NationStates Jolt Archive

...would you use an airline company that allowed nuts on its planes?

I personally wouldn't, as ANY company that cares more about profit than whether someone dies (due to inhaling the aroma of the nuts) on their aircraft is not deserving of a penny. Or even a cent.

Does the aroma of nuts cause actual harm to those with nut alergies?

Many of them, yes. Simply breathing in the smell of nuts can be lethal. I think this is mainly peanut allergy though (which is the most common nut allergy).

1) Most biased poll in history.
2) A penny is a cent.
3) I'm fairly sure the smell of nuts alone can't kill you, if it did we'd be stepping over the corpses of the allergic to get into stores.

I'm intrigued.

I think someone's going to state that peanuts are legumes - I would myself but I'm not certain and too lazy to even Google.

People have died simply from being on an aeroplane which had nuts on it? I think I'm going to go right ahead and doubt that.

...would you use an airline company that allowed nuts on its planes?

I personally wouldn't, as ANY company that cares more about profit than whether someone dies (due to inhaling the aroma of the nuts) on their aircraft is not deserving of a penny. Or even a cent.

Does the aroma of nuts cause actual harm to those with nut alergies? Ohhh and surly all companies are focused on profits?

Many of them, yes. Simply breathing in the smell of nuts can be lethal. I think this is mainly peanut allergy though (which is the most common nut allergy).

Bloody hell! I'm allergic to nothing (that I know of) and put it down to eating plenty of dirt as a child!

1) Most biased poll in history.
2) A penny is a cent.
3) I'm fairly sure the smell of nuts alone can't kill you, if it did we'd be stepping over the corpses of the allergic to get into stores.

1. True.
2. Not if the penny is a UK penny.
3. Wrong. There are people with severe peanut allergy who can die from breathing in the smell of peanuts (at least from a certain proximity anyway)

People have died simply from being on an aeroplane which had nuts on it? I think I'm going to go right ahead and doubt that.

Not just having nuts on it. Having nuts on it that are in too close a proximity to people with nut allergies.

Many of them, yes. Simply breathing in the smell of nuts can be lethal. I think this is mainly peanut allergy though (which is the most common nut allergy).

seriously? that's one hell of an allergy :confused::eek:

...would you use an airline company that allowed nuts on its planes?

I personally wouldn't, as ANY company that cares more about profit than whether someone dies (due to inhaling the aroma of the nuts) on their aircraft is not deserving of a penny. Or even a cent.

I guess I probably would, simply because I honestly don't see the point of going to the effort of checking if the airline with the best price is "nut-free"...

I'm just a little bit sceptical.

There are probably about one in ten million people who might have a severe enough reaction to peanuts to die from inhaling them. Perhaps we should ban all airlines as they don't care about deaths from deep-vein thrombosis. If the callous bastards did they'd seat no more than twenty people on a 747.

seriously? that's one hell of an allergy :confused::eek:

A friend of mine is seriously allergic to nuts, and it's true, just smelling peanuts can cause a reaction. Although not a lethal one, she'd have to really eat the nuts for that. It would cause her eyes to water and her nose to run. I can't remember her ever complaining about any airline, though.

I'm just a little bit sceptical.

There are probably about one in ten million people who might have a severe enough reaction to peanuts to die from inhaling them. Perhaps we should ban all airlines as they don't care about deaths from deep-vein thrombosis. If the callous bastards did they'd seat no more than twenty people on a 747.

http://www.peanutvan.com.au/allergies.htm

You can do small exercises to prevent DVT.

edit: well I'm off, but just look on google for more evidence about breathing in nut allergens

Allergic reaction =/= death. Your link is irrelevant.

It refers to death. It's very relevant. Read the whole article on that link.

http://www.peanutvan.com.au/allergies.htm

You can do small exercises to prevent DVT.

edit: well I'm off, but just look on google for more evidence about breathing in nuts

Allergic reaction =/= death. Your link is irrelevant.

As a result, current medical thinking is that the best way to ensure your child doesn't develop a peanut allergy is not to expose them to peanut products until at least the age of 3 or 4. Even then, you child's first exposure should only be to a small amount.

This is interesting.

Why would exposing your child to peanuts before 4 years old increase the likelihood of allergy.

Would it be because your immune system is not fully formed and peanuts are inherently poisonous to some extent?

It refers to death. It's very relevant. Read the whole article on that link.

I read it, it mentions nothing about reactions due to smelling peanuts.

This is interesting.

Why would exposing your child to peanuts before 4 years old increase the likelihood of allergy.

Would it be because your immune system is not fully formed and peanuts are inherently poisonous to some extent?

I'm not sure, but you shouldn't give children under 4 or 5 yoghurt, either, as it contains bacteria their systems can't really cope with yet. Won't kill them, but won't do them much good either, apparently.
I'm not sure if peanuts are in the same category....
The friend I mentioned earlier had that nut allergy from birth, her doctors suspects its becausee her mother had a serious allergic reaction to something while pregnant with her.

I don't understand why everyone cares about losing their peanuts on flights, they are just peanuts. If 100 people in the world can die because of an allergic reaction to the smell of peanuts thats a disability that affects their life and those 100 people should drive.

As for the topic of if you can die because of an allergy I can see how that is possible. My mother is Allergic to peppermint and gets sick when she smells it. She doesn't die but she gets really sick and maybe a 4 hour flight of that sickness and pain could kill a weak person.

I read it, it mentions nothing about reactions due to smelling peanuts.

The protein of the peanut seems to cause the major damage - you can inhale peanut protein from peanut dust.

It's extraordinarly unlikely - in fact it's negligible (http://www.calgaryallergy.ca/Articles/English/Peanut_Allergy_medlegal.html).

However, if an airline was informed of severe peanut allergy, it seems the duty of care lies on them to ensure that no peanut is on the plane whatsoever.

I smell a puppet :p

haha no, just a first post. I think that the thread starter is a dumbass.

I don't understand why everyone cares about losing their peanuts on flights, they are just peanuts. If 100 people in the world can die because of an allergic reaction to the smell of peanuts thats a disability that affects their life and those 100 people should drive.

As for the topic of if you can die because of an allergy I can see how that is possible. My mother is Allergic to peppermint and gets sick when she smells it. She doesn't die but she gets really sick and maybe a 4 hour flight of that sickness and pain could kill a weak person.

I smell a puppet :p

I smell a puppet :p

Seems I was intrigued for a reason :)

My spidey sense did tingle.

I smell a puppet :p

Ohhhh dangerous if one has a puppet allergie!

A friend of mine is seriously allergic to nuts, and it's true, just smelling peanuts can cause a reaction. Although not a lethal one, she'd have to really eat the nuts for that. It would cause her eyes to water and her nose to run. I can't remember her ever complaining about any airline, though.

yeah i guess... i get a reaction to pollen and to dog hairs, so i suppose its not too odd. just hard to think of peanuts as that dangerous!

Rotten poll. You're asking 98% of the population not to fly an airline because of a condition that 2% of the population have -- and not ALL of that 2% have a lethal version of the allergy.

Airlines are run by corporations, and as such are subject to pressure from enough people to change policy, lest they lose out on profits. Airlines as an industry are operating bankrupt or on razor-thin margins of profit determined by things like the price of crude oil and refinery capacity.

Your insinuation that all those who would fly on the least expensive airline ticket are somehow insensitive to the plight of 2 out of 100 people is ridiculous. If the mode of transportation was, say, a state ferry or commuter rail line or some other form of government-run transportation, you'd have an excellent point: they're supposed to serve everyone in the least restrictive environment possible.

But we can't get the nation to ban strong perfumes for people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, which affects FAR more than 2% of the population -- legume allergies don't stand a chance, and neither should they.

We are reaping what we've sown as a society by exposing ourselves to chemicals and things like growth hormones in meat/milk, and we're breeding in allergies to the gene pool as a result (not to mention raising a society of more and more asthmatic or obese children because of the environment we've allowed them to inherit).

Now the allergies themselves aren't the fault of those born with them, but it's THAT person's job to keep their treatments (such as epinephrine and like counters to bad reactions) handy. I agree that restaurants and food manufacturers should warn people if the food they're producing has any potential contact with major food allergens such as peanuts, and there should be information available wherever food is served or sold about other things like dairy content, wheat gluten, and other known allergens. But ultimately, the responsibility for protecting the allergic from their allergen lies with the allergic person and/or their parent/guardian.

I believe in reasonable accomodation, but asking a poll question like this is beyond the limit, and approaches asinine in it's demand that WE all watch out for THEM, when we outnumber them 49 to 1 or better (likely better in the case of the more severe reactions).

This poll should be closed.

yeah i guess... i get a reaction to pollen and to dog hairs, so i suppose its not too odd. just hard to think of peanuts as that dangerous!
One of my science teachers at my old High School was highly allergic to iodine; quite a hazard in such a profession. I also know a guy who went through four years of dental school only to find out he was highly allergic to some substance important to dentistry; pink water, perhaps.

yeah i guess... i get a reaction to pollen and to dog hairs, so i suppose its not too odd. just hard to think of peanuts as that dangerous!

Chocking hazzard people!

I wonder at what level it would be unnacceptable.

In the hypothetical situation that, say, 1% of people died from inhaling peanut protein, would airlines have a responsibility to stop carrying them.

I'd imagine, if there was a case whereby someone did die, we'd have a fine debate over whether the airline was at fault or the person.

At what point do you say a reasonable level of danger precludes the potential victim from responsibility.

I wonder... If you were to have a nut allergie, could you detect the presdence of a nut on the plane?
I have had it with these motherfucking nuts on this motherfucking plane!

I wonder... If you were to have a nut allergie, could you detect the presdence of a nut on the plane? like the spidey sense...

Could this nut-sense also detect a nut on a forum?

If that nut was LG, the shoes would give him away.

Seems I was intrigued for a reason :)

My spidey sense did tingle.

I wonder... If you were to have a nut allergie, could you detect the presdence of a nut on the plane? like the spidey sense...

Could this nut-sense also detect a nut on a forum?

Jolt's on fire today! I'm unwittingly pulling the moves to the time warp.

Intangelon seems to think 2% is not enough - not disagreeing with him - that's 6, 000, 000 people at risk (forgive my estimated math).

6 million people at risk - where does the duty lie.

I'm not sure, but you shouldn't give children under 4 or 5 yoghurt, either, as it contains bacteria their systems can't really cope with yet. Won't kill them, but won't do them much good either, apparently.
I'm not sure if peanuts are in the same category....
The friend I mentioned earlier had that nut allergy from birth, her doctors suspects its becausee her mother had a serious allergic reaction to something while pregnant with her.

You shouldn't give them honey either or they can get botulism.

6 million people have a peanut allergy. The number who have a peanut allergy so severe as to die from inhaling peanut is an awful lot smaller.

Hence my hypothetical - I doubt .0001% of people are that allergic.

A friend of mine is seriously allergic to nuts, and it's true, just smelling peanuts can cause a reaction. Although not a lethal one, she'd have to really eat the nuts for that. It would cause her eyes to water and her nose to run. I can't remember her ever complaining about any airline, though.
Then a grocery store is far more dangerous to her than a plane. Planes recirculate air through filters so unless some one next to her is eating some, stores > planes.

Jolt's on fire today! I'm unwittingly pulling the moves to the time warp.

Intangelon seems to think 2% is not enough - not disagreeing with him - that's 6, 000, 000 people at risk (forgive my estimated math).

6 million people at risk - where does the duty lie.

6 million people have a peanut allergy. The number who have a peanut allergy so severe as to die from inhaling peanut is an awful lot smaller.

http://www.calgaryallergy.ca/Articles/English/Peanut_Allergy_medlegal.html
Inhalation Versus Ingestion: A recent newspaper article claimed that "a whiff of peanut butter on a desk may be enough to cause a violent anaphylactic reaction". In fact, the risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction resulting from this route of exposure is negligible. In a home-economics class where peanuts are being used in cooking a satay dish, peanut protein particles can become airborne and an allergic student may suffer itchy eyes, runny nose and asthma. A similar reaction could occur if many students were crunching on peanuts in class and throwing them around at one another. An asthma attack could have serious adverse consequences, however, the risk of violent anaphylaxis or death from inhaling airborne peanut is negligible. On the other hand, ingestion of even a minute amount of peanut could result in fatality

125 people die from food allergies each year in America, and most of those are peanut allergies, so lets say about 100 people for every 300000000 have a very severe peanut allergy. That's about 0.00003% of people, or 2000 people in the world. Unless my math is wrong, which is entirely possible.

I've already posted your link and I've already made this point - Jolt timewarp is somehow escaping into real life :)

Jolt's on fire today! I'm unwittingly pulling the moves to the time warp.

Intangelon seems to think 2% is not enough - not disagreeing with him - that's 6, 000, 000 people at risk (forgive my estimated math).

6 million people at risk - where does the duty lie.
Hence my hypothetical - I doubt .0001% of people are that allergic.
125 people die from food allergies each year in America, and most of those are peanut allergies, so lets say about 100 people for every 300000000 have a very severe peanut allergy. That's about 0.00003% of people, or 2000 people in the world. Unless my math is wrong, which is entirely possible.

Then a grocery store is far more dangerous to her than a plane. Planes recirculate air through filters so unless some one next to her is eating some, stores > planes.

I've yet to see open peanuts being sold in a grocery store.

But, as I said, she never had problems in a plane, as far as I'm aware.

As already stated, they aren't lethal (to breathe).

They are bad, yes.

But not that bad.

If they are, then wear a frickin' gas mask when you're walking on the street.

http://www.peanutvan.com.au/allergies.htm

You can do small exercises to prevent DVT.

edit: well I'm off, but just look on google for more evidence about breathing in nut allergens

Peanuts aren't nuts, they're legumes.

As already stated, they aren't lethal (to breathe).

They are bad, yes.

But not that bad.

If they are, then wear a frickin' gas mask when you're walking on the street.I think breathing peanuts is generally a bad idea, or as was worded eloquently earlier:Chocking hazzard people!

I actively wish that they would return to serving delightful and delicious nuts on more airplanes. They are sooooooo good!

What toilet does the OP dredge all these stupid ideas for threads up from?

Jolt's on fire today! I'm unwittingly pulling the moves to the time warp.

Intangelon seems to think 2% is not enough - not disagreeing with him - that's 6, 000, 000 people at risk (forgive my estimated math).

6 million people at risk - where does the duty lie.

It isn't 6,000,000 -- see below. If slightly less than six mil will NOT die but have a reaction, then 2% is certainly not enough to justify the arrogance of the poll connected to this thread, and the idea of a boycott.

Hence my hypothetical - I doubt .0001% of people are that allergic.

I do, too. It's much less -- see below.

125 people die from food allergies each year in America, and most of those are peanut allergies, so lets say about 100 people for every 300000000 have a very severe peanut allergy. That's about 0.00003% of people, or 2000 people in the world. Unless my math is wrong, which is entirely possible.

Possible, but probably not. Your math is sound enough for the purposes of an online forum. 2000 people around the globe do not mandate any kind of boycott.

You have to take into account which cultures are consumers of peanuts, and which are not. Not all are, or at the very least, they're not common everywhere. I love it when someone tries to extrapolate an instance figure based on the world population without taking into accountthe prevalence of the instance in question depending upon the culture. Not too high of a freeway fatality rate in a country with no freeways, for example. What's the cell phone/brain tumor relationship in the highlands of New Guinea? There are comparisons you can make, and some you can't.

Amg, there are still airlines that actually FEED YOU?!?

Cripes, the last three times I've flown they only grudgingly supplied us with something to drink. If you wanted food, they offered you a pack of pretzels that you could buy for $3.

all other things being equal, i would preferentially fly an airline that had a peanut snack option. i hate those horrid soy things that they pass of as edible.

Amg, there are still airlines that actually FEED YOU?!?

Cripes, the last three times I've flown they only grudgingly supplied us with something to drink. If you wanted food, they offered you a pack of pretzels that you could buy for $3.

yuppers

delta offers you a choice of a cookie, premade cheese and crackers (or maybe its peanutbetter crackers) or sun chips.

too bad they dont give you a full can of soda. i hate that.

yuppers

delta offers you a choice of a cookie, premade cheese and crackers (or maybe its peanutbetter crackers) or sun chips.

too bad they dont give you a full can of soda. i hate that.

they also have apples and bananas for people who have wheat allergies, but they are pretty bland because they have been frozen.

they also have apples and bananas for people who have wheat allergies, but they are pretty bland because they have been frozen.

ewwww frozen apple!!

if i am going to have a long day of travelling i bring my own snacks. 2 oz of peanuts just isnt going to satisfy.

they also have apples and bananas for people who have wheat allergies, but they are pretty bland because they have been frozen.

Gah, you're not supposed to freeze bananas, they have a very narrow temperature range they can be stored and transported at.

I remember back when smoking was the issue. Those that couldn't stand smoking chose which flights to take. They voted with their money and soon there were more and more smokeless flights. Today there are more pretzel flights than nut flights.

The problem is--Is there anything that someone isn't allergic to? I know people that get sick if they sit next to someone that used perfumed shampoo. There are people that can't stand the smell of plastic. So if the plane has new seats they get sick. There are people that can't eat various ingredients in a salad. There are people that can't stand air pressure changes (maybe the planes can fly lower?) There are people allergic to Muslims. There was even a report of someone that couldn't fly if some woman had a miniskirt.

Where does it end? At what point do people have to understand their own problems and ask about their particular problem before buying a ticket? And if they have a personal problem, use a different airline, take a bus, take a train, drive, take a private plane..............

Yes. Me being near peanuts has nothing to do with someone else being allergic to them. If I rang up an airline to ask about tonnes of allergies that I don't even have, they'd tell me to piss off.

I've yet to see open peanuts being sold in a grocery store.

But, as I said, she never had problems in a plane, as far as I'm aware.

I guess it depends where you live. The markets around here don't really have them except for the more backwoodsy places. But damn, go down to Florida... I don't think people with peanut allergies are allowed in the tourist ares of Florida.

Gah, you're not supposed to freeze bananas, they have a very narrow temperature range they can be stored and transported at.

I know. It was pretty gross, but.....it kept my blood sugar level for a bit.

lifetime ban on peanuts lets never support anyone who supports the use of peanuts. :rolleyes:

i enjoy peanuts and i use airlines. why am i unable to combine the two

My father had this exact problem. He was unable to enter most shops, he certainly couldn't enter movie theaters, fairs or fun parks... he couldn't just pop down the road for a bottle of milk, and supermarkets were right out.

I can remember several occasions as a child wherein we'd visit a restaurant, and he'd attempt to explain his peanut allergy to the waiting staff. He'd always order very conservatively for himself, and check with the rest of us what we intended to order, so as to avoid exposing himself.
It was tedious as a child to have to go through this, but as the alternative was watching my father go into anaphylactic shock and possibly die in front of us, we endured.
Ultimately we simply stopped visiting restaurants. My mother did all the grocery shopping. But international travel was occasionally necessary, so in those cases we (by which I mostly mean 'he') just had to endure.

I can also remember him having a reaction on a plane. Luckily not fatal, he was so hyper-aware that he caught it and alerted airline staff early enough to be moved away from the source.
And I'm talking 25 years ago.

Oh, the fun memories! Especially given there was no awareness of this problem back then, so the explanations were painful enough in and of themselves.

Bizarrely, I have absolutely no problem with peanuts in the slightest, but have a (slightly less) severe allergy to cocoa.

Tell me it's my problem that just the smell of cocoa can make me ill.

If I'm seeing a girl, and they eat chocolate, I can't be in the same room as them. They have to brush very thoroughly before I can even kiss them if they've eaten any chocolate at all since the last time they brushed. I won't go in to the frustration that is chocolate cake at birthday parties...

I've had to move seats in movie theatres because I can smell the chocolate being eaten by someone a couple of rows away from me. Shared housing is hellish - flatmates accept it, but sometimes forget to tell friends and partners...
Etc.

I know my allergy is extremely rare. And I know how coveted chocolate is. So I've never wasted my time attempting to make a case that chocolate should be generally restricted to protect me.

But after watching my father endure countless situations where he had to run from an otherwise perfectly ordinary situation because someone's come too close to him with peanuts, and given that the incidence of peanut allergies seems to be increasing dramatically, I have to agree that peanut allergies are of sufficient severity and frequency that companies, particularly airlines (whose service requires being contained for (often long) durations in close proximity with others, and who serve food), must become more aware and engaged to protect people with this allergy.
(Apologies for the length of the last sentence).

I'd love to be able to not spend every single day of my life recoiling from one of the most common treats in existence. My case is sufficiently rare (in fact, I've never even heard of another person with my particular allergy) that I know I'll never have any kind of protection or advocacy. But when I combine my own weird circumstance with the increasingly common example of my father, I can't help but conclude that the naysayers on this forum are narrow-sighted and ultimately selfish.

Edit: the poll definitely sucks.

But we can't get the nation to ban strong perfumes for people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, which affects FAR more than 2% of the population -- legume allergies don't stand a chance, and neither should they.

Sure wish we could though. I was in Middle School when that banaka/manaka/whatever stuff was popular. And people didnt just dab it, they BATHED in the stuff. God, it was horrible. I had to leave class once or twice because I could hardly breathe.
If you dont know what it is, its a sort of perfume or something that smells like a combination of bleach and mint. Apparently cheap enough that a number of kids could afford to apply way too much of it. I'm sure many of you (Americans at least, Im not sure if European schoolkids are prone to this sort of thing) remember how your 'classmates' would apply roughly one bottle per day of any given aftershave/perfume/whatever, and how all of them would mix together in class and smell horrible.

I read it, it mentions nothing about reactions due to smelling peanuts.

Ahem.

"An allergic reaction could be provoked by something as simple as eating a meal that's been cooked in a vessel that previously had peanuts in it (eg: a wok used to prepare an Asian meal) or even by the smell of peanuts (peanut allergens have been shown to travel through the air). "

I don't understand why everyone cares about losing their peanuts on flights, they are just peanuts. If 100 people in the world can die because of an allergic reaction to the smell of peanuts thats a disability that affects their life and those 100 people should pay loads of petrol money and drive, and buy their own boat to get across the Atlantic (or another stretch of ocean) and feel like a leper every time they want to visit somewhere.

Fixed

As for the topic of if you can die because of an allergy I can see how that is possible. My mother is Allergic to peppermint and gets sick when she smells it. She doesn't die but she gets really sick and maybe a 4 hour flight of that sickness and pain could kill a weak person.

Nut allergens can travel through air. See link

Rotten poll. You're asking 98% of the population not to fly an airline because of a condition that 2% of the population have -- and not ALL of that 2% have a lethal version of the allergy.

Airlines are run by corporations, and as such are subject to pressure from enough people to change policy, lest they lose out on profits. Airlines as an industry are operating bankrupt or on razor-thin margins of profit determined by things like the price of crude oil and refinery capacity.

Your insinuation that all those who would fly on the least expensive airline ticket are somehow insensitive to the plight of 2 out of 100 people is ridiculous. If the mode of transportation was, say, a state ferry or commuter rail line or some other form of government-run transportation, you'd have an excellent point: they're supposed to serve everyone in the least restrictive environment possible.

But we can't get the nation to ban strong perfumes for people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, which affects FAR more than 2% of the population -- legume allergies don't stand a chance, and neither should they.

We are reaping what we've sown as a society by exposing ourselves to chemicals and things like growth hormones in meat/milk, and we're breeding in allergies to the gene pool as a result (not to mention raising a society of more and more asthmatic or obese children because of the environment we've allowed them to inherit).

Now the allergies themselves aren't the fault of those born with them, but it's THAT person's job to keep their treatments (such as epinephrine and like counters to bad reactions) handy. I agree that restaurants and food manufacturers should warn people if the food they're producing has any potential contact with major food allergens such as peanuts, and there should be information available wherever food is served or sold about other things like dairy content, wheat gluten, and other known allergens. But ultimately, the responsibility for protecting the allergic from their allergen lies with the allergic person and/or their parent/guardian.

I believe in reasonable accomodation, but asking a poll question like this is beyond the limit, and approaches asinine in it's demand that WE all watch out for THEM, when we outnumber them 49 to 1 or better (likely better in the case of the more severe reactions).

This poll should be closed.

2% of a massive population is a LOT of people

P.S. Parents and children almost certainly do take precautions. But they can only go so far - for example, they could buy something which appears to be free from nuts, but ends up not being. They've checked the label, but nothing was mentioned. O.K. so UK law may require allergen labelling now, but that's just an example.

Sure wish we could though. I was in Middle School when that banaka/manaka/whatever stuff was popular. And people didnt just dab it, they BATHED in the stuff. God, it was horrible. I had to leave class once or twice because I could hardly breathe.
If you dont know what it is, its a sort of perfume or something that smells like a combination of bleach and mint. Apparently cheap enough that a number of kids could afford to apply way too much of it. I'm sure many of you (Americans at least, Im not sure if European schoolkids are prone to this sort of thing) remember how your 'classmates' would apply roughly one bottle per day of any given aftershave/perfume/whatever, and how all of them would mix together in class and smell horrible.

my senior year of high school we finally got a bath and body works in my town, all the girls (except me I think) had a really overpowering lotion from there, the swirl of vanilla, strawberry and cucumber made me dizzy and gave me a headache, not only is the lotion so overpowering as to make me sick, but all 30 girls in my class seemed to have an addiction to it and would reapply it 10/20 times a day.

If someone were on the airplane that was that hyperallergic to nuts, then there would be a reason not to serve them, and I'm sure anyone would understand. But to prohibit it in general, on the very, very slim chance some person with such an extreme allergy just happens to board is lunacy.
Anyone that allergic might be better off wearing a containment suit, because you never know when walking across the street someone somewhere might be eating a peanut butter sandwich in public. Although I suppose we can try to get a global ban on peanuts as well.

2% of a massive population is a LOT of peopleThe vast majority is only allergic when they ingest at least something in the order of a few grams, though. That's a lot of sniffing.

Fixed



Nut allergens can travel through air. See link

Excepting that a tiny minority of suffers may die as a result of smelling nuts(ohh-er missus!) I think you are on to a loser here, as somebody has already pointed out, should we for the sake of these people also boycot shops that sell nuts? What about people who blatantly and with total disregard eat nuts from a packet in public! Pubs and clubs that serve them on the bar in dishes!

No I think you'll not win this one.

On another note, I see you quote the Wiccan rede, I would ask how it is even possible to make sure that your every action does no harm? I mean will you personaly now be more careful how you dispose of your empty nut packets?

my senior year of high school we finally got a bath and body works in my town, all the girls (except me I think) had a really overpowering lotion from there, the swirl of vanilla, strawberry and cucumber made me dizzy and gave me a headache, not only is the lotion so overpowering as to make me sick, but all 30 girls in my class seemed to have an addiction to it and would reapply it 10/20 times a day.

That is one thing I really love about living in Arizona now. My last two years of High School, for most of the first quarter of the school year, we'd get sudden downpours.
I tell you, it was like sweet revenge, seeing all the over-make up'd pretty-girls looking like drowned rats, and smelling like normal people for once in their lives.

As already stated, they aren't lethal (to breathe).

They are bad, yes.

But not that bad.

If they are, then wear a frickin' gas mask when you're walking on the street.

Which brings us nicely to smoking: No intelligent person would argue that smoking is not lethal (albeit slow at killing people). Yet walking down the street and passing a smoker is nowhere near as bad as breathing lots of the smoke in, in a confined place. Presumable same for peanuts

Then a grocery store is far more dangerous to her than a plane. Planes recirculate air through filters so unless some one next to her is eating some, stores > planes.

The recirculating air is what actually contributes to the allergens spreading. Google.

This topic harms my opinion of the OP's sensibility. ;(

I remember back when smoking was the issue. Those that couldn't stand smoking chose which flights to take. They voted with their money and soon there were more and more smokeless flights. Today there are more pretzel flights than nut flights.

The problem is--Is there anything that someone isn't allergic to? I know people that get sick if they sit next to someone that used perfumed shampoo. There are people that can't stand the smell of plastic. So if the plane has new seats they get sick. There are people that can't eat various ingredients in a salad. There are people that can't stand air pressure changes (maybe the planes can fly lower?) There are people allergic to Muslims. There was even a report of someone that couldn't fly if some woman had a miniskirt.

Where does it end? At what point do people have to understand their own problems and ask about their particular problem before buying a ticket? And if they have a personal problem, use a different airline, take a bus, take a train, drive, take a private plane..............

I actually agree with the idea of asking about your own problsm - in principle. In practice you just get lied to in order to get you on the plane

Why are you only picking on airlines? What about everywhere else that people are likely to encounter nuts? Surely the weekly shop at a supermarket is going to be more hazardous than a couple of flights a year (thats if you choose to fly in the first place).

And your polls stupid :/

Excepting that a tiny minority of suffers may die as a result of smelling nuts(ohh-er missus!) I think you are on to a loser here, as somebody has already pointed out, should we for the sake of these people also boycot shops that sell nuts? What about people who blatantly and with total disregard eat nuts from a packet in public! Pubs and clubs that serve them on the bar in dishes!

No I think you'll not win this one.

On another note, I see you quote the Wiccan rede, I would ask how it is even possible to make sure that your every action does no harm? I mean will you personaly now be more careful how you dispose of your empty nut packets?

Re: Rede: Course it aint possible to totally harm none - however it IS possibly to harm none AS FAR AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE AND PRACTICAL

This topic harms my opinion of the OP's sensibility. ;(

Mine too. I think he's nuts personally.

And for the people going on about "it's only a few people": Should we also get rid of any assistance for disabled persons then? After all, the percentage of disabled people is tiny.

And for the people going on about "it's only a few people": Should we also get rid of any assistance for disabled persons then? After all, the percentage of disabled people is tiny.It's a matter of proportion. How much out of your way should you go for a few people. Outlawing peanuts on flights on general basis is out of proportion. Just like limiting buildings to a single floor to accommodate people in wheelchairs would be out of proportion. Other less intrusive measures are possible.

...would you use an airline company that allowed nuts on its planes?

I personally wouldn't, as ANY company that cares more about profit than whether someone dies (due to inhaling the aroma of the nuts) on their aircraft is not deserving of a penny. Or even a cent.

Call me a bastard, but I would fly on any plane which got me the cheapest rates. Whether or not they allow nuts. And personally, I would care more about profit than the possibility of a chance of some probability that someone might have an allergy to nuts that is so potent it is possible that he may die from merely inhaling the "aroma" of nuts.

Can I answer both "yesses" on the poll?

1. True.
2. Not if the penny is a UK penny.
3. Wrong. There are people with severe peanut allergy who can die from breathing in the smell of peanuts (at least from a certain proximity anyway)



Not just having nuts on it. Having nuts on it that are in too close a proximity to people with nut allergies.

And people are complaining about the draconian measures of current airline policies.

Anaphylaxis as a result of inhalation of peanut dust is so infrequent as to be unheard of. Ifreann previously pointed out that 125 people a year die in the US from food allergies, of which the majority are peanut allergies. Only the most severe cases of allergy are capable of anaphylaxis and, whilst this doesn't remove the potential discomfort for allergy sufferers, it also doesn't warrant the removal of peanuts. Aside from the very rarest of cases, peanut-associated deaths are the result of ingesting peanuts or peanut-contaminated food. Asking to ban peanuts on a plane for the risks to fellow passengers is like asking to ban people who wear perfume on planes because someone might be allergic to that.

And GB - you're a bastard :p

...would you use an airline company that allowed nuts on its planes?

I personally wouldn't, as ANY company that cares more about profit than whether someone dies (due to inhaling the aroma of the nuts) on their aircraft is not deserving of a penny. Or even a cent.
"Allowed" nuts?

As in, letting passengers bring nuts on the plane?

If there were an airline that didn't let passengers bring nuts on their planes, I'd boycott them for being fucktards. What next? Not being allowed to take bread into your workplace because some people have a gluten allergy? Fuck that.

If you mean an airline that provided nuts on its planes...then yes, I'd still use it. Because I don't really care about other people's allergies if I'm not aware of them.

Not only would I use it, I happen to enjoy eating nuts anywhere. If it acts as a drop of chlorine in the genepool...

http://www.peanutvan.com.au/allergies.htm

You can do small exercises to prevent DVT.

edit: well I'm off, but just look on google for more evidence about breathing in nut allergens

and if even breathing in the smell of nuts makes you ill, you can also take an affirmative step to prevent such a danger.

Wear a surgical mask.

I honestly dont see how someone else's allergy to nuts might influence which airline I chose to fly on. How retarded is this question?! If someone has a severe enough allergy to nuts that the -smell- of a nut would kill them, then I would think that it's -their- responsibility to choose an airline that doens't fly with nuts. Besides, anyone with that severe of an allergy to a very common product who doesn't travel with some sort medication to counteract a reaction, possibly is getting what they deserve.

And one more point, in the last 4 years I've travelled by air, I haven't seen a single peanut or product containing peanuts served as a snack or meal so~ I think the allergy people already won. :rolleyes:

And one more point, in the last 4 years I've travelled by air, I haven't seen a single peanut or product containing peanuts served as a snack or meal so~ I think the allergy people already won. :rolleyes:
Aye, and they've forced us all into a dystopian world of nut-based oppression and those disgusting little packets of either nachos or stale crackers. Damn them, the monsters!

Aye, and they've forced us all into a dystopian world of nut-based oppression and those disgusting little packets of either nachos or stale crackers. Damn them, the monsters!
Pretzels are the way forward. Try telling that to Emirates, however. Damn you Emirates, forcing me to endure 24 hours of flights with only small cheesy shit things for snacks!! :mad:

A comic at Just for Laughs in Montreal told a story/joke (don't know if it's true or not)... his preschool'ers teacher told him at parent-teacher night that they'd discovered a child in the class had a peanut allergy and his daughter couldn't have peanuts or peanut butter anymore. He said "of course, I understand-- we won't send anymore peanut butter sandwiches to school." Teacher said "oh, no, you don't understand-- she can't have peanuts at all, not even at home. She could eat a peanut, some residue could stay in her mouth, she could cough on her hand, touch a doorknob or a ball, an allergic child could touch that, put their finger in their mouth and DIE." Comic says "I'm sorry... but if you have a child who's SO allergic they can't even be around other preschoolers whove had peanut butter... then your kid isn't gonna make it. Better to lose 'em now, while they're young, before you get too attached."

Wouldn't it make more sense for everyone else to go about their lives as normal? A generation or two, and there would be no more deadly-severe peanut allergies... because everyone deadly-allergic to peanuts would be dead. Hellooooo, it's natural selection. haw haw

This is interesting.

Why would exposing your child to peanuts before 4 years old increase the likelihood of allergy.

Would it be because your immune system is not fully formed and peanuts are inherently poisonous to some extent?

Not sure, but I do know they have you introduce cereals in stages too... rice, then oat....

Many of them, yes. Simply breathing in the smell of nuts can be lethal. I think this is mainly peanut allergy though (which is the most common nut allergy).

Except that peanuts aren't even a type of nut. They're legumes. I should know, I'm allergic to every kind of nut, and yet I eat salted peanuts by the cartload.

I'd think penuts would cost too much for airlines to have. When I came out here to Phoenix with my dad the plane just gave the passengers this crappy chocolate chip muffin like thing. No nuts at all.

I'd think penuts would cost too much for airlines to have. When I came out here to Phoenix with my dad the plane just gave the passengers this crappy chocolate chip muffin like thing. No nuts at all.

Airline food in general is pretty toxic I think.

Airline food in general is pretty toxic I think.

Depends on the airline. A flight from Newark to Mumbai on Air India bags you two full course Indian meals, if you're so inclined. They're not great, but they are palatable.

Depends on the airline. A flight from Newark to Mumbai on Air India bags you two full course Indian meals, if you're so inclined. They're not great, but they are palatable.

I can tell you that a flight from Srinigar to Delhi on an Air India flight introduces you to a new concept of what food can be in terms of plasticity and gloopiness.

They tell me it's mango juice they're serving but wouldn't let me keep a sample for testing because I suspect you could run cars off it.

The 'sandwiches'? If they were made of sand there might be some rationale for calling them that because they fitted no description of a sandwich I know of.

I can tell you that a flight from Delhi to Srinigar on an Air India flight introduces you to a new concept of what food can be in terms of plasticity and gloopiness.

They tell me it's mango juice they're serving but wouldn't let me keep a sample for testing because I suspect you could run cars off it.

The 'sandwiches'? If they were made of sand there might be some rationale for calling them that because they fitted no description of a sandwich I know of.

Wow. What sort of meal did you order? Because I've never had that problem. Then again the last time I was in India was 2k3.

...what were you doing in Srinagar? I hear there isn't much to do there but sight-see and avoid getting blown-up.

Wow. What sort of meal did you order? Because I've never had that problem. Then again the last time I was in India was 2k3.

...what were you doing in Srinagar? I hear there isn't much to do there but sight-see and avoid getting blown-up.

I didn't get to order - it was served.

Sight-seeing mostly, reporting partly, it's one of the most beautiful places on earth. To be honest, I was conned into going by being assured that the fighting took place far far away, which proved to be bollocks.

I was young, excited and naive as well misled by my lack of both proper checking and a certain foolhardy nature.

I didn't get to order - it was served.

Sight-seeing mostly, reporting partly, it's one of the most beautiful places on earth. To be honest, I was conned into going by being assured that the fighting took place far far away, which proved to be bollocks.

I was young, excited and naive as well misled by my lack of both proper checking and a certain foolhardy nature.

Odd, and I've also never had sandwiches on an Air India flight. It's usually slightly underprepared naan with some sort of bhaji.

You're a reporter? Nifty. Yeah I've never been to Kashmir, though I've been a stones throw away in the past, sight-seeing in other parts of India.

Odd, and I've also never had sandwiches on an Air India flight. It's usually slightly underprepared naan with some sort of bhaji.

You're a reporter? Nifty. Yeah I've never been to Kashmir, though I've been a stones throw away in the past, sight-seeing in other parts of India.

A reporter no longer - and not even a serious reporter before as travel was my remit.

A reporter no longer - and not even a serious reporter before as travel was my remit.

Ah, I see. Still, always a good excuse to have to see exotic places.

And GB - you're a bastard :p

:D It's all in the name!

You ban nuts, so where do you draw the line? Should we ban choclate because some of you have bad choclate allergies?

I'd rather spend my time complaining on the cost of airline tickets then that they serve nuts that possibly, maybe, perhaps would harm someone simply from inhaling them. And complain about the suckiness of airline food in general.

Depends on the airline. A flight from Newark to Mumbai on Air India bags you two full course Indian meals, if you're so inclined. They're not great, but they are palatable.

My experience with airline food is with either Asian or Australian airlines. I think the food is generally safe but sometimes it's hard to recognise what it is in the first place at times.

(This is actually Jeruselem, using puppet)

You ban nuts, so where do you draw the line? Should we ban choclate because some of you have bad choclate allergies?

I don't like baked eggplant. Let's ban that. :D

Ah, I see. Still, always a good excuse to have to see exotic places.

It's a fantastic job - later I was Australia covering wine, cheese and fish, why wouldn't you?

I can also claim to be an expert on airline food having spent so much time eating the damn stuff - my advice would be to always ask for a little salt if it doesn't come in the cutlery packet - you'd be surprised at the difference.

You can also, if you can be bothered, ask for requests, as in vegetarian food, which is generally better prepared due to the low amounts requested - though it is vegetarian food.

Finally, here's a real trick, for a very small amount of money, if it's near the birthday of, or if you just want to surprise, a loved one, you can request in advance for champagne to be served as well as a message flashed across their personal screen.

Works wonders.

You keep referring to google as a source in of itself rather then what it is ... a way to search for a source

I am not saying you are right or wrong but just waving a vague google flag at everything is rather tiring and pointless

Tiring and pointless (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=tiring+and+pointless&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

The recirculating air is what actually contributes to the allergens spreading. Google.

You keep referring to google as a source in of itself rather then what it is ... a way to search for a source

I am not saying you are right or wrong but just waving a vague google flag at everything is rather tiring and pointless

Well if their service is good and they offer great flights for great prices, of course I'd fly with them. I'm not allergic to nuts so why should I not fly with them? And don't say something along the lines of "morality" or "helping the cause" because that is just plain bullshit. Call me selfish, call me a stupid git, or just plain old call me human. And I'm not gonna vote in your stupid, selfish and lop-sided poll.

well, no one is going to make all food gluten-free.
people don't even bother knowing what gluten is.
some places lie, and tell me the WHEAT-FLOUR BREAD is gluten-free.

as someone with pretty bad allergies (dustmites and gluten), i can understand how someone with a peanut allergy would want a peanut-free flight...

but it'll never happen, because people don't care.

...would you use an airline company that allowed nuts on its planes?

I personally wouldn't, as ANY company that cares more about profit than whether someone dies (due to inhaling the aroma of the nuts) on their aircraft is not deserving of a penny. Or even a cent.

I would...as I cannot recall repeated instances of mysterious deaths aboard airlines prior to peanut allergies becoming a (non)-issue.

but it'll never happen, because people don't care.

Why should we care as it's not our problem? :confused:

Food allergies, in general, are the problem of the allergic instead of the society: There is no imperative that we should pamper to someone's restricted diet unless it's actually a life & death issue or an issue of equality where level of freedom has been taken away, like say school or prison meals.

Freedom to travel in airplanes isn't critical to anyone's survival nor an absolute right, neither is eating at a fast food restaurant or being able to buy rich and varied food at the local grocery store.

Christ, wear a face mask if it's that bad. I don't wanna give up eating nuts on a plane, and I don't want the (I assume tiny) minority of passengers that can't handle inhaling nuts taking away the right of the airline to sell a popular, healthy snack.

people die from the smell of nuts?
i never thought of that.
i know it gets pretty bad if you don't wash them.
(i mean like when they rot or something of course)

=^^=
.../\...

I am not giving up my damn peanuts because Joe needs a biobubble to prevent him from dying from peanut allergies..

While we're at it, make sure everyone gets sterilized before entering the plane, to make sure that those with weak immune systems don't get sick.

Peanuts are good, allergies can be changed and cured in some (very few) cases with treatment. I'm not sacrificing my peanuts, a symbol of the Airline Food Industry.

Grr I'm a selfish git! (this isn't sarcasm)

lmao, people can die from smelling peanuts?:p

I'm sorry, but thats almost as hilarious as those two clowns who got shot.

...

(Not saying that people dieing is funny, just the conditions in which they died)

Probably been said a lot, but meh.
What a stupid fucking poll.

Re: Rede: Course it aint possible to totally harm none - however it IS possibly to harm none AS FAR AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE AND PRACTICAL



Mine too. I think he's nuts personally.

And for the people going on about "it's only a few people": Should we also get rid of any assistance for disabled persons then? After all, the percentage of disabled people is tiny.

THEN WHY DOES THE REDE NOT SAY THAT?

I think you are still not getting it huh? The amount of people that can die by sniffing nut fumes, is very, very very tiny. Much more small then the amount of disabled people in the world, so tiny is the posiblity that it has already been procliamed negligable.

a wise man once said

"some times you feel like a nut some times you don't"

well, no one is going to make all food gluten-free.
people don't even bother knowing what gluten is.
some places lie, and tell me the WHEAT-FLOUR BREAD is gluten-free.

as someone with pretty bad allergies (dustmites and gluten), i can understand how someone with a peanut allergy would want a peanut-free flight...

but it'll never happen, because people don't care.

I don't think that people don't care, more like why should they change their lives beause of your condition. Isn't it down to you to find out which food you can eat and which food is safe for you? Or don't you care?

A general world-wide ban on peanuts sounds sensible.
Or even better a world-wide ban on everything that could potentially cause an allergy of some sort ?
Simply enforce this ban for a few weeks and nobody on this planet will have to worry about an allergy again. Ever.
On second thought it solves loads of other problems too. Great plan !

...would you use an airline company that allowed nuts on its planes?

I personally wouldn't, as ANY company that cares more about profit than whether someone dies (due to inhaling the aroma of the nuts) on their aircraft is not deserving of a penny. Or even a cent.
Then what about less common allergies, like my life-threatening allergy to kiwi? (Not sure if it's still life-threatening, but the point remains) Should kiwi not be allowed on planes? If not then you're only showing different treatment towards more common allergies; how is that better?

Like it or not, the companies that priorize profit higher will be rewarded more; that's just the way it is in the natural selection of market competition.

EDIT: And it's not that I like how that happens either, but I'm just pointing out how that's the way it is; in competition those who priorize profit lower get drowned out by those who priorize it higher, which I'm guessing is why companies tend to prorize profit so highly, it's simply "those left over"; and another thing about the "more common" part, what about people choosing to reproduce instead of adopting children from third world countries? Surely those who care more about whether or not they're raising their own offspring than whether someone dies is not deserving of a penny (and what someone else said, a penny IS a cent) and if not, then, once again, you're only treating something differently for being more common.

Don't you think if people were dying on aircraft becuase of allergies, we would hear about it?

A general world-wide ban on peanuts sounds sensible.
Or even better a world-wide ban on everything that could potentially cause an allergy of some sort ?
Simply enforce this ban for a few weeks and nobody on this planet will have to worry about an allergy again. Ever.
On second thought it solves loads of other problems too. Great plan !

Yeah I agree, I know some of you out there are allergic to penicilin, lets ban that. I personaly know some folx who show all the symptoms of being allergic to work, lets ban that!

Milk! Evil stuff get rid of it, Wimmin too, ohh and men! Bwhahahhahah!

It's a fantastic job - later I was Australia covering wine, cheese and fish, why wouldn't you?

I can also claim to be an expert on airline food having spent so much time eating the damn stuff - my advice would be to always ask for a little salt if it doesn't come in the cutlery packet - you'd be surprised at the difference.

You can also, if you can be bothered, ask for requests, as in vegetarian food, which is generally better prepared due to the low amounts requested - though it is vegetarian food.

Finally, here's a real trick, for a very small amount of money, if it's near the birthday of, or if you just want to surprise, a loved one, you can request in advance for champagne to be served as well as a message flashed across their personal screen.

Works wonders.

I'm a vegetarian (or at least I was until recently). With the exception of Air India, I almost always request vegetarian food. And it usually is quite good.

Personal screen? I fly coach! :p

I've honestly never BEEN on an airline that was serving nuts at the time. It's always been some kind of cookies and/or crackers, with a soda of some sort. I did fly Delta (at least it was at the time) from Atlanta to DC at one point, and found when people ASKED for nuts, a few got the "We don't have any. Choking issues" answer. I've honestly never met anyone with a bad food allergy, aside from myself. I'm highly allergic to artificial sweeteners. Splenda, though it is derived from sugar, causes the worst reaction of them all. Now if they'd mark things using sucralose a little better, I'd be happy.

Don't you think if people were dying on aircraft becuase of allergies, we would hear about it?

The airlines are covering it up. It's all part of the plan to cleanse the world of people allergic to peanuts.

The airlines are covering it up. It's all part of the plan to cleanse the world of people allergic to peanuts.

That is why these people are so rare... it used to be widespread *nod*

I'd think penuts would cost too much for airlines to have. When I came out here to Phoenix with my dad the plane just gave the passengers this crappy chocolate chip muffin like thing. No nuts at all.
Back in my day you got a package of honey roasted peanuts on a short flight, two and a meal on a long flight. Although you didn't get a whole can of soda. There was a breif period at the end of the millenium where you could actually have a whole can of soda (and seconds), but they stopped serving meals.

Airline food in general is pretty toxic I think.
Order Kosher or vegetarian. Those meals are made of win.

Sure wish we could though. I was in Middle School when that banaka/manaka/whatever stuff was popular. And people didnt just dab it, they BATHED in the stuff. God, it was horrible. I had to leave class once or twice because I could hardly breathe.
If you dont know what it is, its a sort of perfume or something that smells like a combination of bleach and mint. Apparently cheap enough that a number of kids could afford to apply way too much of it. I'm sure many of you (Americans at least, Im not sure if European schoolkids are prone to this sort of thing) remember how your 'classmates' would apply roughly one bottle per day of any given aftershave/perfume/whatever, and how all of them would mix together in class and smell horrible.

You're talking about what was nominally a breath freshener -- Binaca. I recall that it was the early 80s when it came out, and it was staggeringly popular.

2% of a massive population is a LOT of people

P.S. Parents and children almost certainly do take precautions. But they can only go so far - for example, they could buy something which appears to be free from nuts, but ends up not being. They've checked the label, but nothing was mentioned. O.K. so UK law may require allergen labelling now, but that's just an example.

No, it isn't. Because that whole 2% merely has ANY reaction. The severe, life-threatening reactions, as has been repeatedly shown in this thread, are the ones causing 125 deaths PER YEAR in the US. That's 125 out of 300,000,000 (which equals about .0000416%).


And for the people going on about "it's only a few people": Should we also get rid of any assistance for disabled persons then? After all, the percentage of disabled people is tiny.

Oh, fer cryin' out loud. I don't know if that's a strawman or a Godwin or whatever, but it's horseshit. The number of people with genuine disabilities is orders of magnitude greater than those who die from peanut allergies, and you know it.

I would. It's not like people with peanut allergies are required to fly on the peanut planes, there are plenty of them that are nut-free.

Would it be because your immune system is not fully formed and peanuts are inherently poisonous to some extent?

If they are, I blame George Washington Carver.

If you have a disability, YOU are supposed to make do, NOT ME. I should bring peanuts and peanut butter on a plane and pass it around, rub it on the bathroom door...

I'd rather they replaced the peanuts with Sun Chips or raisins or cashews, even pecans -- if you want to stick with nuts.

But if I was hyper-allergenic, I'd make darned sure that the plane I flew on didn't have any peanuts on board, BEFORE I embarked.

I'd like them to serve pretzels instead, but that's merely a personal preference.

yep. If you are the one with a problem it's your job to advocate yourself into a safe situation. I don't expect other people to accommodate me automatically, but if they say they can/will, then is when I get really miffed when they don't.
I'd be really pissed if I were promised by XYZ Air that there were no peanut products on board, only to find out at cruising altitude that they were passing them out like there was no tomorrow.

I'd rather they replaced the peanuts with Sun Chips or raisins or cashews, even pecans -- if you want to stick with nuts.

But if I was hyper-allergenic, I'd make darned sure that the plane I flew on didn't have any peanuts on board, BEFORE I embarked.

yep. If you are the one with a problem it's your job to advocate yourself into a safe situation. I don't expect other people to accommodate me automatically, but if they say they can/will, then is when I get really miffed when they don't.

...would you use an airline company that allowed nuts on its planes?

I personally wouldn't, as ANY company that cares more about profit than whether someone dies (due to inhaling the aroma of the nuts) on their aircraft is not deserving of a penny. Or even a cent.

I certinaly would and DO use such planes. The level of allergic reaction your talking about afflicts just a small proportion of the population. Nuts in general are an extremely healthy food to eat, packed with healthy oils and protein. As long as the airlines informs consumers of what will be served on the plane (which they generally do) I see it as the responsibility of the person who has the allergy to keep up with what airlines serve them and which don't!

I've yet to see open peanuts being sold in a grocery store.

But, as I said, she never had problems in a plane, as far as I'm aware.
Do the bulk item bins count as open?

I certinaly would and DO use such planes. The level of allergic reaction your talking about afflicts just a small proportion of the population. Nuts in general are an extremely healthy food to eat, packed with healthy oils and protein. As long as the airlines informs consumers of what will be served on the plane (which they generally do) I see it as the responsibility of the person who has the allergy to keep up with what airlines serve them and which don't!

Well said.

If someone is that allergic to nut oils in the air, they'd be semi-permanently sequestered in their house or they'd better have their life and health insurance paid up, because they'd be constantly in the emergency room.

I have a friend who's severely allergic to peanuts. She was at an event and came in contact with a peanut in some food she ate, and started to have an anaphylactic seizure. A quick-thinking food vendor plied her with a big glass of half-and-half and that stopped the attack. My friend had to go home for the day, but she *went home.* She didn't go to the hospital. It happened again when we went to a Chinese restaurant, a peanut had snuck into her salad. She ordered a glass of milk, tossed it back and was alright, if a little queasy.

I think milk forms a coating that isolates/dilutes nut oils in the digestive tract. If you're a physician that specializes in allergies, feel very free to correct my math.

I think milk forms a coating that isolates/dilutes nut oils in the digestive tract. If you're a physician that specializes in allergies, feel very free to correct my math.

I think it does do some sort of coating or helps mucus production. It also helps dissolve oils like capsaicin and stops the burning sensation on your tongue. :)

Of course I would. I don't think I've even been on a plan that didn't allow peanuts. I wasn't even aware such planes existed.

I was even on a flight from Las Vegas where they forcibly removed someone with nut allergies from the plane because the airline wanted to serve nuts, so the passengers had to be removed (against their will) for their own safety.

Of course I would. I don't think I've even been on a plan that didn't allow peanuts. I wasn't even aware such planes existed.

I was even on a flight from Las Vegas where they forcibly removed someone with nut allergies from the plane because the airline wanted to serve nuts, so the passengers had to be removed (against their will) for their own safety.

Good. :)