To think they should just ban nuts on all flights

[Ijustwantaquietlife]

Just reading this and it's heartbreaking, seems like such a simple change to ban nuts on all flights to help protect people.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4809148/Former-ITV-producer-reveals-shocking-effect-nut-allergy.html

I've heard several people on mn saying they've been on flights where they were banned, seams to make sense as nut allergies are so widespread to just ban all together imo.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4809148/Former-ITV-producer-reveals-shocking-effect-nut-allergy.html

I'm not in the least fussed about eating nuts on board.
What I am fussed about is total over reaction based on media froth rather than evidence.

If incidents have not been reported to the crew they are by definition not serious.
Regardless of the cause.

Why should airlines be forced to enforce something that is of no proven benefit?

Correct Haggis, in fact nut allergies are unusual in that the severity of the effects increase with each exposure. Our consultants advised that is was only nut allergies and bee sting allergies that act this way. So the only time my son has had a reaction his eyes and lips swelled up and he developed a rash. This was how we found he had a nut allergy and it was treated with piriton. Next time he could die, that's how much they escalate.
I don't understand why the airlines still provide nuts tbh. It hardly sends the right message.

Although his allergy is severe I want him to have a normal life as possible but I don't expect people to change their behaviour generally - he can't have birthday cakes at parties due to the icing but I don't insist they have nut free cakes!
However on an airplane, with potentially hours from medical help, recycled air increasing the risk - why are people so desperate to eat nuts they can't wait until they land? They can't go without for a few hours so instead it's suggested my son can never fly in his life? We can't see friends/relatives who live abroad, never have a foreign holiday? I don't understand the mentality. I'm not saying strip search people in case of hidden almonds, just what's the harm of saying don't eat nuts for a few hours

www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/2017/07/25/singapore-airlines-is-reviewing-nut-policy-after-toddler-has-severe-allergic-reaction.html

His father, Chris Daley, told the Australian Broadcast Corporation that his son was given a special nut-free meal but became severely ill when people around him were eating their packages of nuts.
“He started vomiting, his eyes were starting to swell and he couldn't speak properly,” Daley said
Eyes swelling - exact same that happens to me. Couldn't speak properly? Sounds more than feasible as could easily swell up airways/tongue if suffering a stronger reaction.

So blatantly does happen. Will you only be happy and think about a ban after someone dies?

Why should airlines be forced to enforce something that is of no proven benefit?

No proven benefit to you in your privileged little bubble of being lucky enough to never having suffered from an allergy, clearly.
Long as it's all OK with you, screw everyone else. It's basic common decency, it's human life we're talking about here.

I don't understand why the airlines still provide nuts tbh. It hardly sends the right message.
Most do not.
Its not the packages of nuts with the G&T that will cause the problem.
I agree that they are past their sell by date.

Its the millions of budget airline passengers who bring their own food onto budget airlines that make any such ban utterly unenforceable.

And if it is not enforceable and there is no proven benefit
then why ?

No proven benefit? I think the five people who had to be given epinephrine in mid air, the one who had it on return to the gate and the two that required IV meds on return to the gate might disagree with you.

They would have then on landing been blue lighted to hospital to spend the first day or so (if they were lucky) under observation.

Out of 3k respondents that isn't a tiny amount.

Its the millions of budget airline passengers who bring their own food onto budget airlines that make any such ban utterly unenforceable.

As said many times on the thread already, of course it would be impossible to police all the food coming onto the plane in the form of packed lunches etc.
One unthinking person could easily bring on a packet of nuts, you're right.
The chance of that happening is a slim one, but there. An airline deliberately handing out packets of nuts with drinks - that's a risk that can easily be eliminated. The potential of hundreds of bags being opened an infinitely bigger risk.
Why would you do that knowing it could cause death in some?

And if it is not enforceable and there is no proven benefit
then why?
No proven benefit to who? You and all those saying we should be allowed your nuts in peace? It's a few hours out of your life without eating nuts. Have some crisps or something instead. You'll survive.
(you'''d survive unlike those sat behind you who don't get a say if you were to get your way.)

So when you ask for evidence all you get it anecdotes about how someone somewhere had a reaction. It would be such an easy experiment to do yet its never done, or has and hasn't produced any results.

I for one want to live in a world where 'bans' are only used when evidence has been produced. I do not get and will resist the argument that you must do something just because someone somewhere says they think its a good thing.

Did you see the study posted in full on the bottom of the last page?

trickster
If you mean the post at 18:41, you'll see that I've already quoted its conclusions, or rather lack thereof.

It would be such an easy experiment to do yet its never done, or has and hasn't produced any results.

Yes, it would. I'm assuming, as I'm no scientist/expert in whatever. Just because it's not easy to find links on "Dr Google" in any research, doesn't automatically mean it doesn't happen.
I'm me. I'm not an anecdote on the internet. (yes, to you I am,but whatever.) I know eyes can swell up in contact to airborne allergens, and the little toddler who reacted to the nuts on the plane in the news a few days ago that I linked to - happens to him too. Exact same as presents in me, but thankfully, touches wood etc, not gone to airways yet. It exists, but bury your head in the sand.
I'm usually one of the first to bang on with "PC gone mad" but in this case it really isn't.

4691
Allergies are real.
Airborne allergies are real
but the evidence for needing a "ban" to be enforced by overworked air crew is not there.
Airlines are incredibly good at reporting incidents of all sorts (far better than hospitals for instance).
If their databases of incidents supported a ban it would be in place by now.
But it isn't.

Airborne allergies are real

Not according to some posts on here.

well acording to some people the world is only 9000 years old and evolution and dinosaurs are not real, sadly not matter how many studies or information i give you cannot arugue with stupid.

(i linked a scenitific report about it but apprently they did not bother to read it).

worrid
I've seen no links on this thread that have been based on what air crew have had to deal with.
If you did post one, what time and I'll re read.
None of the other links have gone anywhere near justifying an enforced ban.

sadly not matter how many studies or information i give you cannot arugue with stupid.

You know what, you're right. You really can't. Earth is flat, Elvis is still alive and works in Tesco, Finland isn't really a country.
Will believe what they want despite how many facts and real life stories they hear.

None of the other links have gone anywhere near justifying an enforced ban.

Don't worry, someone might die soon. You might feel a bit happier then.
Arsehole.

4691
People die on planes regularly for medical reasons.
Statistically sadly likely.
That is why late pregnancy women are not allowed to fly : identified high risk.
That is why smoking was banned : identified high risk to crew and passengers.
But allergies have clearly never been identified as a risk - even though the AIDB/FAA data set is incredibly comprehensive
therefore no ban.

I believe in evidence based decision making.
THat does not warrant your insults.

I have seen no posts on this thread denying air borne allergens in general. This thread is specifically about 'nut dust'. No one is denying that nut allergies exist, or that any posters have actually had a reaction, yes even on an airplane. The query is whether or not 'nut dust' caused the reaction on airplanes. Its all just speculation. No one has posted a study to show this is even possible, whilst there is a lot of information to say this it is not possible.

I know eyes can swell up in contact to airborne allergens, and the little toddler who reacted to the nuts on the plane in the news a few days ago that I linked to

And the logical conclusion is that the toddler touched or ingested nuts. I looked at 'no nuts moms group' which documents hundreds of people who have died from nut allergies recently. Yet not a single one died from nut dust on an airplane. I wonder why that is?

FYI Google Scholar is very very good at searching factual academic studies.

OK, I have found a pretty rock solid data set : New England Journal of medicines.
11920 recorded medical emergencies
of which 265 were recorded as being due to "allergic reactions"
No deaths
www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1212052#t=articleResults
Table one has the data

No justification for a ban.

The toddler in question that I linked to in Dr Google was a real life happening.
I swell up and close too. (Thank God not airways yet.)
It just beggars belief there will be some so self absorbed that they'd happily open a bag of nuts knowing (or not caring) that it could cause their airways to shut down as "not enough studies have proved it either way."
Bollocks to that. Surely as a decent human being you'd just forgo a packet of nuts for a few hours.
Christ almighty, this thread shows why there is a serious need for a ban as there's a vocal minority who just couldn't give a toss.

And the logical conclusion is that the toddler touched or ingested nuts.
No. No, it really isn't! I react to stuff and I don't have to touch or ingest.
With all due respect you are spouting absolute shit and clearly know nothing about allergies.

Thanks Ta1kinPeece for that study.

Just wanted to emphasis that those 11,920 in-flight medical emergencies were out of 744 million airline passengers. And the 265 who had an allergic reaction (with no deaths) were for ALL allergic reactions not just nut allergies.

So where is the evidence for nut dust setting off reactions? There is just no data to support this.

4691
One toddler does not make a data set.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41017657

And why are you so fixated on airlines handing out packets of nuts when they are not the problem?

Yes. And as I asked above, were the five people given epinephrine at 30,000 feet, the 2 given IV medication at the gate and the 1 given epinephrine on the ground not enough for you?

It's not great, being administered epinephrine. I witnessed it in my 8 year old in the hospital last year. It was probably one of the worst moments of mine and her life and for those 5 people it happened on a plane. But that isn't enough evidence for you.