House of Lords air travel report

Air travel and health: House of Lords report

Comment on the report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee

The Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords has published a report (November 2000) of their inquiry into the effect on health of air travel. The Committee took evidence from interested parties, and on page 34 of the report considers material submitted by OPIN, the British Airline Pilots Association, an individual pilot - who so far wishes to remain anonymous - and the International Association of Flight Attendants. All these were expressing concern about the risk of exposure to tri-ortho-cresyl phosphate (TOCP/TCP). Tri-ortho-cresyl phosphate, known to be highly toxic, is one form of the group of OPs, tri-cresyl phosphates. The most significant adverse effect of exposure to TOCP is OP-induced delayed neuropathy (OPIDN): this can lead to chronic pain and serious paralysis of limbs, and lung and bowel disorders.

It is interesting to note the difference between the response to the same scientific information as seen in the House of Lords Committee, and that of the Australian Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report on "Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality", October 2000.

The House of Lords report devotes just one page to the subject of TOCP contamination, and only the two final paragraphs - 4.40 and 4.41 - make any reference to the potential effects on aircrew or passengers, and that in a totally dismissive manner. The Australian report is referred to in these terms:

This question - including the potential effects on aircrew from any long-term exposure - has been looked at in much greater detail by a Committee of the Australian Senate inquiring into particular allegations of such contamination in the BAe 146. Although its report referred extensively to cabin air quality and chemical contamination in the aircraft , and recommended that the engine lubricating oil used (a Mobil product ) be subjected to a further hazardous chemical review, it made no specific points about TCP or TOCP that have given us additional concerns.

This raises several points:

In several contributions from Professor Winder et al in the Australian report are references to the symptoms of ill-health experienced after one-off or short-term exposures causing ill health.
There are long sections of this report relating the direct affects of TOCP/TCP.
There have been no attempts made in the UK to consider the several cases of allegations of ill-health made by British aircrew.
How would the levels of TOCP found in cabin air be assessed in British aircraft, as there is no equipment installed in UK aircraft capable of detecting any levels of TOCP?
Oil does not leak into the air supply of aircraft. Fumes from the lubricating oil can leak in cases where there has been a sealant leak in the engine, and they can be drawn into the air circulated in the cabin as all this air has to pass through the engines in order to be warmed and pressurised.

In contrast the Australian report devoted five chapters to this problem, and a long chapter of conclusions and recommendations, as well as six appendices.

In paragraph 4.35 of the House of Lords report they quote Dr Virginia Murray of the National Poisons Information Service (NPIS) as saying that her examination of the NPIS records and a literature search revealed no cases or enquiries about TOCP in relation to aircraft. It may be that the concerns of BALPA and AFA have not reached the NPIS in London because NPIS is not recognised as a relevant body to whom such information should be passed. (See Dr Murray&#s similar comments about the dearth of reports to NPISC on insecticide related illness).

The final paragraph of the section on TCP/TOCP says:

The absence of confirmed cases of TOCP poisoning from cabin air and the very low levels of TOCP that would be found in even the highly unlikely worst case of contamination from oil leaking into the air supply lead us to conclude that the concerns about significant risk to the health of airline passengers and crew are not substantiated.

Again we see the truth of the saying "absence of evidence does not constitute absence of risk". The fact that there are many legal cases being pursued in the USA, Australia, Canada and France, to mention just a few, would surely indicate that these concerns are real, and the recommendations of the Australian Senate report constitute a high level of care for the passengers and crew of their airlines, whilst the House of Lords report betrays a high-handed disregard for the evidence detailed by the Australian Senate, and by BALPA and the AFA which betrays, yet again, the British disregard of the precautionary principle in relation to the health and safety of the public and professional staff. In our opinion this section of this report is to be deplored, and those responsible for compiling it must be rigorously questioned.