Nuts on board - a serious issue!

[drron]

Actually the prosecution would have failed because it would be difficult to prove opening the bag of nuts caused the reaction.
The same author that Princess Fiona quoted studied children who reported severe reactions with inhalation of peanut protein and in a blinded study could not get any to have a severe reaction ie anaphylaxis,which this girl had.They did get minor reactions such as skin rashes.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Wonder if the parents asked the airports at either end to be made nut free within a four row distance between their vehicle and their seats?

 

[Deleted member 29185]

The police were doing what police hopefully always do, investigate to find the truth

You seem incapable of answering a direct question:- Why did the police take the man away for questioning?

You speak of wondering about motives........I agree totally. What's yours? My answer may not be one you were seeking, but it's the one I gave. Take it or leave it(I don't care which).

 

[Deleted member 29185]

For example it is absurd and borders on the despicable to suggest the man was targeted for his race/complexion rather than his actions. Or do you have evidence of the former?

Now listen sport, I can't hold your hand forever but I'll help you out just one more time. Try asking the question of the person who made the statement. I have not suggested any such thing and as such, I'm not entirely sure why you'd think that I'm the holder of all evidence. Brainy I am, handsome I am, likeable I am, but I'm sorry, I'm not the World Book Encyclopedia!

Try climbing down off your hobby horse for a bit and go back and read my posts and you might just learn I have not reached a conclusion either way.

 

[medhead]

The paper I posted also said that the patients with inhalational exposure reported at least 25 passengers on the aircraft eating peanuts at the time.

So extremely unlikely for one bag of nuts then? Perhaps the recirculated air on an aircraft could have an effect. But likely if the whole plane was munching down. Meaning appropriate risk management would be to prevent having 25 passenger munching their nuts. Overall Nullifying the calls to ban the girl from flying once the restrictions were put in place

Which gets us to the nut eater. Aside from the poor judgement, his situation is very similar to protecting people from radiation. A precautionary approach is adopted to a risk that might happen but for which there is no observed effect and the published risk is very very low. But still does has to be kept as low as reasonably achievable and people have been prosecuted for not doing so. This guy was in a situation where they wanted to keep the nut exposure as low as reasonably possible. He ignored that precautionary approach, for whatever reason.

 

[drron]

I will now ask my question.
There is a more obvious defence that the Zimbabwean man would have.It is spelled out in the articles about the incident.
what is it?

 

[medhead]

Actually the prosecution would have failed because it would be difficult to prove opening the bag of nuts caused the reaction.
The same author that Princess Fiona quoted studied children who reported severe reactions with inhalation of peanut protein and in a blinded study could not get any to have a severe reaction ie anaphylaxis,which this girl had.They did get minor reactions such as skin rashes.

This girl had a skin reaction as well. 2 sources of exposure?

 

[Pushka]

Multiple allergies. Might not have been the nuts?

 

[drron]

The mother is quoted in the articles as saying the FAs told passengers that nuts bought at the airport could not be eaten.
The girl obviously walked through the airport.
How many people there were eating nuts as thet had not been warned.
A reasonable chance that could have been the exposure that brought on the reaction.
All a defence has to prove is a reasonable doubt.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

There is a more obvious defence that the Zimbabwean man would have.It is spelled out in the articles about the incident.

You mean the nut bandit may be innocent? Holy cow, what a waste of a perfectly good hangman's noose!

 

[drron]

Multiple allergies. Might not have been the nuts?

Yes this is another possibility.
We don't have enough evidence to be sure.The gold standard for diagnosing a food allergy is a challenge test.My granddaughter went through this and did have an anaphylactic reaction.At the time on the coast this was done in a room attached to the ICU.For obvious reasons.
However she has successfully undergone desensitisation therapy which was exposing her to small doses of peanut allergens and gradually increasing the dose.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The mother is quoted in the articles as saying the FAs told passengers that nuts bought at the airport could not be eaten.
The girl obviously walked through the airport.
How many people there were eating nuts as thet had not been warned.
A reasonable chance that could have been the exposure that brought on the reaction.
All a defence has to prove is a reasonable doubt.

True, but could still leave the nut eater subject to aviation laws regarding disobeying crew member instructions. This was likely a lawful instruction given the allergy sufferer in close proximity.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

This thread has been infected with your bog standard internet troll - it's starting to look like a turd that won't flush

Well perhaps......I just hope it's not me!

 

[amaroo]

Well perhaps......I just hope it's not me!

Of course not.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[drron]

True, but could still leave the nut eater subject to aviation laws regarding disobeying crew member instructions. This was likely a lawful instruction given the allergy sufferer in close proximity.

No disagreement there.But then why did the police not charge him with this offence?
And I don't know the answer.But it does suggest this whole episode is not as clear cut as it first seemed.

 

[SeatBackForward]

The mother is quoted in the articles as saying the FAs told passengers that nuts bought at the airport could not be eaten.
The girl obviously walked through the airport.
How many people there were eating nuts as thet had not been warned.
A reasonable chance that could have been the exposure that brought on the reaction.
All a defence has to prove is a reasonable doubt.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[JohnK]

Well perhaps......I just hope it's not me!

You're safe. He was referring to me....

 

[amaroo]

You're safe. He was referring to me....

Wrong!!!!!!

 

[medhead]

No disagreement there.But then why did the police not charge him with this offence?
And I don't know the answer.But it does suggest this whole episode is not as clear cut as it first seemed.

Lack of lasting/significant harm.

Wrong!!!!!!

Clearly you were referring to me. I'd report your post if I could be bothered to go back and find it. Insulting another member by calling them a troll is pretty disgusting.

Clearly you believe that the man was a clever chap for opening himself up to the accusation, regardless of whether the effect was caused by him? Would love to know you thoughts about preventing 25 or more passenger eating nuts, a situation that has resulted in a reaction according to the link papers.

 

[boomy]

I think this thread had run it's course.