Recent article in Nature:
‘The effects of long-term, low-level exposure to pollutants indoors needs to be better understood.’
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00287-8?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=212956406e-briefing-dy-20230308&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-212956406e-45933538

Yes, indeed they do; especially the health effects of highly toxic chemicals when used in complex mixtures. This certainly needs to be fully understood; but all of this should be established and completely understood before any chemical product is approved for use. Isn’t this what Government regulators and their ‘expert committees’ are supposed to do during the approval process?

The House of Lords made a similar observation in 2007 with regards to exposure to pollution (contaminated air) in aircraft and made several recommendations including this one - 
‘4.50.We recommend that the AHWG-sponsored research to identify the substances produced during a fume event be completed urgently. It should be followed up by an epidemiological study on pilots to ascertain the incidence and prevalence of ill health in air crew and any association there might be with exposure to the chemicals identified in the AHWG-sponsored study, paying particular attention to the synergistic effect of these chemicals.’
See page 34 -
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldsctech/7/7.pdf

These recommendations were not undertaken. The only research done was an air sampling study of 100 flights by Cranfield University where no Fume Events occurred, but which did reveal many of the harmful toxins which are present in aircraft cabins and cockpits air during ‘normal operations’.
It’s understood in science that the effects from chemicals can be cumulative with repeated or prolonged exposure, even at low levels which can cause harm to humans. 
The issue is that the U.K. Government and Civil Aviation Authority have not bothered to investigate the health effects from the combination of chemicals people are exposed to onboard aircraft. Some chemicals (and metals) can make other chemicals more toxic, particularly at high temperatures such as those reached within aircraft engines.
The Government continues to use data only for each chemical individually and at normal, ambient temperatures to claim the air onboard aircraft is safe. 

‘The prevailing view that chemicals are safe until proven otherwise is no longer valid and all manufacturers must be required to prove the safety of their products when used in conjunction with other chemicals.’
https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/chemically-induced-diseases-synergistic-effects-and-cumulative.html

https://www.ifm.org/news-insights/toxic-exposures-cumulative-effect/

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/si/490361/

https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/glossary/cumulative-effect

The other reason we know the effects can be cumulative with the organophosphate which is used in aircraft oil, is that the active ingredient in Tricresyl Phosphate is similar in chemical composition to that in the pesticide Parathion.
This U.K. Government document from 1951 explains further -
Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture Report of 1951 -
‘VI. DANGERS TO MAN — MODE OF ACTION
19. Three compounds in the organo-phosphorus group are of immediate importance, namely, parathion, TEPP and schradan. Parathion is representative of the group ; it can be absorbed through the skin and by inhalation and ingestion. Death can occur as a result of a single exposure ; but chronic toxicity is the main problem. Repeated absorption of parathion may result in cumulative poisoning. Parathion appears to inactivate the enzyme cholinesterase. This enzyme is intimately concerned in the transmission of impulses
between the nerves and muscles. When the cholinesterase level falls below 50 per cent of normal, symptoms are to be expected. Cholinesterase is present
at the motor nerve endings, and inactivation of the enzyme results in muscular twitchings and weakness that may develop into paralysis. Death may follow from paralysis of the respiratory muscles. That part of the nervous system which controls automatic body processes is also affected. Successive small
doses of parathion may progressively lower the cholinesterase level without
producing symptoms, but may render the individual increasingly susceptible to further doses. Owing to the slow restoration of cholinesterase to its normal level, this susceptibility will persist for a long time, maybe for some weeks.’
http://www.oprus2001.co.uk/zuck1951.htm

(Parathion was banned by the EU in 2001.) 

Unfortunately, the above document from 1951 was hidden away and apparently only surfaced in 2008:
https://timfarron.co.uk/en/article/2008/0105383/report-proves-that-government-knew-about-organophosphate-poisoning-in-advance

Sadly, that discovery was too late for many of the farmers in the UK who had been poisoned by sheep-dip and other agricultural organophosphate pesticide products/applications in the 1990’s and early 2000’s as their claims of injury against the U.K. Government had been successfully removed due to lack of evidence and for other reasons, despite many of them having had tests at Guy’s Hospital confirming OP poisoning. Although, many of their tests results mysteriously and conveniently ‘disappeared’.
The farmers were told by the U.K. Government that their injuries were ‘all in their mind’.

The same occurred with the Gulf War Veterans who were exposed to pesticides as well as low levels of the organophosphate nerve agent Sarin. They too were told by the U.K. Government that their injuries were psychologically induced:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-61398886

For air crew, the U.K. Government have chosen the term ‘nocebo effect’ or ‘nocebo response’ to dismiss the claims of injury from exposure to toxic chemicals in aircraft. 
In fact, the CAA have reinforced and re-emphasised this in more detail on their website:
https://www.caa.co.uk/passengers/before-you-fly/am-i-fit-to-fly/guidance-for-health-professionals/aircraft-fume-events/

‘Organophosphate (OP) toxicity is a clinical diagnosis. Confirmation of organophosphate poisoning is based on the measurement of cholinesterase activity; typically, these results are not readily available in a clinically relevant timeframe. Although red blood cell (RBC) and plasma (pseudo) cholinesterase (PChE) levels can both be used, RBC cholinesterase correlates better with central nervous system (CNS) acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and is, therefore, a more useful marker of organophosphate poisoning.
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/167726-workup#c6

A further explanation on organophosphate poisoning, updated in May 2022 is shown here:
https://www.statpearls.com/ArticleLibrary/viewarticle/26333

Apart from organophosphates, there are many other toxic chemicals used in the manufacture of products used in the operation of aircraft. In fact, over 300 different chemicals have been found in aircraft engine oil to date, which emerge as an aerosol or gas in the cockpit and/or cabin, commonly known as ‘fumes’. Sometimes there could be smoke present but most of the time the only indication of fumes being present is by the smell. These smells, as anyone who has worked onboard an aircraft will confirm are always there at very low levels and they come and go in higher intensity during flights. 
It used to be called ‘Eau de Boeing or Eau d’Airbus, depending on which aircraft you were working on and that distinct odour clung to our work gilets and waistcoats worn in-flight as well as our uniforms. It’s actually irrelevant which aircraft, because it produced the same smell. 
To think... we used to joke about it. 
A few of those chemicals which repeatedly show up in air crew toxicology tests results are shown here:
http://www.oprus2001.co.uk/benzenes.htm

There are no filtration systems onboard aircraft and no protection for passengers.
When fumes are detected by the only sensor onboard - the human nose, pilots use their ‘Eros’ mask which is a separate system that provides a continuous supply of oxygen. This enables them to stay coherent, alert and cognitively able to safely land an aircraft in the event of toxic fumes in the cockpit. 
Cabin crew have smoke hoods, which provide oxygen for around 20 minutes. These were put on aircraft initially for crew to use should they have to fight a fire. They are quite cumbersome and are impossible to reach let alone put on while seated during take off and landing. 
There is nothing onboard to protect passengers as the drop down oxygen masks will contain the same contamination during a fume event as it’s provided by the same system as the cabin air. 
Exhaust fumes from ground equipment and other aircraft entering cockpits and aircraft cabins while aircraft are on the ground is a regular occurrence and as the photo from a jet bridge at at Californian airport (above) shows, these contaminants are extremely harmful to human health too. 

We acknowledge that the U.K. Government does not care about the health or welfare of the British people as shown with the appalling treatment of the injured farmers and Gulf War veterans. This appalling treatment continues with air crew and airline passengers while the Government continues to protect both the chemical and aviation industries.
However, things are beginning to move on the subject of aircraft cabin air in the USA.
We can only hope this intervention by the politicians who do have some integrity and actually care about people in the USA will be the jolt needed for the U.K. Government and CAA to stop denying there is a problem and that they will start working with airlines and aircraft manufacturers to find a solution.
LA Times - 10th March 2023
 • ‘Toxic fumes on board airplanes? Airlines may finally have to do something about it’
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-03-10/heads-up-boeing-says-congressman-tackling-toxic-fumes-on-airplanes?fbclid=IwAR0JLcVMqk4PJo6Ro9WX7XLrWWtcnsAuhRplpNfETXfyF9Wou0Bk6GofJA8

For further information on Contaminated Air In Aircraft, Fume Events, Medical Protocol, Scientific Studies and much more, please visit  UNFILTERED -
 https://www.unfiltered.vip/

Please sign and share this petition. It is very important that more airline pilots, crew and passengers are made aware of the possible risks to both safety and their health.
 
Thank you.