Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

I don't care what you call it or don't call it. You were both building up this insipid straw-man that serves to do nothing but turn the argument into a trainwreck by diverting off the rails and into Shitty Political Hogwash Mountain. I don't want to crash into Shitty Political Hogwash Mountain.

We're talking about whether or not peanut allergies are a serious enough concern to consider regulations requiring airlines to take measures to avoid any such situation, which is a totally legitimate thing to do. Throwing around implications about a "nanny state" and other such bullshit instead of actually saying something with any meaning to it doesn't help.

Ah lighten up. You and I seem to be the only ones taking this remotely seriously, and we've both agreed it needs some SCIENCE to be worth talking about. And since neither you or I are about to SCIENCE it up.....might as well run people over on the way to Shitty Political Hogwash Mountain, and get your picture taken with Asinine Political Opinion Mickey Mouse.

"Huh huh, Communism is great kids, it just hasn't had a chance to work right yet, huh huh!"   

[Vester]

We're talking about whether or not peanut allergies are a serious enough concern to consider regulations requiring airlines to take measures to avoid any such situation, which is a totally legitimate thing to do. Throwing around implications about a "nanny state" and other such bullshit instead of actually saying something with any meaning to it doesn't help.

Well, right now people seem to be torn between "Yes, it is totally a danger to public health and they should therefore be banned", and "No conclusive study has been done on this topic, and banning them without one is silly."

I'd be leaning more towards the second idea, if not for the fact that it stinks of a closing-the-barn-door-after-the-cows-get-out mentality. If there's a chance of someone dying due to something that could be avoided by banning something that isn't even necessary on flights, then ban away.

[zchris13]

But it smells like Big Government and socialism! (which is what I think that dude meant by communism)

[nenjin]

"And if you look to your left, you'll see the Arguing Over Definitions Water Park. It's one of our most popular attractions, where hundreds visit each year to rehash the classic debate between Socialism and Communism."

[G-Flex]

There's at least one example given in this article of a child reacting simply to the aroma of peanut oil in the air inside a passenger cabin, because the plane wasn't properly cleaned (this apparently can be sufficient enough to matter), and because granola bars served on the flight contained peanut oil (even though the parent was told no peanuts would be served on the flight).

Airplanes are an odd case compared to most establishments, since they're in such an enclosed space with no ventilation, and can be thousands of miles from medical attention, not to mention that airplane snacks are traditionally quite limited, meaning that if peanuts are being served, there's a good chance plenty of people are going to be eating them.

But it smells like Big Government and socialism! (which is what I think that dude meant by communism)

Hardly. The government imposing a simple health regulation on an industry (especially such a minor one, like "don't serve peanuts as a snack") is in no way "socialism" if you know what the word means.

"And if you look to your left, you'll see the Arguing Over Definitions Water Park. It's one of our most popular attractions, where hundreds visit each year to rehash the classic debate between Socialism and Communism."

It would be less of a "debate" if people bothered to do extremely cursory research.

[Leafsnail]

Actually, wait.  It's clearly workers owning the means of production.

Yep, socialism.

[nenjin]

And yet, fully informed, they continue none the less.

Airplanes are an odd case compared to most establishments, since they're in such an enclosed space with no ventilation

Of which no studies have been shown that measure their air handlers effectiveness at cleaning the air. (Doubtless they're out there though.)

And can be thousands of miles from medical attention

Or 10 feet, depending on how prepared you or the airline are.

Not to mention that airplane snacks are traditionally quite limited, meaning that if peanuts are being served, there's a good chance plenty of people are going to be eating them.

Which again requires science to actually be more than effective at sounding scary. But we've been over this before.

While unsuspecting passengers munched on the granola bars, Rachel began to have difficulty breathing. Benway administered an antihistamine and epinephrine to counteract the symptoms. The 4-year-old survived the airborne peanut assault, but on the return flight her mom made adjustments. She passed out her own snacks to nearby passengers, replacing the harmful granola bars in the process.

So the treatment worked, she didn't die, she lasted the flight and, based on that article, I'm supposed to assume that her reaction was incredibly life threatening and not just mild breathing problems. I've BEEN in the advanced stages of anaphylactic shock. My face swelled like a balloon and I couldn't even get my own tongue over my lips. If she'd be that serious, that would have made it into the article me thinks.

It couldn't be that a mother, who was assured by the airlines that the place would be peanut free, freaked out when she saw it wasn't and was convinced there was a reaction?

The danger posed is real but minute. The solutions available are effective and adequate. I just don't see the need for this to become a thing. 

[zchris13]

Okay Big Government! I don't want any democrats telling me what to do! It's un-American!

Also what Nenjin says, he has actual logic.  That's a good thing.

[G-Flex]

This article mentions a case of someone having an anaphylactic reaction simply from someone (and in this case, just a single person) opening a bag of peanuts near them, for what it's worth.

Of which no studies have been shown that measure their air handlers effectiveness at cleaning the air. (Doubtless they're out there though.)

This is a good point, but I doubt something as fine as peanut oil is removed all that effectively, and if someone with a severe allergy can have a serious reaction simply from peanuts being opened near them in places more open than a plane, it would take a lot to clean the air that quickly and consistently. I do think further research is in order, though; it would be stupid not to perform any when it would answer these questions more conclusively.

And can be thousands of miles from medical attention

Or 10 feet, depending on how prepared you or the airline are.

I mean medical attention besides what is available in an epi-pen or anything else you can carry on a person. I honestly have no idea if anaphylactic shock can be successfully staved off using on-hand medication like that for a period of hours even in the presence of the allergen (in the case that the air handling system doesn't effectively treat the air), or what the side effects of it might be over that kind of timeframe, so I really can't say much there.

So the treatment worked, she didn't die, she lasted the flight and, based on that article, I'm supposed to assume that her reaction was incredibly life threatening and not just mild breathing problems. I've BEEN in the advanced stages of anaphylactic shock. My face swelled like a balloon and I couldn't even get my own tongue over my lips. If she'd be that serious, that would have made it into the article me thinks.

Yeah, I wasn't using that as a scare tactic; I was just trying to find evidence that reactions requiring medical attention can occur even just from, say, trace amounts in the environment consistent with peanuts being served on previous flights, or peanut oil in the food that other passengers are eating.

It couldn't be that a mother, who was assured by the airlines that the place would be peanut free, freaked out when she saw it wasn't and was convinced there was a reaction?

It could be, but maybe it's not. The other example I presented above seems to imply that this sort of thing definitely is possible. It's definitely a known thing that trace amounts of something in the air can trigger a reaction in an allergic person (as evidence by this, people I've known, and possibly even your own experience), so an enclosed cabin with recycled air where everybody's eating the same snacks definitely seems like a prime candidate for a bad environment for these people.

The danger posed is real but minute. The solutions available are effective and adequate. I just don't see the need for this to become a thing.

Solutions available? Someone shouldn't have to use an adrenaline shot while on board an aircraft, and if a customer is told that a certain allergen won't be present on a flight, they shouldn't serve food with that allergen regardless; that's dishonest and dangerous regardless of what you think about banning peanuts in general.

But yeah, I agree that more research should be done, and that it's probably acceptable for airlines to simply exclude peanut-containing things from airplanes on flights upon request, provided they actually do it successfully (if they don't, that's fraudulent, and being fraudulent when it comes to medical matters isn't exactly good practice). Airlines seem to be taking care of the problem voluntarily, from what I'm reading, and if that's the case, and it's done earnestly and successfully, then yeah, there's much less need for government to get involved.

[nenjin]

Solutions available? Someone shouldn't have to use an adrenaline shot while on board an aircraft, and if a customer is told that a certain allergen won't be present on a flight,

As opposed to going to a Chinese restaurant where they regularly cook with peanut oil (OH GOD, PEANUT BUTTER CHICKEN! SOOO GOOOODDD!), or any other restaurant where peanuts are used? People carry these things around with them for a reason; not just because of airline flights.

If the scent of peanuts or oil alone is enough to trigger a serious life-threatening reaction and not just breathing problems, then about the most I'm willing to tolerate is big signs everywhere saying "Peanuts present." If we open the door to "peanut optional premise on request" by making it apply to airlines, it's a very short jump to restaurants and other places. People frequent those places far more than airlines, after all. That will definitely have a trickle down effect that will be both detrimental business and infuriating to everyone else who likes peanuts and has no say in the matter. 

How's THAT for alarmist? It's slightly unrealistic, but I have faith in the American people's fear of death that I don't doubt it could happen. It happened to cigarettes. (No, let's not debate cigarettes, please.)

They shouldn't serve food with that allergen regardless; that's dishonest and dangerous regardless of what you think about banning peanuts in general.

This I whole-heartedly agree with. If the airlines tells me something it will do something, it should be true when I get on the flight. That's their bad.

That second article you posted is a much, much better example. It's not clinical but it's closer than what CNN is likely to offer up.

Still, the trend is that, short of directly inhaling an appreciable amount of the allergen, life threatening anaphylactic shock only happens when direct contact occurs or you ingest it. The question then becomes "what is an appreciable amount" and "is there exposure of that amount on airlines?"

If 3 million Americans have peanut allergies, and there were appreciable amounts of it to kill them on airlines, we'd have seen a hell of a lot more cases, especially given that food allergies are on the rise. There should be a dramatic spike in reported cases aboard airlines as well.

And that hasn't happened so far.

As an aside, I find the subject of American food allergies relating to our clean living environment fascinating. Who knew that being a filthy bastard is a genetically desirable trait.

[ChairmanPoo]

As reference: the protocol for anaphylactic shock is IM adrenaline (IV if serious) + inhaled bronchodillaters (if needed) + volume expanders/dopamine/noradrenaline IV (if needed, to keep on the blood flow). After that IV corticoids are added to prevent late (4-8h) responses. Most cases would be ok with IM adrenaline, and bronchodillaters, which are well whithin what a plane can (and should) carry, and are easy to operate. The others, not so much.

I don't think that removing penauts is a big deal, but I do think the matter should be risk-assesed, however.

[nenjin]

I'll say this about adrenaline when you're suffering from an attack; it feels fucking AMAZING! It's like someone shot ice water into my body. I could feel the shit traveling up my veins and circulating. I'll never be a junky, but that was definitely a unique experience.

[G-Flex]

Solutions available? Someone shouldn't have to use an adrenaline shot while on board an aircraft, and if a customer is told that a certain allergen won't be present on a flight,

As opposed to going to a Chinese restaurant where they regularly cook with peanut oil (OH GOD, PEANUT BUTTER CHICKEN! SOOO GOOOODDD!), or any other restaurant where peanuts are used? People carry these things around with them for a reason; not just because of airline flights.

There are differences. In a restaurant, for instance, you can ask what your food will be cooked with (and inform them of the allergy) in order to take note of potential problems. At this point, they should hopefully be able to accommodate your request (but see below). Also, in a restaurant, you always have easy access to an exit in case something goes wrong; you've got an escape route handy.

There's also the fact that it's a restaurant. Asking an entire restaurant to stop using peanut oil because you showed up could severely affect their business, because their business is food. Asking an airplane to serve something besides peanuts should not really affect their business whatsoever, as they're extremely far from essential, having nothing to do with the basic service they're providing. They can serve something else easily enough with virtually no downside to it, whereas expecting an entire restaurant to have no foods with any common allergens is much less feasible and affects how they're able to conduct business much more significantly.

Also, if you're talking about Chinese food restaurants in particular, there are plenty of other types of restaurants available which may not have that problem, which can serve as alternatives, whereas there is no suitable substitution for airline travel (unless you want to get shot out of a cannon, I guess).

If the scent of peanuts or oil alone is enough to trigger a serious life-threatening reaction and not just breathing problems, then about the most I'm willing to tolerate is big signs everywhere saying "Peanuts present." If we open the door to "peanut optional premise on request" by making it apply to airlines, it's a very short jump to restaurants and other places. People frequent those places far more than airlines, after all. That will definitely have a trickle down effect that will be both detrimental business and infuriating to everyone else who likes peanuts and has no say in the matter.

There need not be a "trickle down effect" because they are not the same type of business; slippery slope logic need not apply. An airplane is a method of transportation that many people rely on fairly regularly; it would be a serious detriment to their life to be unable to ever board a plane safely.

Seriously, if I'm a businessman and have a medical condition that's fucking up my career because I can never board airplanes safely, because of something as silly and trivial as serving peanuts, something's wrong. The fact that peanuts are so nonessential (and in fact, barely consequential at all) to an airline's ability to serve its customers is important here. It would be quite easy and probably just about costless for airlines to switch over to food that doesn't contain such a common allergen, which is probably why they're actually doing it.

[nenjin]

Seriously, if I'm a businessman and have a medical condition that's fucking up my career because I can never board airplanes safely, because of something as silly and trivial as serving peanuts, something's wrong. The fact that peanuts are so nonessential (and in fact, barely consequential at all) to an airline's ability to serve its customers is important here. It would be quite easy and probably just about costless for airlines to switch over to food that doesn't contain such a common allergen, which is probably why they're actually doing it.

Again, I honestly could care less about the peanuts. It's another P I'm concerned about. Precedence.

There need not be a "trickle down effect" because they are not the same type of business; slippery slope logic need not apply. An airplane is a method of transportation that many people rely on fairly regularly; it would be a serious detriment to their life to be unable to ever board a plane safely.

You were just arguing that the scent of peanut oil alone can trigger an attack. In lawsuit happy America, I definitely worry about the slippery slope even when solid logic tells me I shouldn't. Because we're just that damn.....American.

[Helmaroc]

Is this argument really happening? I like peanuts, but I'm not some sort of peanut-eating maniac that would be severely affected by not have them on a flight. If the object in question was something that would have any effect to the majority of passengers on the plane if banned, say a certain common laundry detergent, or maybe the most commonly ordered drink (iced tea? I don't know what is served on airplanes), something that the majority of passengers would really want on their flights, I would understand controversy. But gosh, they're peanuts!

Kind of ninja'd by nenjin.