Flying in the Mist

[Guest guest]

Flying in the mist

The San Jose Mercury News

http://kefir.net/spray/flyinginthemist.htm

Published: Sunday, July 17, 1994

Section: Travel

Page: 1G

By LINDA BONVIE AND BILL BONVIE,

Special to the Mercury News

WHEN Terry Kram of Palo Alto boarded her United Airlines flight to New Zealand

last November, she was well aware that upon its arrival, the cabin of the plane

would be sprayed with pesticide.She had heard all about the experience of Julia

Kendall of San Rafael, who had suffered ill effects when her chemical

sensitivity was triggered by exposure to similar spraying on a flight to St.

Maarten a year earlier.But Kram, a professional landscaper who avoids pesticides

like the plague, thought she had taken all the steps necessary to avoid such an

ordeal. On what she claims was the advice of airline representatives, she had

gotten a letter from her doctor attesting to her adverse reaction to pesticides,

and had shown it to various personnel, both at the airport and on the plane

itself.

The last person to see the letter was a flight attendant who said there would be

" no problem " in Kram's being allowed to leave the plane before the spraying

began. " So I thought everything was just fine. "

It wasn't. Despite her precautions, Kram ended up being sprayed -- and having to

be treated at an Auckland hospital after becoming temporarily " incapacitated " as

a result.''I found out the door is only open long enough to let the sprayers on,

and they don't open it again until they've sprayed, " she says. A " totally

porous " blanket thrown over her by a flight attendant provided no protection.Not

everyone reacts as badly as Kram or Kendall to the pesticide spraying of airline

cabins required by a number of foreign countries -- most notably in Latin

America and the South Pacific -- to keep alien insects from entering as

stowaways. But even if you don't suffer such apparent ill effects, it's not

necessarily OK to expose yourself to the procedure, which is done with

ventilators closed, before passengers are allowed to deplane.At present, the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency permits only one product to be used by U.S.

carriers for " disinsection " purposes -- and its label warns that it

is " hazardous to humans " and not meant to be inhaled, to contact skin or eyes

or to be applied in an enclosed space that isn't ventilated before being

re-entered.That product, called Aerosol Aircraft Insecticide but also marketed

as Black Knight Roach Killer, contains the chemical d-phenothrin -- a substance

whose use on commercial airliners is being reconsidered by the EPA. The agency

has convened a task force to help in making an evaluation.The pesticide was

registered for airline application in 1979, around the same time the United

States halted its own disinsection of some occupied passenger planes after the

Centers for Disease Control found the practice to be neither safe nor effective.

Among the chemicals sprayed in planes before that time was DDT.Aware of the

contradictions between warnings on the product's label and its use in occupied

aircraft cabins, the EPA is faced with a dilemma. If it imposes an outright ban,

" U.S. airplanes won't be able to land in those countries "

that require the spraying, says Registration Division Director Steve

Johnson.Only one product

''The problem, " Johnson says, " is that there isn't any other product registered

(for use on U.S. airliners), " nor does the EPA know of a safer one. To revoke

the registration would not merely disrupt international air traffic, " it would

be stopped, " he says.

Were it not for that, Johnson's recommendation would be to halt the spraying

altogether. " And if we can't, then the best that I can do is say . . . 'Don't

get on the plane.' "

Not getting on the plane is what the airlines would prefer you do if you're

likely to react badly to being sprayed because of asthma, respiratory illness or

sensitivity to chemicals. If it's your doctor's opinion that you shouldn't be

exposed to spraying, then you " shouldn't fly on an airplane that's going to be

sprayed, " says United Airlines spokesman Joe Hopkins.

But which flights should you avoid? Trying to get an answer from airline

personnel can be a maddening experience -- some, in fact, will go so far as to

deny that the practice even exists. And even acknowledgments can be misleading.

Dispensing misinformation

American Airlines reservations agents, for instance, recently received a

memorandum stating that aircraft cabins were being sprayed before arrival at

certain destinations (including " all of Central and South America " ) with a spray

" approved " by both the EPA and World Health Organization " to eliminate insects

that could potentially be harmful to humans or local agricultural products. "

But the EPA doesn't approve pesticides; it merely registers them. And according

to one agent (who thought spraying " is something we've just begun doing " ),

customers are told only if they specifically ask.

Usually, it isn't until the plane reaches what's known as " top of descent " that

those aboard are informed that a " harmless " insecticide is about to be

dispensed. United Airlines, for instance, instructs its flight attendants to

" reassure passengers that the spray contains no chemicals that are harmful to

humans. "

In Julia Kendall's case, despite having informed reservations personnel of her

chemical sensitivity, she wasn't told anything before she saw a flight attendant

dispensing pesticide at passenger face level on her American Airlines flight

from Miami to St. Maarten in October 1992. By that time, Kendall, who heads an

environmental group in San Rafael, claims she was coughing and experiencing

shortness of breath, but was prevented from immediately leaving the plane when

it landed. Subsequent symptoms, she says, included a throbbing head, aching

joints, chills, swollen lymph glands and an elevated white blood cell count. She

filed an $8.5 million suit against the airline.

Spray blamed in death

Others have reported similar experiences. In fact, British author Mollie Gillen

has blamed the procedure for the death of her husband, Phil Murphy. " He died the

day we landed at Sydney, after having been refused permission to disembark

before the aircraft was sprayed with insecticide, " Gillen wrote in the

acknowledgments to her book, " Founders of Australia. "

Flight attendants have also reported being adversely affected, most notably

Diana Fairechild of Hawaii, whose book of travel tips, " Jet Smart, " describes

the " toxic shower " on flights to Australia and New Zealand, which she claims

were the cause of her having to be permanently grounded after 21 years of

flying. The repeated exposures, she says, caused her to develop conjunctivitis,

severe flu-like symptoms and loss of motor coordination.

Both Air New Zealand and the Australian airline Qantas no longer routinely spray

d-phenothrin in occupied cabins, having switched to another synthetic

pyrethroid, permethrin. However, this chemical, which is used in termite-

killing products, is applied at four times the concentration permitted in

aircraft by the EPA, which considers it a possible human carcinogen.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Federico Pena recently sent a message to

transportation ministers throughout the world asking that his department be

notified within 30 days " whether your nation requires the spraying of aircraft

while passengers and crew are on board " in order to provide advance warning to

the traveling public. Pena also urged those nations requiring spraying to

reconsider the practice.

Also writing to the transportation ministers was Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.,

chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who recalled the " very unpleasant

experience " of having himself been sprayed before landing in Australia. He has

also urged the EPA to take steps to ensure that passengers are aware of the

requirement before boarding.

The airlines, though, are concerned " that if they tell people that a practice of

theirs is a potential health hazard and (a foreign) carrier isn't saying

anything, then the average consumer may think that the other carrier isn't

spraying and may decide to use the other carrier, " said the Department of

Transportation's Jennifer Watson. " If this is a problem, our efforts are more

appropriately targeted at foreign governments. "

Those governments may not be willing to give up the policy, which has the

backing of the World Health Organization. The Australian Quarantine and

Inspection Service, for instance, was quoted in January as saying it would

continue despite U.S. concerns, and claimed in a recent memo that " the spraying

of aircraft is done for important human, agricultural and environmental health

reasons " and that " the sprays . . . have very low toxicity for humans. "

Aussies stay home

Not that all Aussies would agree. Chemically sensitive members of the Australian

Chemical Trauma Alliance, for example, are reluctant to leave the country for

fear of pesticide exposure upon their return, according to spokeswoman Diana

Crumpler.

Bob Brennis, the EPA's new product manager for Aerosol Aircraft Insecticide,

says the agency now requires that the manufacturer comply with a " data call-in "

because of its concern about complaints of passenger illness and the lack of

adequate data " to assess the acute toxic affects. "

Aerosol spokesman Tom Nichol contended it would be " premature " for his company

to comment on whether it planned to comply with the requirements of the call-in

or to challenge them, as is its right.

''The EPA's already declared it as safe, " he added, although the company has

begun receiving calls from worried consumers, and even " veiled threats " such as,

" My wife was on board a plane in 1985 and she hasn't been right ever since, and

somebody has to be held accountable. "

Nichol, however, agrees that passengers should be warned about the spraying

before boarding flights, and that travel agents should be given the information

to pass on. He also says that if government pressure results in the company's

saying " the hell with this -- we're not going to manufacture it anymore, " U.S.

airlines could lose their landing rights in various countries, and be subject to

heavy fines. And their planes might be sprayed with other, more toxic substances

before passengers were permitted to disembark.

To revoke the chemical's registration, the EPA " would have to show that this is

definitely hazardous to the public, " Brennis said.

Some think that should be obvious enough from the warnings on the label.

" Passengers should complain in the strongest terms to airlines, to the FAA, to

the EPA, to the White House, to Congress, " says Becky Riley, of the Northwest

Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides.

Kram agrees. She still hopes to return to New Zealand, either with a genuine

exemption from the spraying (which United representatives in New Zealand still

claim can be arranged ahead of time) or, better yet, if the country abandons its

insistence that arriving passengers be disinsected. Otherwise, she says, " I'm

not going back without a moon suit and a respirator. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The complete " Whole Body " Health line consists of the " AIM GARDEN TRIO "

Ask About Health Professional Support Series: AIM Barleygreen

 

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/AIM.html

 

PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

We have made every effort to ensure that the information included in these pages

is accurate. However, we make no guarantees nor can we assume any responsibility

for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product, or

process discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢