EasyJet bans peanuts on all flights
edition.cnn.com
edition.cnn.com
> There is no evidence to support peanut vapor as a cause of reactions or that peanut dust itself circulates and causes reactions.
I am a little surprised to see such uncritical propagation of this myth on HN.
> Investigators concluded that the risk of exposure to peanut on an airplane stems from potentially contaminated surfaces and not from airborne levels.
I've literally had someone spill their food on me on a plane, so direct contact is certainly not out of the question.
But why isn't there more alarm—or even action—over the fact that foods that were near-universally consumed by people are now increasingly capable of quite literally killing a relatively large part of the population? For example, why is hand sanitizer still widely distributed? When will it end? When all we're capable of consuming is powdered formula?
Edit: everyone wondering about hand sanitizer, I was thinking along the lines of the hygiene hypothesis, ie https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12048610_Asthma_and.... I believe I saw this study on here a few years ago.
Edit2: I meant this study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cea.12527
They appear to have always been allergens to which a certain share of the population had extreme reactions, which is what produced the advice in the US to avoid exposure at ages when children would be unlikely to communicate a reaction, which is what produced the surge in sensitivity since apparently people are more likely to develop lasting and severe allergies if they are not exposed early, which is why the advice has since been reversed to encourage early exposure with close supervision, rather than a avoiding early exposure.
> For example, why is hand sanitizer still widely distributed?
What does hand sanitizer have to do with the issue?
I think dmitryminkovsky is jokingly extrapolating the idea of banning allergens to hand sanitizer, since it is poisonous if you drink too much.
Erm this study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cea.12527
Our bodies are weird. I spent all my summers as a kid in the countryside, with various animals and lots of vegetation. At age 12, for some reason I developed hay fever. I still spend my summers in the countryside and have to eat allergy pills throughout the summer. Is this the effect of hand sanitizer? Autoimmune disease: hand sanitizer? Very hard to pin down.
> Investigators concluded that the risk of exposure to peanut on an airplane stems from potentially contaminated surfaces and not from airborne levels.
So the issue isn't not having exposure via air, but "not having touched" the peanuts themselves, but interacting with contaminated surfaces.
And there are presumably other passenger risks that they are not responding to with outright bans, so where is the cut-off?
In fact, a quick google brings up this page: https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/peanut-air-travel
Face masks are effectively preventing droplet infections, but probably wouldn't prevent traces of peanut from being inhaled.
Avoiding airplanes pretty much means you never travel longer than a thousand km or so. That's a fairly big restriction.
(also, "a whiff of cracked chocolate" is perhaps not as much of a problem as "someone sitting next to you and chewing nuts, and accidentally throwing some of them in your face if there's some turbulence")
Trains exist, and in first-world countries they're usually pleasant to use, even if it takes longer than an airplane.
But then again, if being in an airplane cabin with a peanut eater is dangerous, then being in a train wagon with one probably is as well.
A lot longer. There's at least a 5x difference between typical plane and train speeds. So a 5-6 hour flight becomes a 25-30 hour train ride. That's a pretty major cost and inconvenience you so blithely dismiss as long as it only affects someone else. Also, please note that it's not that uncommon any more for people to travel over water, and there are no trains there. But I suppose you'd say those people who aren't you should just constrain their choice of job or occupation accordingly.
Nothing's a big deal when it's somebody else's problem, right?
If I told EasyJet that I was gluten intolerant, would they ban glutens for me?
Gluten can induce anaphylaxis in some people. I guess we just wait now for them to ban all gluten-containing foods?
No. But seeing decisions being made based on the lowest common denominator to the inconvenience of everyone else (able bodies people are not inconvenienced by wheelchair ramps) is annoying to everyone who is inconvenienced (edit: for small values of everyone) regardless of whether or not it's an objectively good decision. Some people want peanuts and they're pissed they can't get them because of an edge case. I'm not saying it's right but it's human nature.
I don't agree. Vehemently. I am not irritated by the fact that there are ramps on most sidewalks to accommodate those in wheel-chairs, or that there is seating set aside on public transit for those who need it, or that sidewalk crossings speak to those who cannot see...
Have you no love for your fellow man? Are you so disconnected from others that their lives are now just an irritation to you?
What you've said makes me sad. And angry. All life is valuable, sacred even. Assuming there is some "lowest common denominator" that must be "catered to" places a value judgement on those who have different needs and abilities. Are some people really worth less to you?
You listed a bunch of accommodations that do not actually inconvenience you. The people who enjoyed peanuts as one of the few remaining "nice things" about air travel are rightfully annoyed that the airline is canning them because of an edge case. Personally I think they made the right decision but I'm not so dense as to express bewilderment as to why some people don't like it.
>Have you no love for your fellow man? Are you so disconnected from others that their lives are now just an irritation to you?
>What you've said makes me sad. And angry. All life is valuable, sacred even. Assuming there is some "lowest common denominator" that must be "catered to" places a value judgement on those who have different needs and abilities. Are some people really worth less to you?
I hope this is just virtue signaling (and I mean that in the purest dictionary definition way with none of the political charge the term seems to have taken on) and you don't actually take my previous comment to mean what your reply seems to think I mean.
In any case, I assure you the tone of your comment is not making me love my fellow man any more.
Seriously though, this arbatrary banning of things for a small population seems compassionate, but is really just making more peoples trip a bit less pleasant, in an already decidely unpleasant way to travel.
[1] https://fox13now.com/2013/04/26/boy-11-dies-after-severe-all...