2.84 The Committee views this evidence from two medical professionals with some concern. The Committee notes these views reinforce the need for further research on this issue, as recommended by the Committee in Chapter 6.
80 Associate Professor C van Netten, Evidence, 14 March 2000, p 22
CHAPTER THREE
SYMPTOMS OF ILLNESS AND POSSIBLE SOURCES
3.1 The central issue in this inquiry is whether health effects result from exposure to oil fumes in aircraft cabin air. Current medical science and technology available for measuring and analysing the clinical effects of exposure to minute combinations of chemicals are both relatively new. The Committee received submissions from several medical and occupational health professionals supporting claims by flight crew that exposure to fumes on BAe 146 aircraft resulted in deterioration of their health.1
3.2 The Committee is also aware that the Industrial Court of New South Wales has acknowledged that exposure to fumes on a BAe 146 exacerbated a pre-existing illness suffered by former Ansett flight attendant Alysia Chew.
3.3 One medical professional, Dr Robert Loblay, gave evidence to the Committee arguing that there are no health effects as a result of exposure to fumes. Unfortunately, his evidence consisted largely of attacking the personal and professional integrity and status of other witnesses. Dr Loblay did not supply a written submission to the inquiry.
3.4 The majority of the professional witnesses to the inquiry highlighted an absence of clinical testing of flight crew and passengers immediately after their exposure to fumes. In the absence of equipment sensitive enough to detect all potential chemical components present in human tissue following a fume exposure incident, it appears difficult to measure the health consequences of fume exposure.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址:Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality in the BAe 146 Aircraft(32)