曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
Medical data relied upon by the aviation industry concerning the effects of chemicals is limited as long term effects are denied based upon their own admission that disease/tissue pathology, although inaccessible in this case, is the only accepted identifier of long term effects.
27 ‘NJS Bae 146 Oil Fumes in Summary – 17 November 1998, Memorandum signed ‘Barry Lodge, GGM, Aircraft Safety & Regulation, supplementary material lodged with report.
28 Letter dated 2 June 2000 from Paul Lidbury, General Manager, E & M Business Planning, QANTAS, supplementary material lodged with report.
There are a number of medical Professors in Australia who accept that repeated low dose exposure to certain chemicals can lead to numerous long term symptoms, chronic fatigue and chemical sensitivity, even though the etiology of the later 2 are to date unknown. …29
4.32 The AFAP also called into question the credibility of the “independent panel’s” statement to Ansett dealing with fumes on board the airlines’ BAe 146 aircraft. As stated by the AFAP:
Much of the testing is irrelevant, unsuitable and uses very selective information and often misinterpreted by Ansett and it's selected external panel, which is now claimed to be an "Independent expert panel". The six member Panel is most certainly not independent as it is made up of 2 Workcover consultant Doctors, as well as the principal medical Officer and senior Industrial Hygienist of Workcover Queensland and one other with very definite pre-existing conclusions on a number of health matters involved.30
4.33 The Flight Attendants Association of Australia was of the view that “… testing of cabin air quality parameters by Ansett has been inadequate or inconclusive”.31
4.34 According to the Association, it:
… then, as now, questions the pertinence of such tests carried out on a limited number of flights with little or no fume occurrences. That is, the tests were done on “normal” flights, not on flights with air quality, fume or odour problems.
At no stage has Ansett ever tested or sampled the air on an aircraft with a significant seal failure. 32
4.35 The FAAA submitted that the sampling kits used by Ansett on the BAe 146 aircraft;
…. worked on rare occasions due to the seal required on the vacuum contained within being hard to maintain in a non-laboratory situation … The failure rate of the kits was so high that with hundreds of attempted samplings, only 57 successful samples could be analysed.33
29 Submission 14A, AFAP, p 7
30 Submission 14A, AFAP, p 10
31 Submission 24, FAAA, p 1
32 Submission 24, FAAA, p 1
33 Submission 24, FAAA, pp 5-6
4.36 Dr Chris Winder was critical of the studies and tests conducted in relation to fumes on board the BAe 146 aircraft and the effect of exposure to these fumes on aircrew. In Dr Winder’s view it is difficult to extract useful information from these studies and that the methodological considerations indicated that many of the studies were flawed. For example, according to the Dr Winder:
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(57)
