No Apples please: allergies and the (almost) adult

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On September 23, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Meera of Tarth said:

It wouldn't be the airline, but the flight attendants from one plane of that airline in one particular flight because of an extremely unusual situation: not a common nut allergy, as it was the premise I was talking about.

The vast majority of allergic people can fly normally with people eating nuts around them.

And if I didn't have an allergy but was asked not to do that, I would follow their instructions, because they are the experts on that matter and I'm sure that if they said that would be not only for an act of solidarity but, also for safety reasons (nobody wants to see someone having an anaphylactic shock on your plane).

You have not contradicted at all.

Clearing quote

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

And those who don't know Aemon is an MD.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

7 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Read Aemon's post.  Anaphylaxis is not caused by airborne allergens.  Mild histamine reactions, e.g. hay fever or pollen allergies, often are but those are not life threatening.  People are clutching their pearls about the proximity of nuts on airplanes but you need physical contact with the allergen for anaphylaxis, and usually you need ingestion of the allergen.  Accidental ingestion can occur from trace physical contact by the hands.  The danger is not from the guy 20 feet from you right now, it's from the person who sat in the seat before you.  So just wipe your seat area and especially wipe your hands immediately before you eat. 

If we were to ban nuts from all flights just to be safe from an imagined/hysterical threat, doesn't that mean we should ban all possible allergens from all flights just to be similarly safe?  What makes nut allergies so privileged?  Is that a white male kind of allergy?  I can just imagine the intersectionality protests.  Once you realize how varied are allergy sensitivities, you realize that you cannot try to ban them all.  So it's up to the allergy sufferer to protect themselves, especially since all it requires is basic hygiene. 

 

Maybe I should be clearer in my question.   I am not an allergy suffer nor am I responsible for one. nor do I have any medical experiance, so I'm not clear on the technical terms.   I never claimed or suggested that nuts could be airborne  (unless you throw them in the air)

I know hey fever suffers don't have the same reaction as nut allergy sufferers do.  they don't die from it.  they just seem to have the equivalent of a nasty cold.  however I was under the impression that Hey fever is an allergy.   (not a serious life threatening one) and its cause by pollen that is airborne.

So Is hay fever and allergy?    and if not what is it?      

 

I get this has nothing to do with nuts on a plane.

[Raja]

24 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

If we were to ban nuts from all flights 

I said this in one of my earlier posts, but re: banning nut based products on flights. There would be a danger with possibly eating one of those products if you've got young children on board said flights ( on the floor, parents not paying attention for a fraction of a second, passenger beside them offers it to said children). Adults, possibly not ( as they probably know better. Probably), but I can see it being a bit of a risk with children. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

18 minutes ago, Raja said:

I said this in one of my earlier posts, but re: banning nut based products on flights. There would be a danger with possibly eating one of those products if you've got young children on board said flights ( on the floor, parents not paying attention for a fraction of a second, passenger beside them offers it to said children). Adults, possibly not ( as they probably know better. Probably), but I can see it being a bit of a risk with children. 

What part of life is 0 risk and allows parents to ignore their young children? 

[Iskaral Pust]

14 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

So Is hay fever and allergy?    and if not what is it?      

Anaphylaxis is a very severe and very small subset of allergic reactions.  Airborne pollens are not one of the triggers.  Triggers are usually food, some medicines, insect stings or latex.  The first two involve ingestion, the third involves penetration of the skin, the fourth is just from skin contact (but it's the rarest to be full anaphylaxis).  

Most allergies just cause a mild histamine reaction.  That's not anaphylaxis and does not merit banning of allergens. 

If you're curious, just google it.  It's all about the severity of the body's reaction to the allergen, which is linked to the type of perceived threat posed to the body. 

[Theda Baratheon]

To be honest, I have never claimed to be an expert on allergies or claimed to know exactly what an airline or cafeteria or university should do. All I said was that I don't personally find it a big sacrifice to not eat a certain type of food for awhile if that might, in some possible way, ensure the safety of someone else Honestly one of the biggest blown out of proportion crap I've seen...and in a thread about freakin apple allergies. To be honest I still wouldn't eat a nut product/certain type of food product if someone in close proximity asked me not to due to their health. I'd go far away and eat it, or go and eat something else. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

On 9/23/2016 at 2:12 PM, DireWolfSpirit said:

I keep dreading a day when we can no longer go skiing because once a year or so some p.o.s. manages to extricate (midair) themselves from a ski lift that 100 million (men, women and children) other skiiers negotiate the use of just fine. I think at the heart of this debate is the question of should every bar in life be made sufficiently gentle enough that society can only engage in activities that are 100% safeproof to all comers? Or should we be flexible enough to recognize that some people can safely manage things like walking through a cafeteria while a small minority of people may get ill at the sight of food. We have handicapped rules for equal access, at the same time the handicapped or allergy suffering person needs to exercise the responsibility to not engage in activities that they cant safely accomplish.

We can give equal access to areas and activities, but we shouldnt limit others abilities to enjoy or participate in things like labs, cafetarias or ski lifts because not everyone can manage those experiences safely. It should be imcumbent upon said individuals to not harm themselves by not doing activities that will make them ill. Theres a guy on TV eating glass, I think that would make me quite sick, so I dont eat glass. Cranberry juice causes my throat to swell, therefore I leave it alone in the fridge, my son loves the stuff. I dont insist that he goes without it because of my inability to enjoy it.

Bottom line for me is accomodate all but dont restrict anyone either. Its not my sons fault cranberry juice makes me ill just as its not my fault some people cannot manage to ride a ski lift. To me, ideally a individual would be responsible to manage their own limitations without insisting the whole herd stop a activity or abandon a space. Of course that doesnt mean I always get my way either.

Ski lifts won't be banned.  I operate one in the winter.  Amd mid-lift falls are much more common than one in 100million.  A 13 year old boy fell off my lift last year from about 25 feet up.  The lifts are designed in such a way as to minimize liability, are state inspected, and the mountain carries a hefty insurance policy.  The machine is designed so that if you get hurt on it, it's your own fault*.  

The sky isn't falling and no one is coming gunning to take our ski lifts and peanuts.  

[Swordfish]

On 9/24/2016 at 1:18 PM, Iskaral Pust said:

Anaphylaxis is a very severe and very small subset of allergic reactions.  Airborne pollens are not one of the triggers.  Triggers are usually food, some medicines, insect stings or latex.  The first two involve ingestion, the third involves penetration of the skin, the fourth is just from skin contact (but it's the rarest to be full anaphylaxis).  

I did not know this...  THanks!

[Whitestripe]

My daughter is allergic to amoxicillin. The first time she had the drug (at about 13 months) she broke out in hives all over her body. Needless to say, she has a big red sticker on her chart at the pediatrician. I don't worry about it all that much because I figure that the only way she's going to get the drug is at a doctor and at her age, I will be there when it's prescribed. The few times we've left her with her grandparents for any length of time, we've reminded them, just in case she falls ill while we are not there. That said, I'd never make a big deal of it in any other situation. 

[Theda Baratheon]

I had an allergic reaction (never found out what to, LMAO) when I was 5 and had to be hospitalized for almost a week and my face totally blew up and scared the shit outta my parents so not sure if that's proper analphylactic shock because it never happened to me again and I was 5 and don't really remember that much but it wasn't fun 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

One thing that has troubled me this entire discussion; if nuts, peanut butter, and products that contain such are so dangerous that they need to be banned from schools and planes why are they not banned from other places where people with such allergies will be moving about in public?  If minute particles of Nuts floating through the air can cause deadly reactions why can stores still sell them outside of specially locked rooms with giant warning signs?

Aren't you much more likely to encounter airborne nut particles in a grocery store that sells peanut butter and other nut products by the paletful, where the products are dropped, broken, and crushed as they are unloaded or parents shop with their kids (who tear into bags and scatter things on the floor), than you are in a school or on a plane?

Why are these products safe to sell outside of specially hermetically sealed areas to the general public in grocery stores but worthy of bans on planes and school campuses?  Why the different treatments of the same substances?

[Dr. Pepper]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

One thing that has troubled me this entire discussion; if nuts, peanut butter, and products that contain such are so dangerous that they need to be banned from schools and planes why are they not banned from other places where people with such allergies will be moving about in public?  If minute particles of Nuts floating through the air can cause deadly reactions why can stores still sell them outside of specially locked rooms with giant warning signs?

Aren't you much more likely to encounter airborne nut particles in a grocery store that sells peanut butter and other nut products by the paletful, where the products are dropped, broken, and crushed as they are unloaded or parents shop with their kids (who tear into bags and scatter things on the floor), than you are in a school or on a plane?

Why are these products safe to sell outside of specially hermetically sealed areas to the general public in grocery stores but worthy of bans on planes and school campuses?  Why the different treatments of the same substances?

The school campus ban makes sense, at least where it concerns daycares and elementary schools.  You just can't monitor large groups of young kids enough to make sure that every surface is constantly clean, that every student doesn't share their food, that every child cleans their hands before putting them in their mouth, etc.  The bans also tend to matter most in poorer schools, especially those in predominantly African American neighborhoods as poorer schools tend to have fewer resources for monitors and hygiene needs and black children disproportionately suffer higher rates of nut allergies than any other racial groups.  I may be speaking anecdotally here because I can't immediately recall a statistic, but in my experience poor black schools tend to be less likely to have certain food bans.  So there is probably also a race and class component to how these things tend to work out. 

The airplane ban is stupid because there is study after study that says that nut particles won't fly through the air and cause a reaction, certainly not from a couple rows back.  Good hygiene and asking nearby seat mates to either move or refrain from nut or nut trace eating is how to keep safe. It's probably a bit of 'inmates running the assylum" like DirewolfSpirit mentioned.  Google supports the "nut particles in the air on an airplane" story because a couple of parents went to the media about it and those media sources failed to include the actual research so people google and see that and think it's true and it just keeps getting passed along.  Like vaccines causing autism.  It's stupid and it's dangerous because it encourages people to ignore the ways in which they can come into contact with their allergen and experience anaphylaxis on an airplane.  

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The school campus ban makes sense, at least where it concerns daycares and elementary schools.  You just can't monitor large groups of young kids enough to make sure that every surface is constantly clean, that every student doesn't share their food, that every child cleans their hands before putting them in their mouth, etc.  The bans also tend to matter most in poorer schools, especially those in predominantly African American neighborhoods as poorer schools tend to have fewer resources for monitors and hygiene needs and black children disproportionately suffer higher rates of nut allergies than any other racial groups.  I may be speaking anecdotally here because I can't immediately recall a statistic, but in my experience poor black schools tend to be less likely to have certain food bans.  So there is probably also a race and class component to how these things tend to work out. 

The airplane ban is stupid because there is study after study that says that nut particles won't fly through the air and cause a reaction, certainly not from a couple rows back.  Good hygiene and asking nearby seat mates to either move or refrain from nut or nut trace eating is how to keep safe. It's probably a bit of 'inmates running the assylum" like DirewolfSpirit mentioned.  Google supports the "nut particles in the air on an airplane" story because a couple of parents went to the media about it and those media sources failed to include the actual research so people google and see that and think it's true and it just keeps getting passed along.  Like vaccines causing autism.  It's stupid and it's dangerous because it encourages people to ignore the ways in which they can come into contact with their allergen and experience anaphylaxis on an airplane.  

 

I do see what you are saying.  That said given the level of fear pushing these school and plane bans I'm a tad surpised the "no-nut" parents haven't gone after grocery stores given the hyperbole they emply in justifying the other bans.  It just seems inconsistent to me.

[Dr. Pepper]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do see what you are saying.  That said given the level of fear pushing these school and plane bans I'm a tad surpised the "no-nut" parents haven't gone after grocery stores given the hyperbole they emply in justifying the other bans.  It just seems inconsistent to me.

Well the school one is understandable and probably necessary so we'll move on from that.  The airplane one is based entirely on ignorance and fear and probably some lawyer-y intervention.  There's something that just seems kinda sorta believable about nut particles floating through the environmental system on an airplane if you squint really hard and don't think about it much.  Plus, it's a scary confined space 35k feet above the ground with every health concern being or seeming amplified due to location.  I mean damn, I have a constant illogical fear that I'm going to crash and die in a plane even though I know I have a better chance of contracting the bubonic plague in the lavatory than experiencing any sort of air related crash or injury.  

Grocery stores don't have that same issue.  It's not a confined space, you aren't far from medical care, etc so those illogical fears people have on planes just don't exist.  Furthermore, I presume there would be some pretty serious economic concerns if anyone attempted a grocery store ban.  I can't imagine the nut industry would take that lying down.  

I have no idea the reasons why peanuts or tree nuts receive all of the ire and bans and other food allergens don't.  Schools that have attempted to ban things like eggs or dairy have received significant amounts of mockery and rage.