxic" statements amount to a violation of the NPOV policy and must be removed. EditorASC (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

And, I would also add that your partial statement of: "Reports on gas events, its composition,..." is incorrect. Any report which alleges that the composition of the air in a fume event, was toxic, MUST be supported with a valid WP:MEDRS citation. EditorASC (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The statement was intended to be general, I made no statement what so ever (so far) with regard to Learmont.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Vandalism to this article by COI editors who repeatedly remove properly cited (WP:MEDRS cites) statements and replace them with irrelevant and/or OR/POV statements, which are NOT properly supported with the kinds of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS cites that are REQUIRED for any Wiki article that makes medical claims, has started up again.

The latest links given to support the POV/OR statements of the COI editors, DO NOT meet the required standards for WP:MEDRS citations. Most specifically, those sources do not provide consistent scientific evidence that proves the allegations of those who are promoting the "Aerotoxic Syndrome" agenda, which insists the alleged illnesses of some flight crew members was caused by cabin air contaminated with organophosphates from synthetic aviation engine oil, to the exclusion of all other possible causes of the alleged illnesses, ASSUMING of course, that all of the alleged flight crew illnesses were real and not imagined, in the first place.

Even if oganophosphate poisoning was found in the cells of some persons, that does not prove the SOURCE to be from the very small amount of that kind of additive in Aviation engine oil. There are other sources of that type of chemical poisoning in our environment, most of which are from much higher PPM, than could possibly be generated from slight leaking of Aviation engine oil.

The article itself lists many possible sources which might be responsible for the ALLEGATIONS of flight crew illnesses, including psychosomatic ones. Until sciences advances to the point when all those can be ruled out, and all variables accounted for, with the exception of the tiny amount of oganophosphates that could possibly be present in cabin air following extremely rare "fume events," the repeated OR/POV arguments amount to nothing more than "Post Hoc" logical fallacy arguments.

I am not going to repeat all the explanations as to why the many OR/POV statements and their illicit links are not valid. This talk page has already discussed that time and again and the COI editors just continue to ignore those explanations. Anyone who wants to understand the conflict of many years between the COI editors and those of us who insist on adhering to the Wiki Rules of editing for Medical claims articles, should read this talk page in its entirety.

Suffice it to say the continual and repeated violations of those rules, no matter how many times it has been explained why their edits are not valid, CONSTITUTES REPEATED VANDALISM to this article. That is why I will continue to revert such edits, on the grounds of repairing VANDALISM, whenever they occur.

If anyone desires to add "new" statements that are relevant, germane and which provide new SCIENTIFIC insight to this alleged syndrome, then have at it. But, be certain that older statements which are still valid are not removed or improperly altered in the process. Any new statements must meet WP:MEDRS standards. If they don't, then in view of the long history of the kind of VANDALISM that has plagued this article, such will be reverted again on the same old VANDALISM grounds.EditorASC (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Agenda films by a political advocacy group are not valid WP:RS . Additionally, in a controversial article, statements must have valid cites when posted

Good morning EditorASC ! Thank you for your edit removing the statement about the documentary. thats why Ia) added and b) moved it from the lede to the body !--Wuerzele (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read the instructions at the top of this Talk Page? To wit: "Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information." EditorASC (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I bother! To wit: I didnt add any information, merely moved it. sentence was on the article all along. thanks again!--Wuerzele (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Which made it a new addition to that section. By doing that you brought attention to us all that it shouldn't have been in the article in the first place. Thus I deleted it until such time as anyone can re-post it along with the required valid citation. BTW, that film is a propaganda film, according to the Wiki article on propaganda films. The term "documentary" amounts to a deliberate euphemism, as a means of pulling the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting readers. EditorASC (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

alleged health effects

The health effects of pilots etc described in the article are NOT alleged. They have been acknowledged by all committees ever investigating the issue. What is alleged however, is the cause, as I wrote when rephrasing the sentence in the edit summary here. Nevertheless, an editor not only ignored the explanation and reintroduced the false description here, but also reverted ALL stepwise and carefully explained edits I made to the lede with the (insufficient) edit summary: "grammar: "phrase: a group of two or more grammatically related words that form a sense unit expressing a thought." In this case an adjective and noun describing a coined concept.). --Wuerzele (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This statement by the AAIB is very clear and non-equivocal:

"the AAIB says: "TCP and TOCP [tri-cresyl orthophosphate] were detected in samples during research, but it was deemed that, at the measured levels, it was inconceivable that toxic effects on the occupants of aircraft would result." It adds: "There was a lack of general information available on potential contaminants of the bleed air by engine oil, and their effects on human physiology."

Additionally, whenever you find that various committees have acknowledged alleged injuries to human health, they are always cased in "probability" language, i.e. the "evidence" was always circumstantial and NEVER ACTUAL scientific evidence, which could clearly prove not only that a specif injury was incurred, but also that it was caused by breathing TOXIC levels of contaminated air. If you want to include statements about the findings of such committees, it must be clear that they were conclusions drawn from circumstantial (usually, anecdotal Post Hoc testimony), and not actual scientific findings, drawn from forensic evidence from the scene. If you don't, I will tweak the language to ensure that is clear to the readers.EditorASC (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

EditorASC, your comments show that you have no scientific or epidemiologic background. Epidemiological findings are full of likely and probabilistic language. As long as you WP:own the article, I am afraid, no non-biased piece can result.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comments amount to evasive nonsense. They do not change the requirement that claims of breathing TOXIC air must be supported by WP:MEDRS citations that prove the air in question actually did exceed the known safe levels, in ppm, of whatever chemicals are alleged to have caused the "toxic" contamination. If there is no evidence to prove that, then any statement about such claims must make it clear that they are unproved allegations only. What part of that basic Wiki rule for Medical articles, do you not understand? EditorASC (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be instructive for editors to look at the multiple chemical sensitivity article, which describes a similar condition (likely the very same condition, in fact). There is no denying that the symptoms suffered are real and in many cases severe. However in both cases there is no evidence that the substances cause the symptoms. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

An excellent reference, sciencewatcher (talk). To quote from that article, "No characteristically unique signs, laboratory test abnormalities, tissue pathology, or course of illness have been identified, and it remains unclear whether symptoms are physiologically or psychologically generated."

That seems to be nearly identical to the situational history of this article, which was created by members of the organizations that keep trying to "prove" their alleged maladies were caused by engine oil leaking into the cabin air stream, to the exclusion of many other variables which also might be responsible for some of the reported symptoms. They seem very resistant to the idea that breathing too much formaldehyde (sometimes OVERUSED when cleaning airliner bluerooms) can produce those kinds of symptoms too.

I still remember that I had to get a release from the required dissection of frogs, in college biology, because the formaldehyde fumes made me very sick. They have long since demonstrated that formaldehyde out-gassing from some brands of interior wallboard used in home construction, can sicken some sensitive persons. [8] EditorASC (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have revised the wording of the introductory paragraph to make it clear that the unproved allegation is the claim that cabin air has exceeded known safe levels of contamination (ppm), so that it actually became TOXIC. THAT allegation has never been proved.

While it may be factual that symptoms have been reported, the claim that any symptoms were caused by TOXIC levels of contamination, is not factual. EditorASC (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The editor that posted the NPOV template at the top of the article, failed to follow thru and create this new section on the talk page, as is required when that tag is attached:

"How to initiate an NPOV debate

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." [[9]]

So I am taking the initiative to start this required section. I will comment that I think the tag is unwarranted and that the article is neutral and well balanced. Undoubtedly, at least one other editor will disagree. If so, he should explain why he disagrees and what he thinks should be done to achieve neutrality. I would remind him, however, that whatever his opinions might be about this subject matter, all of us are still required to adhere to the relavant Wiki Rules when adding or altering statements in the article. Since this is a controversial MEDICAL article, appropriate WP:RS citations must support all statements and additionally, if the statements claim to be stating a medical FACT, then it must be supported by a valid WP:MEDRS citation. EditorASC (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, doesn't look like there is any real dispute anymore, since no one else has joined into this discussion. If no one else comments in the near future, I will conclude NPOV is not a legitimate complaint and I will then remove the tag from the beginning of the article. EditorASC (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Since no other editor has contributed to this section, in any way, I will remove the NPOV tag. It shouldn't have been attached in the first place. EditorASC (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Repeated vandalizing of this article

Over and over again, IP editors keep re-inserting statements that have previously been rejected on these Wiki Rules Grounds:

-- Statements not supported by any citation at all. This includes the ones where the same old dead links are entered again.

-- Statements not supported by valid citation links. Frequently, the link just leads to a page that has HORDES of other links.

-- Statements not supported by the link given. Most often, this boils down to the citation given as NOT supporting the statement in any way. The most recent one, that has been used before, is about a govt agency revising TWO "important" cabin air standards. However, when that is traced thru all the polemic spam web pages that talk about that one, it is finally revealed that those two revisions are about the amount of Carbon Monoxide (ppm) that are allowed to be in cabin air, AND how high the temperature of cabin air is allowed to go. Neither of which has anything at all to do with the unsubstantiated claims of the Aerotoxic Syndrome Lobby.

-- Statements which are supported by some news article, but not supported by any valid WP:MEDRS, if the statement makes any kind of medical "fact" claim. Like, for instance, the claim that some crew or passengers inhaled TOXIC amounts (which actually exceeded known safe levels, in terms of ppm) of dangerous chemicals. If that was not scientifically documented, then the statement cannot be used in this controversial, MEDICAL CLAIMS article. This includes scientific studies which START OUT with "anecdotal" exposure to cabin air fumes (i.e., the alleged exposure is based on the self-reporting of the person being tested, but was not independently verified in any way). If such statements are to be included in this article, it must be clear that the exposure was "alleged," and not actually documented with objective forensic evidence.

I think that if this kind of repeated vandalism of this article keeps recurring, it may be necessary to ask for protection from at least IP editors, which now seem to be the ones repeatedly vandalizing in this manner. EditorASC (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No matter how many times you COI-SPAM editors keep deleting valid statements, supported with valid WP:RS & WP:MEDRS citations, and replace them with OR, POV and SPAM statements (often, the same ones that have been rejected before, with detailed explanations on this talk page as to why they cannot be allowed), which are not supported with any valid WP:RS and WP:MEDRS citations, they will quickly be reverted.

Doing that over and over again, after you have been warned more than once, that such violates the Wiki non-negotiable rule that OR and POV are not allowed, constitutes willful VANDALISM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VAN: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SYN&redirect=no:::"Synthesis of published material

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus."

Repeatedly violating these fundamental Wiki rules of editing, especially after you have been warned numerous times (see the ENTIRE history of this talk page), constitutes VANDALISM and will result in rapid reverts. EditorASC (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the last vandalization posted AGAIN, by IP editor 91.72.55.116, with Revision of 05:45, 16 January 2015 [[10]]:

FIRST CITATION link: "Bad Title."

SECOND CITATION link: "Server Not Found"

THIRD CITATION link is to a "Quick Reference Guide for Health Care Providers." It makes no claim that the so-called "Aerotoxic Syndrome" is medically recognized. It has a disclaimer at the end that says "The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents thereof." It also says: "There currently are no tests of sufficient sensitivity and specificity to definitely access exposure or other health outcomes." It clearly amounts to nothing more than to give information about diagnosis made by the individual him/her self, and has no valid information about confirmed forensic tests and evidence that proves INDEPENDENTLY that anyone actually did suffer exposure or injury to alleged contaminated cabin air.

And, even if they did get some exposure, there is no evidence offered as to what the specific chemical was, OR if it exceeded known safe levels (ppm). In other words, not a shred of valid WP:MEDRS evidence of TOXIC levels of exposure nor that any kind of chemical in the air CAUSED any kind of injury to the alleged victim. Thus, this is NOT a valid WP:MEDRS citation to prove any of the allegations made by this IP editor that insists upon repeated vandalizations of this article.

FORTH CITATION link leads to a newspaper article that discusses an out-of-court settlement between Boeing and one airline employee. However, there is no discussion of actual scientific evidence that might have proved any of the plaintiff's claims of injury and the settlement was sealed, so we cannot know how much Boeing was willing to pay to avoid years of expensive litigation.

Definitely does not qualify as a WP:MEDRS citation and should not be in the lead, in any event. It might be a valid WP:RS citation (depending on how it is worded) for informing Wiki readers about that kind of litigation, but should be in its own section about the subject of litigation related to allegations of contaminated cabin air.

FIFTH CITATION link leads to a study that "discusses assays performed to detect circulating autoantibodies in a panel of 7 proteins associated with the nervous system," but there is nothing in that study which supports the IP editor's claim that the Aerotoxic Syndrome is now medically recognized.

Further, the study STARTS OUT with the assumption that the self-diagnosis of the patient was accurate. It pointedly uses this language, in regards to the method of verification of the claimed exposures: "...in flight crew members anecdotally exposed to cabin air emissions containing organophosphates."

While the study can be used as a WP:MEDRS citation to discuss research developments in detecting circulating autoantibodies, it DOES NOT provide any evidence at all as to who was ACTUALLY exposed to any kind of TOXIC air, nor the ppm of the assumed contamination, nor the identification of what, if any, chemical was breathed in by the patient crewmembers. THAT is why it used the "anecdotally exposed" language. Because no scientific forensic evidence actually established any exposure to any kind of unknown chemicals, in any amounts.

Thus, this cannot be used as a WP:MEDRS citation to support CLAIMS of exposure to TOXIC levels of contaminated air, nor can it support claims that the Aerotoxic Syndrome is medically recognized.

SIXTH and SEVENTH CITATION links lead to Holiday Travel Watch Magazine, which discusses surveys of passengers and crew members, regarding their anecdotal opinions about "contaminated" cabin air. It also discusses passenger rights to know and the two air standards known as prEN 4618 and prEN 4666, implying that was some kind of victory. However, those two standards set limits on how much carbon monoxide (ppm) is allowed in cabin air and how high the temperature of cabin air is allowed to get, with passengers on board. None of that has any relevance to the allegation that the alleged "Aerotoxic Syndrome" is caused by dangerous levels of exposure to organophosphates, which breaks down when jet engine oil is exposed to high temperature bleed air. Neither link qualifies as WP:RS OR WP:MEDRS, because they have no relevance and present no scientific evidence to support the claim that ATS is medically recognized OR that it is caused by hydrolyzed jet engine oil.

EIGHTH CITATION link goes to the political advocacy Spam web site of GCQAE, and is nothing but a PROHIBITED long list of links to other articles on the Internet. It thus does not qualify in any way to support the outrageous statement of IP editor 91.72.55.116, that claims "...this has now been overtaken by other reports linking the 'fume events' in aircraft with both short term and long term severe ill-health effects." It does not qualify as WP:RS OR WP:MEDRS.

That is why I view this kind of repeated, over and over, posting by these two IP editors as Bad Faith, deliberate Vandalism of this article. They have been informed time and again why those statements and those links are not valid (with the one exception that the legal settlement statement might be a valid WP:RS cite in a litigation section, PROVIDED the wording accurately reflects the actual facts of that case). Yet, they continue to re-post the same invalid statements, "supported" by the same invalid links. They refuse to enter into any kind of detailed discussion about those statements and links, on this talk page. They just keep ignoring the many bits of information here, that explains the Wiki rules for editing medical articles.

It is clear they care not one whit about complying with Wikipedia editing rules nor about the integrity of Wikipedia, that they continue to degrade, with these kinds of repeated vandalisms. That is why they will continue to be reverted, so long as they insist upon repeating that vandalism, over and over again. EditorASC (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Richard Westgate case

Hi, a British coroner who has been investigating the death of a pilot and has written to BA with concerns

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-02-20/senior-coroner-writes-to-british-airways-about-cabin-air-concerns/

it looks like this case could be important, though the report has not been heard yet and this is (it seems) leaked information.

Can someone with more knowledge write it up perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.12.23 (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The article states nothing new; just the same old rehash of press releases from organizations who have a vested interest in trying to convince the world their bogus theory amounts to something "scientific," which so far it does not. If you have the time, I suggest you read a lot of the Talk Page above, which explains why so much of the "evidence" that some COI editors have repeatedly inserted into this article, does not meet Wikipedia citation standards for articles which make medical claims. The wiki editing rules require valid WP:MEDRS support for all medical claim statements. We have explained it in great detail above. Thanks for your interest. EditorASC (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Continued vandalism

For what it is worth, the location of the IP editor that repeatedly vandalizes this article, seems to be near Salisbury, UK. I am wondering if it is possible to put a block on this IP editor to stop his/her repeated acts of vandalizing this article (removing valid text, supported with WP:MEDRS and replacing with statements that are not WP:MEDRS or WP:RS supported)?

That IP editor refuses to discuss the rules for posting Medical claims, on the talk page and has been told numerous times why his/her edits violate Wiki rules for Medical claims. It is apparent that this person won't stop vandalizing voluntarily, so I wonder if an Admin can stop with a block? If that isn't a feasible solution, can we at least have the article protected so that only named editors of at least six months of non-disruptive editing service to Wikipedia, can edit this article?

I welcome any other ideas about how best to put a stop to this endless vandalism, by what appears to be COI spammers. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have again protected the article. Medical articles require impeccable sourcing, as per WP:MEDRS. Citations to the Daily Mail and http://aerotoxic.org/ do not meet the MEDRS sourcing requirements. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015

I have just looked at this page and see that it is protected, I have looked at the history of the page and the edits.

It seems that current and relevant information on the subject matter is not being allowed to be added and most of the information is out dated referring to documents from 2008 and 2013 which the chairman of UK Committee on Toxicology recently stated in public had been "used selectively" and that their own recommendations had not been followed by government.

There is also published peer review papers on the Cranfield report used by UK government which questions its science and validity of the results which were not taken into account by the UK government http://www.oprus2001.co.uk/JacksonReview.pdf http://www.oprus2001.co.uk/HarrisonReview.pdf

The above is supported by another independent review here http://www.oprus2001.co.uk/11RA13L.pdf

Also a recent press release by the CAA shows their change in position on the subject matter http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=2460

Also the key argument seems to be "exceeding known safe levels" but no reference is given to where the known safe levels can be found and where this cross refers to the evidence being put forward.

Also reference 2 refers to a UK Government document from 2000, over 14 years ago, in 2008 the Conservative party demanded a public inquiry into the matter

I also note that any references to US materials such as laws passed by congress and FAA legislation have been removed or rejected.

As all the references on the page are based on UK papers then the current up to date position of those papers and the subject matter should be accepted

So to me it appears that someone is deliberately refusing to allow recent and more up to date information to be published and is being protected by other to ensure very inaccurate, misleading and out of date information remains published on wikipedia.

86.131.248.203 (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue was that you were posting stuff on the page which failed WP:MEDRS, and refusing to discuss on the talk page. It's good that you are now willing to discuss here. I had a look at the CAA press release you posted, and it says "The overall conclusion of those studies is that there is no positive evidence of a link between exposure to contaminants in cabin air and possible acute and long-term health effects, although such a link cannot be excluded" so I'm not sure why you're saying that they have changed their position. The fact that a reference is 14 years old isn't a major concern, unless newer research is available.

Anyway, if you have any specific changes in mind -- or new research -- please post them here for discussion. I myself have no connection whatsoever with the airline industry, so I don't really care one way or another about this subject (other than wanting to have a good quality wikipedia article). If you think we need more editors on this article, I think there are various project pages you can post on to solicit more editors. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I have tried discussions on the talk page before with Editor ASC but it was fruitless. I would appreciate your comments and feedback on the other points i raised and not just on the CAA press release, previously the CAA have not highlighted the "although such link cannot be excluded'

In particular my comment that the key argument seems to be "exceeding known safe levels" but no reference is given to where the known safe levels can be found and where this cross refers to the evidence being put forward. There is newer evidence and I have given references on this.

Await your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.248.203 (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference two talks about safe levels. For TCP it says "The peak level would be a quarter of the workplace limit of 0.1 mg/m3".

The refs you give from oprus2001.co.uk aren't reliable sources. They just look like random pdfs on some guy's (or gal's) cobbled-together homepage. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I have the original documents that you call random PDF's, these are from the UK Department for Transport and authored by the two professors asked to peer review the Cranfield report and are official documents. There is also another document in the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry 13 (2013) 114–118. Received 15 November 2013; accepted 20 December 2013. 114 by Prof Jeremy J. Ramsden would this be considered an acceptable source as it is published in such a journal? also it is more up to date research than that currently posted on the page.

There are no set levels for aircraft cabins only offices and factories, aircraft cabin environments are not covered by these so that references does not apply, I would happily accept your argument if the references that are applicable to aircraft cabin environments but they are not so cannot be valid. There are no standards for aircraft cabins so you cannot quote against something that does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.248.203 (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - I'm removing this edit request from the queue, as it's clear consensus has not yet been reached. Please re-request if and when consensus is reached. Storkk (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Claiming "toxic" air when no safe level established

In response to this and similar statements:

"There are no set levels for aircraft cabins only offices and factories, aircraft cabin environments are not covered by these so that references does not apply,"

In other words cabin air is "toxic" when One-ten-billionth of Carbon Monoxide molecule is found in cabin air, because of the claim that there is no officially set safe level for that deadly gas? That is bass akwards.

The use of a term like "toxic" implies that contaminants in the air can and will cause injury to any person breathing that air. Toxic air becomes toxic only when sufficient scientific evidence can prove that breathing the air in question WILL cause significant injury, BECAUSE the PPM of one or more contaminates exceeds known safe levels.

If it be true that science has not yet established standards, in terms of PPM for different kinds of contaminants in cabin air, then it is also true that no "toxic" threshold has been established to prove how much of any particular contaminant must be present, for there to be an existing danger to human health.

Thus, it is a misuse of the term "toxic" if one uses that word to try and prove the air is dangerous, when no "toxic" level has been establish by the findings of science in the first place. The burden of proof rests upon the one claiming the air is toxic. That means any WP:MEDRS cites to support such claims must show BOTH what levels, in terms of PPM, must be exceeded before the air can be properly termed "toxic," AND the WP:MEDRS cite must also prove that the air in question DID exceed that known safe level.EditorASC (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Article fully protected for three days

@EditorASC and Screwjack1981: Though sorely tempted to block both of you for violating the three-revert rule, I have instead protected the article for three days. To the talk page! Favonian (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 January 2016

Please revert the article back to the status as it has been before changes have been made to an outdated version reflecting knowledge by 2011. Please review carefully the now omitted changes - as they do reflect the current status of science and evidence, even supported by HM Coroner involved in the investigation of the death of BA pilot Richard Westgate.

Thx you.

The current scientific knowledge that I studied prior t starting editing is listed as follows. This includes also at the very end the official notice of HM Senior Coroner of Dorset (UK) to British Airways and the UK Civil Aviation Administration

Extended content

Part 1 Studies: [1] Abou-Donia MB.: Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity, 2003, Archives of Environmental Health. 58:484 497 [2] Carletti et al: Reaction of Cresyl Saligenin Phosphate, the Organophosphorus Agent Implicated in Aerotoxic Syndrome, with Human Cholinesterases: Mechanistic Studies Employing Kinetics, Mass Spectrometry, and X-ray Structure Analysis, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2011, 24, 797–808, 2011 [3] Furlong, C., L.M. Schopfer et al.: Development of diagnostics in the search for an explanation of aerotoxic syndrome, Anual Biochem 404(1):64-74 (2010) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2010.04.032 [4] Hanhela P., Kibby J., et al.: Organophosphate and Amine Contamination of Cockpit Air in the Hawk, F-111 and Hercules C-130 Aircraft. DSTO Report, RR-0303. Defence Science and Technology Organization, Melbourne. 2005 [5] Journal of Occupational Health & Safety, Australia & New Zealand, Vol 21, Number 5, August 2005 - Special edition: „New findings in aircrew exposed to airborne contaminants: Long-term health effects confirmed“ Darin u.a. folgende Einzelbeiträge: [5.1] Abou-Donia, Mohamed B.: Organophosphate Ester Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity (OPICN) [5.2] Burdon, Jonathan MD and Allan R Glanville MD: Lung Injury Following Hydrocarbon Inhalation in BAe 146 Aircrew [5.3] Harper, Andrew MD: Illness Related to Cabin Air: A Survey of Symptoms and Treatment Among Commercial Pilots and Cabin Crew [5.4] Heuser, G. MD: Clinical Evaluation of Flight Attendants After Exposure to Fumes in Cabin Air [5.5] Kincl, L., J. Murawaski, S Hecker: Occupational health research consortium in aviation research project - [5.6] Netten , C. van: Aircraft Air Quality Incidents, Symptoms, Exposures and Possible Solutions [5.7] Somers, Moira, MD: Assessing over Thirty Flight Crew who have Presented as a Result of Being Unwell after Exposure to Fumes on the BAe 146 Jet [6] Lockridge, H.,: REACTION OF CRESYL SALIGENIN PHOSPHATE, THE ORGANOPHOSPHORUS IMPLICATED IN THE AEROTOXIC SYNDROME, WITH HUMAN CHOLINESTERASES: MECHANISTIC STUDIES EMPLOYING KINETICS, MASS SPECTROMETRY AND X-RAY STRUCTURE ANALYSIS, März 2011, Eugénie Carletti , Lawrence M. Schopfer , Jacques-Philippe Colletier , Marie T. Froment , Florian Nachon , Martin Weik , Oksana Lockridge , and Patrick Masson http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/tx100447k [7] Michaelis, S. (ed.): Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual, April 2007 ISBN: 978-0-9555672-0-9 [8] Michaelis, S., PhD: Health and Flight Safety Implications from Exposure to Contaminated Air in Aircraft, Dissertation Nov. 2010, University of New South Wales, ISBN: 978-0-95-554377-7 [9] Nola, G. De, J. Kibby1, W. Mazurek: Determination of ortho-cresyl phosphate isomers of tricresyl phosphate used in aircraft turbine engine oils by gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1200 (2008) 211 216 [10] Royal Australian Air Force: Singh B. Aviation Safety Spotlight 0304: In-Flight Smoke and Fumes, 2004, RAAF [11] Siegel J., Rudolph H., et al.: Effects on Experimental Animals of Long- Term Continuous Inhalation of a Triaryl Phosphate Hydraulic Fluid 1964, U.S. Navy Toxicology Unit. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 7: 543-549 [12] Solbu, K. (National Institute of Occupational Health, Norwegen): [12.1] Methodology for air sampling of organophosphates originating from turbine- and hydraulic oils, 2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2007.05.087 [12.2] Incident sampler of VOCs and volatile organophosphates, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/B925053K [12.3] Exposure assessment of organophosphates in technician and loader occupational air, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C0EM00273A [12.4] Organophosphates in aircraft cabin and cockpit air method development and measurements of contaminants, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C0EM00763C [13] Solbu, Daae, Olsen, Thourud et al.: Organophosphates in aircraft cabin and cockpit air, Feb. 2011, Journal of Enviromental Monitoring, DOI: 10.1039/c0em00763c [14] Treon J. F. et al. : Toxicity Of Certain Lubricants, Engine Oils, And Certain Of Their Constituents, With Particular Reference To The Products Of Their Thermal Decomposition, 1954, WADC TR 54-344. Corporate Author: Kettering Laboratory, University Of Cincinnati. Aero Medical Laboratory Contract No. AF33(038)-26456. RDO No. 698-31, Wright Air Development Center, Air Research And Development Command, United States Air Force- Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. 1 November 1954. [15] Treon, J. F. , Cappel, J. W. , Cleveland, F. P. , Larson, E. E. , Atchley, R. W. and Denham, R. T.: The Toxicity of the Products Formed by the Thermal Decomposition of Certain Organic Substances, 1955, American Industrial Hygiene Association Quarterly, 16: 3, 187 195 Part 2 Studies: 1. AMA CAT (1953) Aviation Toxicology: an Introduction to the Subject and a Handbook of Data. AeroMedical Association Committee of Aviation Toxicology, Blakiston, USA 2. Tupper CR (1989) Chemical hazards in aeromedical aircraft. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 60:73–75 3. ASHRAE (1999) Air Quality Within Commercial Aircraft: ASHRAE Standard 161. American Society for Heating, Refrigeration, Airconditioning and Energy, Atlanta 4. MattieDR, Hoeflich TJ, Jones CE, Horton ML,Whitmire RE, Godin CS, Femming CD, Andesen ME (1993) The comparative toxicity of operational air force hydraulic fluids. Toxicology and Industrial Health 9:995–1016 5. Hewstone RK (1994) Environmental health aspects of lubricant additives. Science of the Total Environment 156:243–254 6. Winder C, Balouet J-C (2002) Toxic ingredients in commercial jet fuels. Environmental Research 89:146–164 7. FAA (1965) Federal Air Regulations, Transport Category Airplanes, Airworthiness Standards, Section 25.831. US Federal Aviation Authority, Washington, DC 8. Balouet J-C, Winder C (1999) Aerotoxic syndrome in air crew as a result of exposure to airborne contaminants in aircraft. Paper presented at the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Symposium on Air Quality and Comfort in Airliner Cabins New Orleans, USA, 27-28 October 9. Winder C, Balouet J-C (2001) Symptoms of irritation and toxicity in aircrew as a result of exposure to airborne chemicals in aircraft. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety – Australian and New Zealand 17:471–483 10. CAT, AMA (1953) Aviation Toxicology: An Introduction to the Subject and a Handbook of Data. Committee of Aviation Toxicology, Aero Medical Association, Blakiston, USA 11. Tupper CR (1989) Chemical hazards in aeromedical aircraft. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 60:73–75 12. Trimble EJ (1996) The management of aircraft passenger survival in fire. Toxicology 115:41–61 13. ACC (2001) High Production Volume Chemical Submission, Substituted Diphenylamines. American Chemistry Council, Arlington VA, 18 December 2001. At: http://www.epa.gov.gov/chemrtk/subdiapha/c13378.pdf 14. Miyazaki K, Kawai S, Sasayama T, Iseki K, Arita T (1987) Absorption, metabolism and excretion of N-phenyl-1-naphthylamine in rats. Yakuzaigaku (Archives of Practical Pharmacology) 47:17–22 (English abstract) 15. IPCS (1998) Concise International Chemical Assessment Document No 9: N-Phenyl- 1-naphthylamine. International Programme on Chemical Safety, Geneva 16. Boman A, Hagelthorn G, Jeansson I, Karlberg A-T, Rystedt I, Wahlberg JE (1980) Phenyl-alpha-naphthylamine–case report and guinea pig studies. Contact Dermatitis 6:299–300 17. Kalimo K, Jolanki R, Estlander T, Kanerva L (1989) Contact allergy to antioxidants in industrial greases. Contact Dermatitis 20:151–152 18. Carmichael AJ, Foulds IS (1990) Isolated naphthylamine allergy to phenyl- alphanapthylamine. Contact Dermatitis 22:298–299 19. Wang H-W, Wang D, Dzeng R-W (1984) Carcinogenicity of n-phenyl-1-naphthylamine and n-phenyl-2-naphthylamine in mice. Cancer Research 44:3098–3100 20. Jarvholm B, Lavenius B (1981) A cohort study on cancer among workers exposed to an antirust oil. Scandinavian J Work Environment and Health 7:179–184 21. US NTP (1988) Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of N-Phenyl-2-naphthylamine in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (feed studies). US National Toxicology Program, http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/lt-studies/tr333.html 22. Aldridge WN (1954) Tricresyl phosphate and cholinesterase. Biochemical J 56:185– 189 23. Johnson MK (1975) Structure activity relationship for substrates and inhibitors of hen brain neurotoxic esterase. Biochemical Pharmacology 24:797–805 24. Earl CJ, Thompson RHS (1952) Cholinesterase levels in the nervous system in triortho- cresyl phosphate poisoning. British J Pharmacology 7:685–694 25. Eyer P (1955) Neuropsychopathological changes by organophosphorus compounds– a review. Human and Experimental Toxicology 14:857–864 26. Kilburn KH (1999) Evidence for chronic neurobehavioral impairment from chlorpyrifos and organophosphate insecticide (Dursban) used indoors. Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology 1:153–162 27. Minton NA, Murray VSG (1988) A review of organophosphate poisoning. Medical Toxicology 3:350–375 28. Johnson MK (1975) Organophosphorus esters causing delayed neurotoxic effects. Archives of Toxicology 34:259–288 29. Metcalf RL (1982) Historical perspective of organophosphorus ester-induced delayed neurotoxicity. Neurotoxicology 3:269–284 30. Baron RL (1981) Delayed neurotoxicity and other consequences of organophosphate esters. Annual Reviews of Entolomology 26:29–48 31. Johnson MK (1990) Organophosphates and delayed neuropathy–Is NTE alive and well? Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 102:385–399 32. Senanayake N, Karalliede L (1987) Neurotoxic effects of organophosphorus esters. An intermediate syndrome. New England J Medicine 316:761–763 33. Dille JR, Smith PW (1964) Central nervous system effects of chronic exposure to organophosphate insecticides. Aerospace Medicine 35:475–478 34. UK DoH (1999) Toxicology of OPs and the mechanisms involved. In: Organophosphates. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, Chap. 5. UK Department of Health, HMSO, London, pp 49–58 35. Jamal GA (1997) Neurological syndromes of organophosphorus compounds. Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicology Reviews 16:133–170 36. Savage EP, Keefe TF, Mounce LM, Heaton JA, Burcar PJ (1988) Chronic neurological sequelae of acute organophosphorus pesticide intoxication. Archives of Environmental Health 43:38–45 37. Gershon S, Shaw FB (1961) Psychiatric sequelae of chronic exposure to organophosphorous insecticides. Lancet 1:1371–1374 38. Metcalf DR, Holmes JH (1969) EEG, psychological and neurological alterations in humans with organophosphorous exposure. Annals New York Academy Science 160:357–365 39. Callender TJ, Morrow L, Subramanian K (1994) Evaluation of chronic neurological sequelae after acute pesticide exposure using SPECT brain scans. J Toxicology and Environmental Health 41:275–284 40. Smith MI, Elvove I, Valaer PJ, Frazier WH, Mallory GE (1930) Pharmacologic and chemical studies of the cause of the so called ginger paralysis. US Public Health Reports 45:1703–1716 41. Henschler D, Bayer HH (1958) Toxicologic studies of triphenyl phosphate, trixenyl phosphates, and triaryl phosphates from mixtures of homogenous phenols. Archives of Experimental Pathology and Pharmacology 233:512–517 42. Daughtrey W, Biles R, Jortner B, Erlich M (1996) Subchronic delayed neurotoxicity evaluation of jet engine lubricants containing phosphorus additives. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 32:244–249 43. Montgomery MR, Wier GT, Zieve FJ, Anders MW (1977) Human intoxication following inhalation exposure to synthetic jet lubricating oil. Clinical Toxicology 11:423–426 44. Rayman RB, McNaughton GB (1983) Smoke/fumes in the cockpit. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 67:738–740 45. Tashkin DP, Coulson AH, Simmons MS, Spivey GH (1983) Respiratory symptoms of flight attendants during high altitude flight: Possible relation to cabin ozone exposure. Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 52:117–137 46. Sparks PS, Simon GE, Katon WJ, Altman LC, Ayars GH, Johnson RL (1990) An outbreak of illness among aerospace workers. Western J Medicine 158:28–33 47. NAS (2001) The Airliner Cabin Environment and the Health of Passengers and Crew. US National Academy of Science, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 48. Singh B (2004) In flight smoke and fumes. Aviation Safety Spotlight, March 2004 49. Fox R (1997) Air Quality Testing Aboard Ansett Airlines BAe 146 Aircraft: Final Report. Allied Signal Aerospace, 25 November 1997 50. Craig P, Barth M (1999) Evaluation of the hazards of industrial exposure to tricresyl phosphate: A review and interpretation of the literature. J Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B Critical Reviews 2:281–300. Consultants, Mobil Business resources Coorporation, NJ 51. WHO (1986) Diseases caused by asphyxiants: Carbon monoxide, Hydrogen cyanide and its toxic derivatives, and Hydrogen sulfide. Early Detection of Occupational Diseases. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp 154–164 52. Kayser, C., “General Features of the Problems of Aviation Toxicology,” Aviation Toxicology: An Introduction to the Subject and a Handbook of Data, Committee on Aviation Toxicology, Aero Medical Association. The Blakiston Company, NY, 1953, p. 1. 53. SAE Aerospace Information Report _AIR_ 1539: Environmental Control System Contamination, 1997 _originally issued 1981_, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 54. Robins, C. S., “737 Air Conditioning Engine Bleed Air Contamination,” Boeing Company report prepared for United Airlines, 1968. 55. Montgomery, M. R., Wier, G. T., Zieve, F. J., and Anders, M. W., “Human Intoxication Following Inhalation Exposure to Synthetic Jet Lubricating Oil,” Clin. Toxicol., Vol. 11, No. 4, 1977, pp. 423–426. 56. NRC, The Airliner Cabin Environment and the Health of Passengers and Crew, U.S. National Research Council, ISBN 0-309-08289-7, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002, pp. 110–121. 57. Bobb, A. J. and Still, K. R., “Known Harmful Effects of Constituents of Jet Oil Smoke,” TOXDET-03-04, Naval Health Research Center Detachment _Toxicology_, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 2003. 58. Hanhela, P. J., Kibby, J., DeNola, G., and Mazurek, W., “Organophosphate and Amine Contamination of Cockpit Air in the Hawk F-111, and Hercules C-130 Aircraft,” DSTO-RR- 0303, 2005, Australian Government Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 59. Harper, A., “A Survey of Health Effects in Aircrew Exposed to Airborne Contaminants,” J. Occup. Health Saf. Aust. N.Z., Vol. 21, No. 5, 2005, pp. 433–439. 60. Coxon, L., “Neuropsychological Assessment of a Group of BAe146 Aircraft Crewmembers Exposed to Jet Engine Oil Emissions,” J. Occup. Health Saf. Aust. N.Z., Vol. 18, No. 4, 2002, pp. 313–319. 61. Kelso, A. G., Charlesworth, J. M., and McVea, G. G., “Contamination of Environmental Control Systems in Hercules Aircraft: MRL-R-1116, AR-005-230,” Australian Government Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 1988. 62. Crane, C. R., Sanders, D. C., Endecott, B. R., et al., “Inhalation Toxicology: III. Evaluation of Thermal Degradation of Products from Aircraft and Automobile Engine Oils, Aircraft Hydraulic Fluid, and Mineral Oil,” Aviation Medicine Report FAAAM-83-12, Civil Aeromedical Institute, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City, OK, 1983. 63. Rayman, R. B. and McNaughton, G. B., “Smoke/Fumes in the Cockpit,” Aviat., Space Environ. Med., Vol. 54, No. 8, 1983, pp. 738–740. 64. van Netten, C. and Leung, V., “Hydraulic Fluids and Jet Engine Oil: Pyrolysis and Aircraft Air Quality,” Arch. Environ. Health, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2001, pp. 181–186. 65. van Netten, C. and Leung, V., “Comparison of the Constituents of Two Jet Engine Oil Lubricating Oils and Their Volatile Pyrolytic Degradation Products,” Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg., Vol. 15, No. 3, 2000, pp. 277–283. 66. van Netten, C., “Analysis of Two Jet Engine Lubricating Oils and a Hydraulic Fluid: Their Pyrolytic Breakdown Products and Their Implications on Aircraft Air Quality,” Air Quality and Comfort in Airliner Cabins, ASTM STP 1393, N. L. Nagda, Ed., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000, pp. 61–75. 67. Lautenberg, F., “Testimony of U.S. Senator F. R. Lautenberg on HR 969/S1524, the Airliner Cabin Air Quality Act of 1995,” Washington, DC, 1996. 68. ACARM, “Chapter 12: Frequency of Events and Underreporting,” Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual, Michaelis, S., Ed., ISBN 9780955567209, London, England, 2007, pp. 211–248. 69. Ballough, J., “Smoke in the Cockpit,” Presentation at the U.S.–Europe International Aviation Safety Conference by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Director of Flight Standards Service, Washington,DC, 2006. 70. FAA, “Flight Standards Information Bulletin for Airworthiness _FSAW_ 06-05A: Guidance for Smoke/Fumes in the Cockpit/Cabin,” Order 8300.10, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 2006. 71. Craig, P. H. and Barth, M. L., “Evaluation of the Hazards of Industrial Exposure to Tricresyl Phosphate: A Review and Interpretation of the Literature,” J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part B: Crit. Rev., Vol. 2, No. 4, 1999, pp. 281–300. 72. Weiner, M. L. and Jortner, B. S., “Organophosphate-Induced Neurotoxicity of Triarylphosphates,” Neurotoxicology, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1999, pp. 653–673. 73. Daughtrey, W., Biles, R., Jortner, B., et al., “Subchronic Delayed Neurotoxicity Evaluation of Jet Engine Lubricants Containing Phosphorus Additives,” Fundam. Appl. Toxicol., Vol. 32, 1996, pp. 244–249. 74. Jamal, G. A., Hansen, G., and Julu, P. O. O., “Low Level Exposures to Organophosphorus Esters May Cause Neurotoxicity,” Toxicology, Vol. 181–182, 2002, pp. 23–33. 75. Bull, K. and Yeomans, H. “Outside Air Treatment Solutions for Aircraft,” Technical paper produced by Pall Aerospace _Issue 1_, Pall Europe Ltd., 2007. 76. ASHRAE, “Standard 161: Air Quality Within Commercial Aircraft: BSR/ASHRAE Standard 161- 2007,” American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 2008 On damage caused by OP's on humans (Westgate Investigation and Research): Mohamed B. Abou-Donia,1, * F.R.W. van de Goot2 and M.F.A. Mulder3: markers of neural degeneration are associated with post-mortem histopathological alterations of a neurologically-injured pilot, JBPC Vol 14 (2014) AND: HM Coroner Notice to British Airways and UK CAA: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Westgate-2015-0050.pdf

You support is highly appreciated.

Screwjack1981 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

For me it becomes very obvious that though on other issues highly respected EditorASC has a fixation that this issue is a "bogus claim" (see previous statements made by him. The ongoing research and discussion of the issue has nothing to do any more with "vested interests" of individuals. The claims are supported by science and for almost a year by the official investigation conducted by HM Coroner into the circumstances of the death of a former British Airways pilot. But it will require time and efforts and aeronautical and chemistry as well as medical background to fully understand the studies cited before. I see here very strong similarities to the initial discussion about possible health effects on smoking (which took almost 18 years to become acknowledged and resolved or asbestos).

--Screwjack1981 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

FOR INFO: there is no "text dump" in my previous posting, this is merely a part of the current exiting scientific literature on the subject that clearly demonstrates that we are not dealing here with "bogus" or "unsubstantiated claims of interested parties" as one editor deemed to term it. So I would appreciate if you do not change this. It provides to every other editor the opportunity to dig further into this issue. Thank you.

--Screwjack1981 (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: All I did was put collapse tags around that section to make this discussion page easier to navigate.The directions above say to have "a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately." You asked for a revert, but didn't link to any specific version, and what exactly do you want done with ~100 reference? Do you want them dumped exactly as you have them above directly in to the article? All that being said, I have no background in this subject, and your request is not immediately actionable; so will leave this for some other admin to deal with. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate if the article would be reverted back to its version as of jan 4. , 2016 06:36 UTC. Thank you. --Screwjack1981 (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

when an article is locked after an edit war, the editors working on the page who were edit warring are meant to use the time-out to try to work toward consensus. That is why the article is locked. See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes for an explanation of that. I see no effort to have done that and any admin passing by is sure to decline this. Trying to win the edit war via a single editor's request is not going to go anywhere. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@EditorASC: you cannot dismiss Screwjack1981’s edits as vandalism. It is evident s/he is acting in good faith. Blank reverts are not acceptable. Please point to specific areas that you find problematic.

@Screwjack1981: dumping an enormous chunk of text on the talk page is not the same as providing sources. Claiming expertise because you read documents and pushing other editors away, as you did already on Talk:Unfiltered Breathed In - The Truth about Aerotoxic Syndrome‎, will not help.

Both of you need to point at specific statements/sources in the article which you find problematic. "Just revert back to my favorite version" will not get us out of this. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ariadacapo: All duly noted, thx. I'm learning. But the problem is that EditorASC is not reacting at all and several attempts were made to discuss the issue and find a solution. The reaction was: simply reverting the article back. The problem with this truly delicate issue is that a lot of misunderstanding of the underlying problem has mounted up in the past as it is really a challenge for someone to dig into the literature and then summarize the current status in science and research. It seems that the entire discussion has split people in two sides. Nevertheless a "syndrome" not being listed in the medical reference book (yet) doesn't mean it is not existing. Also there is no requirement for that. Fact is: these events occur, people become sick to the extend that they are unable to do their job, and they boarded an aircraft healthy and are pulled off it on a stretcher directly into an ambulance. I'm pretty relaxed on this as new evidence will pop up any time. But it is frustrating to see how ignorance is effecting the presentation of factual and available knowledge.

--217.238.43.164 (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In view of the history on this page, when Screwjack added the Westgate/Brady section, I took a critical look at it. I found it to be well written, and to provide a balanced treatment of the sources. IMHO it should be reinstated as the article is incomplete without it. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Administrator note we now have a specific request (revert to version of 4 Jan 2016, 06:36 UTC) but I have no idea if there is consensus for a revert. Please can other editors comment? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is no consensus for the revert to that version if you review the discussion above. The way this works is that editors working on the article discuss a proposed change, show their agreement, and then the protected edit request is made. That was not done. This request is just an attempt to edit-war by other means and will be rejected. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

extended content by EditorASC

FTR, I did NOT violate the 3rr rule. My several reverts were fully justified by the repeated and endless "sneaky" type of vandalism of this article, by COI Spam agenda editors. They have done so over and over and over again -- by REMOVING valid and properly cited statements (both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, where required), and then replacing them with statements which are not notable, or relevant, or are just plain misleading, and then trying to make it appear those replacement statements are supported with the proper WP:MEDRS cites, when the truth is just the opposite. But, for any Admin to understand what I am talking about, he/she would have to spend considerable time reading this entire Talk Page, and it is apparent that no Admin (with the exception of Admin Diannaa (talk -- my thanks for her conscientious support), has done that. Much easier to just dump us both into the 3rr bucket, even though that is not a valid response when a repeated pattern of sneaky vandalism of this article is being used as a wearing down tactic, by those whose only purpose is to turn this into a Wiki Spam article, advancing their bogus agenda, their website and various propaganda films. Excerpts from WP:Vandalism [[11]]: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.... Upon discovery, you should revert clearly vandalizing edits, using the undo function or an anti-vandalism tool. Once the vandalism is removed, you may warn the vandalizing editor. Notify administrators at the vandalism noticeboard of vandalizing users who continue to vandalize despite warnings, and administrators should intervene to protect content and prevent further disruption by blocking such users from editing. When warranted, accounts whose main or only use is vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked even without a warning, usually indefinitely." WP:SNEAKY Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles... or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages." 6.17 Spam external linking Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially." The above quoted excerpts describe to a "T," what has been happening to this article, over and over and over again, by those who are trying to use Wikipedia as a Spam template to promote their website and propaganda films, in support of their bogus syndrome. The talk page above contains MANY examples of those types of sneaky vandalising edits. I request that interested Admins read them all, as it would be a wastful use of my time to re-post them all again in this section. I will, however, give another example of an invalid citation which the offending editors have repeatedly inserted in this article, even though it fails utterly to qualify as a WP:MEDRS citation, and EVEN THOUGH they have been warned time and again that WP:MEDRS cites are required. This citation link amounts to nothing more than an agenda POLITICAL document, not a scientific one in any sense of that word: "HM Coroner Notice to British Airways and UK CAA:" https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Westgate-2015-0050.pdf It is a "request" document sent by Sheriff Stanhope Payne, Senior Coroner for The County of Dorset, SENT TO: 1. Chief Executive — British Airways 2. Chief Operating Officer — Civil Aviation Authority Among the astounding statements in that document, are these: "INVESTIGATION On 27th December 2012 I commenced an investigation into the death of RICHARD MARK WESTGATE, aged 43.. The investigation has not yet concluded and the inquest has not yet been heard." 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH On 12th December 2012 Richard Mark Westgate was found deceased in his room at the Bastion Hotel in Bussum, Netherlands. ... Post mortem examinations gave causes of death of either Pentobarbital toxicity or lymphocytic myocarditis, individually or in combination. Testing of samples taken both prior to and after death disclosed symptoms consistent with exposure to organo-phosphate compounds in aircraft cabin air. Such exposure can cause lymphocytic myocarditis." Absolutely NO explanation as to how he determined organo-phosphate compounds were present in any aircraft cabin air. Could it be because he himself never conducted any valid scientific tests of the air in question? Or, that he did not actually do the autopsy on the body (this request document was created by him almost three years later). And, of course, no explanation at all for how he determined that the alleged organo-phosphate compounds can or actually did cause "lymphocytic myocarditis." He states the cause of death was "EITHER" Pentobarbital toxicity "OR" lymphocytic myocarditis, individually or in combination." In other words, he died from an overdose of a deadly drug that has been used for human executions, among other purposes. He conveniently leaves out all the other factors that can ALSO CAUSE lymphocytic myocarditis. Excerpts from [12]: Causes of Myocarditis Viral infection is the most common cause of myocarditis. When you have an infection, your body produces cells to fight infection. These cells also release chemicals. If the disease-fighting cells enter your heart, they can release chemicals that can damage your heart muscle. Your heart may become thick, swollen, and weak. Seeking immediate medical care for infections can help prevent complications. These are some of the types of infections that can cause myocarditis. Viral infections Coxsackie B viruses 'Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Hepatitis C Herpes HIV Parvovirus Bacterial infections Chlamydia (a common sexually transmitted disease) Mycoplasma (bacteria that cause a lung infection) Streptococcal (strep) bacteria Staphylococcal (staph) bacteria Treponema (the cause of syphilis) Borrelia (the cause of Lyme disease) Fungal and parasitic infections can also cause myocarditis. Other causes of myocarditis include certain chemicals or allergic reactions to medications or toxins such as alcohol, drugs, lead, spider bites, wasp stings, or snakebites and chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Having an autoimmune disease such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis that causes inflammation throughout your body may also lead to myocarditis.

In short, this so-called citation document is a complete joke and is typical of the many others that these COI editors have tried to foist on this article, claiming they now have new scientific evidence to support their bogus syndrome. If Admins would take the time to read the many other examples listed above in this talk page, you will find a consistent, time and again pattern of sneaky vandalism of this article. Time and time and time again, they have been warned that WP:MEDRS cites are required to support medical claim statements, yet time and time and time again they keep adding citation links to their replacement statements, which violate that WP:MEDRS standard. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY VALID WP:MEDRS sources for their bogus medical claims, but that doesn't deter them at all. They just keep doing it again and again and again. THAT is why it is proper to classify such repeated tactics as sneaky vandalism and THAT is why it was proper for me to revert that vandalism. EditorASC (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So, on one hand we have one editor singing along the truth is on my side and on the other an editor shouting that it can’t be good faith. Both of those behaviors, not the medical background for the article, are the problem. With neither of you working towards consensus the conflict cannot be solved. Please focus on the actual article text only. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then to find consensus, it is obvious that the WP:MEDRS standard must be cast aside for this article. Do I understand you correctly, that if more medical statement claims are posted by any editor, without the required WP:MEDRS citations, no one should object or delete such edits? I think that should be clearly and unequivocally stated, if that is now to be consensus policy for this article. EditorASC (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to abandon the MEDRS standard for content about health. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Don’t be silly. But, it is possible (and here, necessary) to uphold MEDRS without dismissing other editors as vandals. Reverting a large series of edits requires discussion and explaining. If you refuse to see that you broke the three-revert rule, I cannot see how we can get out of this dispute. The same goes for Screwjack1984’s insistence that other editors are "ignorant". The article is protected now because of behavior, not content. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

extended content by Screwjack1981

Dear all: 1. to EditorASC: The cited document is an official document of HM Senior Coroner of the County Dorset. It is governed by Regulation 28. This report is based on the findings of a two year long investigation into the circumstances of the death of Mr. Westgate. You are here criticizing a Coroner. Having that in mind you should be very careful in jumping to conclusions. The findings of the Coroner and his investigation are roughly 800 pages of medical reports. It is a basic principle which I know has been applied that other causes - especially the other ones that you mentioned for lymphocitic myocarditis (which are a bit fewer that just "myocarditis") were excluded by the forensic and medical experts working this case. This is also reflected in part in the peer-reviewed scientific paper published about this case by some of the involved medical-forensic team in July 2014 - and which is also cited. The question is not about the cause of death of Mr. Westgate, the question is about what was found in his body samples in regards to a health issue. Mr. Westgate has been under medical care and treatment for some time before he died, all sorts of diagnostic has been conducted with negative results and this is all reflected by the records. It is up to the Corner to state the cause of death which could very well be that he died of an (accidental) overdose of pentabarbitorates. But again, this is not the point. The point is that he was the first flight crew member who did donate his body to science to conduct specific research that was until then not possible to be conducted on a living human without possibly inflicting har (don't now if you want to have biopsy conducted on your heart, peripheral nerves and brain. The interesting aspect is that the same team has conducted further autopsies since on other deceased flight crew members and had identical findings. In contrast to your opinion that HM Coroner did not "explain how" he came to the conclusion that OP's are present I have to state that this shows that you have apparently no knowledge about the legal judicial system. The coroner does not have to give an explanation in such a report. All underlying material is available to the parties involved, as under British law this is a public proceeding. This Coroner report is not an Wiki article, it is an official judicial document made public. If any party involved would have objections to it, they would have been required to pass it on the the next higher judicial institution and have it revised or revoked. Apparently this is not the case. But the fact that OP's are present in cabin air via the bleed air system in - apparently news to you - meanwhile long time acknowledged by the industry. This is clearly reflected by measurements conducted on behalf of the mutual employer insurance BG-Verkehr in Germany and studies conducted by the MHH Hannover (Rosenberger et all). It is also reflected within the articles referenced above. Kaspar Flatland Solbu has proven it (see studies above) on behalf of another Government institution, the Norwegian National Institute for Occupational Health during unannounced random air sampling aboard of Norwegian registered aircraft in 2010. The question is if these doses measured could cause harm to a human being. So far the industry sided argumentation has been that the work place exposure limits have not been exceeded in these measurements. Pls bear in mind that the current work place exposure limit set forth for some countries for one of the substances in question (TCP) here is based on 2 measurements conducted in 1938 in a British torpedo factory where a special grease containing TCP did ignite and two workers were injured by inhalation. In Germany the work place exposure limit is still "0" (zero) for TCP, meaning it may not be present at all. Also: exposure limits apply for workspaces on the ground. They are based on a healthy adult who may get exposed for a maximum of an 8 hrs working shift. They do not take into account that aircraft pressurized cabins are an oxygen reduced special environment and that also work place exposure limits set for workspaces on the ground do not apply for aircraft at all. Also you have to see that a focus on just a single compound is not scientifically justified at all. The substances release constantly (low levels off course) are a mixture of different chemicals. It is medically and scientifically long time acknowledged that there are "idiopathic reactions" and the accumulation of subtonic doses (see: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=66274 ). These facts are not reflected by the "so called" industry argumentation. I dare to compare this to statements of lawyers working behalf of big tobacco during the litigation in the US who were pointing to the claimants chest stating: "Prove to me that the cancer in your lungs was caused by my clients cigarettes.." Well, we know where this debate stands today: smoking is banned in almost all public places and cigarettes have to have clear warnings. It is obvious that changes made to the article (including former versions where citations were dead links after the webpages they were referring to were changed and consequently these lines were edited out) strongly favors just one side of the medal which is the industry view (citing THE industry expert Dr. Michael Bagshaw for example who was the former chief medical examiner with British Airways and refusing to see or even listen to crew complaints and who is now, after he became retired from BA a medical advisor to Airbus (apparently the only manufacturer who does not want to change bleed air at all - Boeing just did it with the B787 without making a big "fuzz" about it - which is logical from their point of view, specially in regards to (then) possible litigation. Th funny thing is that the article refers to a study conducted in Germany on behalf of the mutual employer insurance (on behalf of the German airlines having around 300 claims each year from ill flight crew, tendency : on the raise) and quoted by Bagshaw to make his point. This all reminded me of another famous German politician and his tactics, the former reichs-Chancelor Bismarck who by just editing out a few words and lines from a telegram send to the German Emperor created the cause for a declaration of war towards France (Emser Depesche). If yu can read German and you would read the underlying methodology for this urine ambling study - as I emphasized previously - you would see and read that this methodology is not capable of detecting what they claimed they were looking for (metabolites of TCP). - Again, the study published omitted a normally required statement about possible conflicts of interest (scientific conduct) that the authors of this study were working on behalf of the insurance which had to foot the bill for the German airlines. What is remarkably though in this very same study that was "selectively" cited is that 100 % of all samples contained metabolites for TBP (Tributylphosphate) which is exclusively used in hydraulic fluids on aircraft and banned from consumer products.

So to summarize: it seems that EditorASC is very much convinced that the debate around aerotoxic syndrome is a "bogus medical claim", as he terms it himself. On the other hand it is fact that there is a raising number of affected flight crew and also passengers where poisonings after flights, especially after documented fume events have been diagnosed by medical personal. I think the big mistake in the discussion is that The term "aerotoxic syndrome" is regarded by some people as a medical description of a disease (which it is not!). A syndrome does not necessarily have to be a medical acknowledged disease being listed in the WHO database. The term is a description of a variety of symptoms found with patients since 1995 and first published as part of a peer reviewed epidemological study in 1999. Further research is ongoing. But: it is associated to aircraft and the air inside which contains a variety of VOC's and which may accidentally be released a big quantities (seal failure etc), or even low levels constantly. Among the Westgate findings at the table with the investigating Coroner there is evidence to a certain different subsceptibility to such compounds and mixtures, depending on individual DNA and the ability or non-abilty by certain subjects to deal with this substances in their body or even not at all. Fact is also: Flight crews and passengers are affected and because of some media reporting the past decade the awareness is raising among pilots and crews as well as scientist and medical personal around the globe. I believe this is basis enough to have an article here on WIKI that properly reflects both sides and the current status of research and findings. --Screwjack1981 (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Screwjack1981 please finish the discussion on your Talk page before continuing to work on these articles. Others working here, please allow Screwjack and me to finish that discussion and please don't intervene there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

addition

The following content was added in these diffs:

In 2016 Frank Cannon, an aviation lawyer, carried to a review of all the evidence of contamination and its potential for harm, and published his findings in a peer-reviewed published paper entitled "Aircraft cabin air contamination and aerotoxic syndrome—a review of the evidence"; Nanotechnology Perceptions 12 (2016) 1–27; doi: 10.4024/N08CA16A.ntp.12.02. This suggested an industry and governmental cover-up which seems to run counter to the precautionary principle of good occupational health and safety practice as well as the fundamental precautionary principle of aviation.

The last sentence is not supported by the source and is unsourced editorializing.

Here is the "about" page for this publication. No sign it is peer reviewed. No sign it is indexed anywhere. Appears to be a place for people to write essays. The paper is findable if you google for it (cannot link it here per WP:ELNEVER). What do folks think about including something along the lines of the first sentence above? Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it was proper to revert it all, since it is pretty obvious the incessant sneaky vandalism of the article, by Screwjack1981 (talk) and his fellow COI "editors" continues, unabated. Again and again, they keep removing valid statements supported by WP:MEDRS sources, and replace them with non-valid statements which do not have the support of valid WP:MEDRS cites. That tactic, which they have used so many times that Admins won't bother to read all that history, fits the definition of "sneaky vandalism," to a "Tee."

I think this long history of their sneaky vandalism justifies some sort of permanent protection, if only to ban edits by IP editors. They have no intention of stopping their attacks. That should be obvious to anyone who is willing to take the time to read all of the Talk Pages for this article. EditorASC (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

De-icing fluid

My thanks to the diligence of [Sizeofint (talk | contribs)‎] , in catching an error regarding De-icing fluid. I doubt they will ever be able to remove that one from the list simply because a proper de-icing of an aircraft MUST include spraying the mixture into each engine, to get rid of any possible ice on the compressor blades. Failing to do that could destroy the engines when takeoff power is applied if those blades are coated with a significant amount of ice. Doing the job properly will leave residual fluid lying in the engine and that means some of that fluid will be picked up by the ECS bleed air system, when the engines are started. EditorASC (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Richard Westgate

The coroner found that Westgate died from an "unintentional overdose of sedatives", not from ATS. Is it worth putting in the article? BBC news report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.106.75 (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aerotoxic syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05114.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150405051455/http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/WhatsNew/News/140507_Study%20_Fume_Events.html?nn=225840 to http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/WhatsNew/News/140507_Study%20_Fume_Events.html?nn=225840

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

New research

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/341533/5_OriginalResearch_AerotoxicSyndrom_ENG.pdf?ua=1

They make the claim "A clear cause and effect relationship has been identified linking the symptoms, diagnoses and findings to the occupational environment. Recognition of this new occupational disorder and a clear medical investigation protocol are urgently needed."

Not sure where it'd fit into the wiki article though.

203.214.87.89 (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Anybody know how reputable Public Health Panorama is [13]? Sizeofint (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall WHO be liable for damages arising from its use. The named authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication.

So this content isn't coming from the WHO. I'm pretty sure this is a primary source so it likely isn't content we can use at the moment. We should wait for a review article. Sizeofint (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I note that there has been a letter critical of the study published on the WHO site. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

new content

User:77.174.91.92 as i noted here there are several problems with the added content; would you please discuss here, per WP:BRD? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Getting more specific, the content added by User:Stromrad (whom I am guessing is the same as you?) in this diff series introduced content based on refs that are not OK per WP:MEDRS, for example PMID 20447373 is not OK. Also there is editorializing content like "Specifically notice the slides 16 to 19.". A whole slew of things. It is great that you want to improve the article but this set of edits was not OK. I can explain more if you like... Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I will not engage with you as you are engaging in bad faith. I am NOT User:Stromrad and it is outrageous that you accuse me of this when you have no evidence whatsoever for this. It is part of Wikipedia's policy to never assume bad faith. You have shown you cannot do this. Furthermore, since I have included a Dutch source, which is not against English wikipedia policy, and you are most likely not proficient in Dutch, you couldn't have possibly read the sources to determine whether they are sufficient, accurate or credible. Please stop vandalising the page by removing my edits. 77.174.91.92 (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't meant to be an accusation. Lots of new users don't remember to log in. The sources are not OK per MEDRS. Please engage with the guideline when you come back. thx Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, I am User: StromradI was trying to add more recent information, sorry I've been offline a few days and I am a new user trying to get up to speed, so I appoligize if I've missed some things with my first edits. Please note there is a response letter posted to the critical letter on the WHO site. —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)