1 posted on
05/02/2008 10:40:26 AM PDT by
blam
To: blam
Silly study. You put that many people close together, there is going to be more viruses spread. I really don’t think testing the levels of bacteria proves otherwise.
2 posted on
05/02/2008 10:45:37 AM PDT by
Always Right
(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
To: blam
The low humidity environment will keep some things down. Not so much airborne virus though.
3 posted on
05/02/2008 11:05:23 AM PDT by
TalonDJ
To: blam
Right - that’s why virtually every time I fly, I end up with a cold or the flu.
6 posted on
05/02/2008 11:21:27 AM PDT by
meyer
(Still conservative, no longer Republican)
To: blam
An analysis of the data showed some interesting trends that could be used to predict how disease organisms would move through an aircraft in the event of an emergency.O gosh - that seems so useful.... /s
7 posted on
05/02/2008 11:22:24 AM PDT by
meyer
(Still conservative, no longer Republican)
To: blam
Note: My niece was told not to take a trans-Atlantic flight with her baby until he was at least 6 months old because of the chance of viral infections which often caused hospital stays. I am slightly skeptical of this study. Who paid for it?
We tend to get sick after returning home when we have been on a long flight.
8 posted on
05/02/2008 11:32:49 AM PDT by
Citizen Tom Paine
(Swift as the wind; Calmly majestic as a forest; Steady as the mountains.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson