Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neverdem; Gabz; SheLion
Incredibly, the airlines lobbied for the non-smoking law.

Smoke is an irritant, so as long as they allowed smoking on board, they had to exchange the air.

Exchanging the air required fuel.

They tried non-smoking flights, but no one would fly on them - so they lobbied for a federal law to make all flights non-smoking.

No smoke, no air exchange.

No air exchange, the airlines save fuel (and money).

No air exchange, and one passanger with ebola means everyone on the flight will have it, by the time you land.

Sort of like mumps.

Only, most of us are vaccinated against mumps...

3 posted on 04/12/2006 3:42:10 PM PDT by patton (Once you steal a firetruck, there's really not much else you can do except go for a joyride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: patton
No air exchange, the airlines save fuel (and money).

Wow, I had no idea that the airlines have completely stopped air exchange.

I'm sure you can back that up, NOT.

4 posted on 04/12/2006 3:48:19 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: patton
No air exchange, and one passanger with ebola means everyone on the flight will have it, by the time you land.

I was working as a Travel Agent at the time Northwest started pushing for a smoking ban.  I was working with a  male Travel Agent who used to work for Pan Am.

A few years after Northwest went smoke free, he found out that their filters are filthier then they EVER were when there was a smoking section on their planes.  They feel they do not have to change the filters as much since there is no smoking.  Well, guess what!  Can you just imagine all the germs and bacteria that is being pushed back into the cabin from such filthy filters?

And it's not just Northwest today.  ALL US airlines were forced to go smoke free, and most of the European carriers as well.

I hope I NEVER have to fly again!

9 posted on 04/12/2006 4:07:25 PM PDT by SheLion (Trying to make a life in the BLUE state of Maine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: patton
Yeah, except for this:

A two-dose mumps vaccine is recommended for all children, and is considered highly - but not completely - effective against the illness. About a quarter of the Iowans who have suspected cases got the vaccine, Teale said.

What this means is that the effectiveness of vaccination probably most of us received in childhood has diminishted beyond useful.

18 posted on 04/13/2006 1:46:15 PM PDT by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson