Was the air inside an airplane cleaner in the days when smoking was allowed?

The answer is a big, fat YES!

This is a story in the national post:

news.nationalpost.com...

His report, obtained by The Sunday Telegraph, is the first official UK recognition of so-called “aerotoxic syndrome”, a phenomenon long denied by airlines but which is blamed by some for the deaths of at least two pilots and numerous other incidents where pilots have passed out in flight. Co-pilots can normally take over, but campaigners claim the syndrome is a suspected cause of some mid-air disasters.

But what is the cause of "aerotoxic syndrome"?

www.readersdigest.ca...

This wasn’t always the case. Until the 1970s, aircraft cabins were well ventilated with fresh air drawn through the engine intakes and pumped into the cabins. Then major airlines decided to cut back on ventilation with fresh air as a way of reducing fuel costs. Ironically, the move to banish smoking from the skies contributed to the problem by reducing the need to refresh cabin air more frequently. As a result, colourless and often odourless VOCs are left to linger in aircraft cabins. The VOCs emanate from people, cosmetics, perfumes, food, plastics, polymers, solvents, fuels, lubricants (especially hydraulic fluids), exhaust gases taken aboard during ground operations, cleaning products, and other compounds. Read more at www.readersdigest.ca...

In the days when smoking was allowed on an airplane, it was generally recognized that by the airlines that, for the comfort of the passengers and crew, it would be necessary to vent the cabin and bring in fresh air from the outside.

But once smoking was banned on airlines, the decision was made to stop venting the cabin and to recycle the air from the engines

Commercial passenger planes have a system which compresses air from the engines and uses it to pressurise the cabin. But it can malfunction, with excess oil particles entering the air supply.

So while anti-smokers and non-smokers were enjoying their "fresh, clean" smoke-free, they were actually being poisoned.

Now I think this story is extremely important because, guess what? The same thing happened in buildings! Like pubs, bars and restaurants. Now these building are not freshened with recycled air from the engines so there is no risk of the same thing happening in a building. Except that some buildings have mould and fungus problems. And some restaurants burn candles and have wood burning stoves. And people wear perfume when they go out and cooking fumes accumulate and people fart and have body odour and carpets emit VOC's and formaldehyde is emitted from the wood.

And all of these things are accumulating in your "fresh, clean" air because buildings are saving money by not ventilating as much as they had to when smokers were present!

This is one of those little unintended consequences when some people decide that they know what is best for everyone else!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Interesting. Reminds me of a article I just read about vaping and
how propylene glycol (PG) can kill viruses and bacteria.

Bob Bowden, Florida contributor to e-cigarette-forum.com, raises the question whether e-cigarettes, apart from avoiding smoking and future lung cancer risk, actually confers immediate short term positive benefits, by reducing the risk of its users inhaling live viruses and bacteria from room air. This is mind-blowing enough, but could its possible benefits also protect others close by? Is the e-cigarette more than a tool for reducing harm? Is it also potentially a talisman to ward off infection?

That propylene glycol (PG) may protect users of the e-cigarette from airborne bacterial and viruses dates back to World War II. ‘Air Germicide’, a story in Time magazine Nov 16, 1942, reported the research of Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson at Chicago's BillingsHospital. He showed that half a part per million of PG in air could kill bacteria and viruses in that air within seconds. He found PG could protect mice from influenza virus, and that monkeys could well tolerate living in air containing PG. On the face of it, e-cigarette users might indeed be better off.


Source:
E-CIGARETTE USE - COULD IT PROTECT US ALL FROM THE NEXT PANDEMIC?
Murray Laugesen - Public health physician www.healthnz.co.nz

I used to work as a cleaner and we'd have what we'd call "sick" buildings. These were buildings you'd go into and just feel not right. After having to clean the vents of these places, I could see why. They were clogged with this black gunk that was probably dust mixed with mold or something. It was gross. They don't even change the air filters in these places as often as they should. As for the smoking on the planes, it's ironic that they put a stop to smoking on airlines for the public health and then cause a whole other health problem ( in a round about way) by doing so.

a reply to: wasaka

Very interesting!

a reply to: Skid Mark

what I found ironic and absolutely hilarious is all the celebrating that the non-smokers are doing with their "fresh clean" air now that smokers have been banished.

HA HA

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Skid Mark

Tobacco smoke is also used to kill mites (it has currently been recommended to kill the verros mite in bees) and other household pests.

In fact, tobacco had many medical used in history

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Even in the twentieth century, the therapeutic use of tobacco did not completely lapse. For example, in 1924, a salve made of burned tobacco leaves mixed with lanolin was said to be dessicant, stimulant and antiseptic for pruritus, ringworm, athlete's foot, superficial ulcers and wounds (it was also said to be good as a metal polish).17 Moreover, its disinfectant properties continued to generate debate. We have seen how, in the New World discovered by Columbus, tobacco smoke was used to ward off disease, and the sixteenth century doctors applied the leaves or a tobacco ointment or poultice to infected wounds. During the London plague of 1665 children were instructed to smoke in their schoolrooms;28 and in 1882, in a Bolton outbreak of smallpox, tobacco was actually issued to all the residents of a workhouse.29 However, claims for such protective effects did not go indisputed. For example, in 1889 an anonymous article in the British Medical Journal,30 whilst acknowledging the experimental evidence that the pyridine in smoke kills germs and the evidence that smokers appeared to be at lower risk of diphtheria and typhus, concluded that people who can tolerate tobacco are likely to be robust in other ways and thus able to resist infection; non-smokers, the article concluded, would be ill advised to take up smoking, which would make them more vulnerable. An anonymous article in The Lancet31 in 1913 discusses the ‘pyridin’ content of tobacco smoke and describes experiments showing that tobacco smoke destroys the comma bacillus of cholera; but again it warns that tobacco smoking can ‘give rise to constitutional effects which diminish the resisting power of the body to disease’. Later in the twentieth century, attention switched to diseases affecting the brain and nervous system. In 1926, Moll reported that, when thirteen patients with post-encephalitic parkinsonism were treated with subcutaneous injections of nicotine, nine showed immediate improvement in muscular movement.32 He concluded that, although the benefit was only temporary, ‘the immediate results were indisputable’. A kindred observation is that, in at least three case-control studies, the relative risk of Parkinson's disease was lower in smokers than in non-smokers, though other factors could be operating to produce this apparent effect.33 Case-control studies also suggest a possible inverse association between cigarette smoking, Alzheimer's disease34 and Tourette's syndrome,35 but the same reservations apply.

I can well understand all the increases of flue since smokers were banished outside. Not only does "pyridine in smoke kills germs and the evidence that smokers appeared to be at lower risk of diphtheria and typhus, concluded that people who can tolerate tobacco are likely to be robust in other ways and thus able to resist infection; " but the 'stickness" in tobacco smoke also traps viruses and air-born bacteria.

Don't dust mites also trigger asthma? Its no wonder that the incidence of asthma attacks keep increasing as exposure to tobacco smoke is decreasing!

Again - unintended consequences!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You do know that the answer to this problem is to just have the airlines put the air vents back in? It's not like they will let you smoke on an airplane again just because this new illness exists.

So you are pointing out a problem that will require more restrictions to fix. Allowing smoking won't even be part of the conversation.

We don't fix problems by reintroducing problems that we already fixed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes I do realize that Krazysh0t but I suggest that they are 40 years too late. How many cases of lung cancer do you suppose this cost?

As for air in building - regulate away! Its already regulated and obviously many buildings are non-compliant. When smokers were in the building, there was no question of turning off the ventilation (or even turning it down) and with smoke being good to kill mites and fungus, filters weren't black as they are now.

Enjoy!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I saw in an Army field manual that tobacco is used to get rid of worms. They said in it to eat a cigarette. I wouldn't actually do that unless it was additive free because some of the chemicals they put in it are nasty.
Also, my grandpa suffered from emphysema. He didn't smoke and never was around smokers. I think he got it from farm work. He had a dairy farm and also grew crops.
Here's another thing, my dad had breathing trouble. He smoked years before but quit. He was working at a factory at the time he was having breathing problems. Then he had to quit due to a medical issue related to his diabetes. His breathing improved a lot after he quit.
Something else that contributes to poor health is a vacuum cleaner. They suck dust up, yeah, but also blow it right back out the vents. If you put a cloth by the vents when you sweep you'll see dust collected on it. That stuff blows right in your face sometimes.
One thing people might invest in is an air cleaner that filters out pollutants with water. A company called Rainbow makes them. It's like a vacuum cleaner but instead of getting stuck in a bag, the dust gets stuck in the water and clean air comes out. The only drawback with that company is that you have to let them put on a "show" and also provide the names and addresses of 10 other people in order to get "discounts". You can't just buy one. And they're expensive. Really, I think doing business like that is a way of ripping people off but if I could get one of those machines without the hassle, I would. My sister in law's parents have a mini version and the air quality of their house is much better since they got it.

a reply to: Skid Mark

I personally use as IQ Air - it has hepa filtration, followed by an activated carbon/green sand filter to remove chemical contaminants.

I am not personally afraid of tobacco smoke. I use it out of consideration for the neighbours.

Watch the smoke chamber video

Tired of control Freaks

a reply to: Skid Mark

I am quite familiar with the Rainbow. I agree water is the best filter for dust. I have used it as an air cleaner as well. It was in a ceramics shop where the air was visibly contaminated with white particulate. Within 20 minutes, it had made a noticable difference.

The problem is the sound! Running a vacuum cleaner continuously is ridiculous

Tired of Control freaks

a reply to: Krazysh0t

BTW - what do you think will replace the mite killing properties of tobacco smoke as well as removing viruses and bacteria - chemicals and pesticides?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Congrats on finally finding something that kinda makes sense to defend tobacco smoking...

The solution isn't getting cigarettes back but none the less, you have a point.

a reply to: theMediator

oh but there is so much more to come!

Did you like the description of smokers in the historical document I provided. The part about where smokers get less diseases because they are "more robust" individuals than non-smokers?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The sound is annoying. I can't even stand having a fan. The constant noise they make drives me nuts.

a reply to: Skid Mark

Well the IQ Air is NOT noise free but it is considerably quieter. I tend to leave it on the low settings most of the time and far enough away from me that I can freely listen to tv and radio when I want to. But if ever the situation calls for it ie (i am dusting the apartment or a friend who smokes is visiting), I turn it on higher for a short amount of time

Its generally quite tolerable and the fact that no air escapes from it helps alot

Its expensive thought - its about $1500 in capital costs and the various filters cost about $350 / year.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks Watch the smoke chamber video

Do you mean this one?

a reply to: Skid Mark

yes - notice how the smoke has the time to kill mites, capture viruses and bacteria and yet remove smoke fast enough that it is not likely, under ordinary conditions to get to irritating levels.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I love the way he puts his nose close to the clean air exhaust and he doesn't even cough in the presence of the heaviest smoke.

Now, if I was an engineer, which I am not - I would have put the air intake at the top and the air exhaust at the bottom. Smoke is lighter than air and the machine would be more effective that way.

The entire area of the bottom is the air intake. The bottom is actually the hepa filters.

I suppose the solution would be for me to figure out some kind of open ended frame for it and affix it to a wall but I like wheeling it from room to room as I need to.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This would be an ideal filter (on a bigger scale) for an enclosed smoking area in a bar or restaurant

Tired of Control Freaks