On 5 Dec 2005 15:14:07 -0800, "Mark" <mlowry3@bellsouth.net> wrote:


How about just trying to limit exposure from people you are constantly in
contact with throughout the day? Is that unreasonable?


I have multiple chemical sensitivity, and perfume gives me a headache
(minor to severe, depending on the type of perfume and the amount of
exposure).
I avoid malls because far too many places sell scented candles or have
perfume counters, etc. As much as possible, I try to do any running around
or shopping early on a weekday, since fewer people around means less
chance of running into someone wearing too much perfume. I have also moved
or gotten off buses to avoid people wearing perfume (or smokers).

I don't expect the world to stop using scented products, and have cut many
outings short after too much exposure, or avoided events or places
entirely if I knew there would be scented products there.

However, if I had to work closely with someone, I would expect them to
show some consideration for my perfume sensitivity. If they insisted on
using scented products (I'd buy them unscented replacements to try, if
that would help) I would have to go to a manager, and failing a successful
resolution, I would have to quit. It would be impossible to work with a
constant headache, and I think unreasonable to place the right of someone
to wear perfume at work above my right to work at all.


How about we limit food bans to foods which can be fatal in trace amounts?
There is no 'slippery slope' which will lead to eliminating foods from
cafeterias, so that doesn't help your argument.


How is someone suppose to know in advance if someone has peanut breath, to
be able to put a mask on? The rest of your advice is fine, but a little
bit of consideration from coworkers could make it much easier on someone
with severe peanut allergies.


Leonard

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:53:26 GMT, "Skeptic" <bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote:

Eliminating peanuts from the workplace is relatively easy to do, and I
think reasonable if someone's allergy is severe enough.
It would not be practical to eliminate peanut products in public places.
Also, the risk of contamination in public places is lower, since you don't
spend 40 hours a week there, and are more likely to remain careful. In
familiar environments, you may become careless and forget to wipe a
surface down before touching it, etc.


I know there are alternative products, but do they have their own unique
problems? What would it cost to switch to them?
The practical considerations of banning latex are more complicated than
peanut products. There are many alternate lunches people can make, but I
would guess non-latex products are either less convenient or more
expensive, and hospitals do not see enough negative reactions that they
feel would justify switching.


That is the case with medications as well, and just about anything else
that people go through in hospitals. At least at a hospital, help should
be nearby if a mistake is made. Most workplaces don't have a risk of death
due to simple mistakes, though. Those that do generally have safety
regulations, which most employees accept even if they may be inconvenient
and usually unnecessary.


I don't think anybody expects protection at all times, but making the
workplace a little safer is not an unreasonable request, IMO when it is
easy to not bring in peanut products.


<snip>
Having the airline switch to another snack is easy to do, though. It would
be practically impossible to screen all the passengers for peanut use, and
unreasonable to expect. The terminal is a large public space, so a total
ban would not be practical (certain areas or restaurants could be
designated peanut free zones, though, if there were enough demand). The
airplanes themselves are small confined places with poor air circulation,
where people are stuck together for an extended time. Since the risks of
peanut exposure are much greater on the plane than in the terminal, and
medical help much farther away, it is not unreasonable to eliminate peanut
products as much as possible.

I don't find it that hard to determine about where the line should be. If
airlines are going to offer peanut free flights, then they should notify
people of that, and take reasonable steps if they see any passengers
boarding with peanut products. They should not otherwise be responsible
for passenger conduct, and an airport wide ban is probably not practical
or reasonable. If an airline chooses not to eliminate peanuts, then they
should make that known to any passengers that inquire. Practically, it may
be easier for the airlines to completely ban peanuts than to deal with
occasional special requests form people with severe allergies.

<snip>
I wouldn't have a problem working for that kind of company. While a peanut
ban might annoy some employees at first, I think most would accept that it
may be reasonable once they find out what kind of risk it could pose to
some people.
I have not heard of any companies that make peanut free products going out
of business for lack of skilled workers, in any case.


Leonard

I don't agree on some of your points below, but we're probably not as
divergent on this topic it seems... close enough to not bicker the finer
points. Good post.

"Leonard" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:kcq9p1tm6fm5udo1q1d7cd4ujmvc86lqqs@4ax.com...

In article <1133821398.293127.250560@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
<"johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com"> wrote:

I didn't write any of what you quoted.

But, yes, I agree that the words you quoted would have little effect on
a judge, who is bound by the law, not on what people think is
"considerate."


--Tim May

janet@eatshit.com wrote:

And then hopefully Timmy will get the chair. 'nother problem solved.

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:32:12 GMT, "Skeptic" <bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hey, people stating their opinions reasonably, resolving some differences
and agreeing to disagree on others... I'm going to have to retract my
comment that the trolling here was slightly effective. :-)


Leonard

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:36:27 -0800, Tim May <timcmay@removethis.got.net>
wrote:

If you claimed to eat peanut products in the lunch room and reasonably
clean up after yourself, then you could make an argument that you
shouldn't have to change your behaviour out of consideration for someone's
allergies.

However, you claimed to deliberately act in a manner which you knew could
harm someone. That is legally an assault if she has a reaction, so a judge
would not care about your definition of 'considerate'.


A man in Scotland was convicted of assault after smearing shampoo on the
doorknob of his ex-wife's house, to trigger an allergic reaction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/653965.stm

I could come up with something in the US if I did more than a quick
search, but the legal systems of Scotland and the US are not drastically
different, so this should suffice as an example.


Leonard

I did actually point out that in most situations the problem was mine
and that I didn't expect special treatment yet alone common courteousy
from people such as yourself.

Did you read my post? At all?

Did you read my post? So I can't go to the cafeteria? Big deal. So I
can't eat food in a restaurant? Okay, I'll sit and talk whilst other
people eat. I have control in those situations to be able to do
something about it.

Erm, if you actually read my post you will see that I do take
responsibility for myself. You will also note that I expressed
disappointment at someone who was an MD coming out with such
irresponsible drivel. Telling people that it is not a problem and they
there is no risk to others is quite simply a lie.

As others have said, whilst it is unreasonable to expect to legislate or
expect protection in every scenario there are certain scenarios that
require a degree of protection under current laws. The safety in the
work place is one of those.

I would rather cinemas took the same line as airlines and banned nuts.
It would make my experience, and that of a lot of others, a lot safer as
I am required to stay in one place for a period of time.

I can't force them to do it but the risk would be significantly reduced
if they didn't sell nut products. Would people complain? Possibly. Would
people stop going to the cinema? I doubt it. Would people not buy other
snacks so their takings were down? I doubt that also.

On a train I can, and do, move seats. At work I cannot. There is a
significant difference.

The original post was as a response to your poor advice following
someone being an idiot and threatening to kill someone (in my opinion)
which should be treated with the same severity as someone waving a gun
around in public.

Mark wrote:
Mark,
Are you an allergist? I have a peanut allergic friend who grew up in
the 1950s as a catholic. She got sick almost every friday because
everyone brought peanut butter sandwiches to school. She didn't eat it,
but being in a room full of it caused her to start weezing and
swelling.

She then became a librarian, and forgetting how bad schools can be, she
went to interview for a position as a school librarian, and she
happened to interview right after lunch, and walked through the
lunchroom. She felt her face flushing, her airways closing, and she
walked into the principals office, and apologised for wasting his time,
and left.

In these cases, it was JUST being in the same room with it - not even
injesting it. She nearly died a couple of times when it appeared in
foods she wasn't expecting it to be in - like Chili.

Cathy Weeks

Rich wrote:

There are no desensitization shots for peanut allergies.

Cathy Weeks

In article <1134268671.440229.72000@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
Cathy Weeks <kathyspam@weeksfamily.net> wrote:


Life is tough. Sounds like she'll eventually have a fatal reaction one
of these years....peanuts, peanut butter, Reese's Pieces, candy bars,
peanut brittle, and all sorts of other nuts, are just too common to
attempt to ban.

Think of it as evolution in action. Hopefully she hasn't bred yet.
That's sad for the kids, plus it puts more of Darwin's special people
into the population.

I think I'll take a bag of peanuts to the showing of "Narnia" tomorrow.


--Tim May

Skeptic wrote:
For someone who claims to be an MD, you show a remarkable lack of
knowledge about allergies. Latex products are generally contact
allergies. They make people itch, or break out - most often. It would
be bad form for your hospital to ban their use, where there is no
reason for it. But having latex alternatives is good form, both for
the hospital workers who are allergic, and for the patients. I had a
friend who had latex allergies - she had to make very sure her OBGYN
used latex-free gloves. <grin>

Actually I could make a case for airlines banning them, over that of an
employer. It's FAR easier to avoid peanuts, and more accurately -
airborn peanut particles in a workplace, than in an airplane with
recirculated air. The amount of fresh air in an airliner is just not
adequate. And sure, maybe the difference between row 28 and row 14
might be enough, but what if it's the person right next to you? Or just
two rows above. That's enough to cause a reaction in many peanut
allergy sufferers. I suppose they can have three sections in an
airliner - peanuts allowed up front. Then there's the buffer rows where
non-allergic individuals can sit, but not be served, then the allergic
individuals should sit in the back. Oh, wait, but what about when the
allergic individual has to disembark??? She then has to walk through
the rows with peanut-dust breathing indivduals, who didn't wash their
hands, and rubbed peanut oil in the handles, yadda yadda yadda.

Skeptic, this isn't a "little quirk". this is a serious,
life-threatening condition, in which sufferers have to carry
epinephrine to inject into their legs to prevent themselves from going
into shock and dying. I'm not allergic to peanuts - rather I'm
allergic to all types of insect venon (bees, wasps, yellow jackes,
hornets). I carry the damn pens 9 months out of the year, and will for
the rest of my life, despite the therapy going very well.

Lets try this analogy: Rat poison. In small amounts, it's not
particularly dangerous to most humans. And in fact, most people can
build up tolerance to it. But that aside - some people probably are
more susceptible than others to it, and only a tiny amount might make
those folks very very sick, where that same exposure to someone with a
normal immune system would have little effect. Is it reasonable to
require people to leave their strychnine at home?

I realize it's not a perfect analogy - strychnine has not healthful
benefits as far as I know, whereas peanuts are very good for you -
assuming you don't have an allergy to them.

Cathy Weeks

Tim May wrote:
Since you aren't particularly interested in changing your mind for any
reason, I'm not sure why I'm bothering. However, there are places
where banning it makes sense. Airplanes are one... you just can't get
away from it. Schools is another - kids all have to eat together, and
many like to trade food. Workplace? Probably not - it's pretty easy to
stay away from peanuts and like in *most* workplaces. Maybe a
compromise can be struck there - no peanuts in the vending machines,
but OK in the cafeteria. Public transit? again, probably no need -
plenty of fresh air and the like.

Well, actually, she had 5 kids. And none of them had any allergies,
except perhaps hayfever or the like.

Well, bully for you. I suppose you'll take your pet yellow jacket too,
to that it can sting me?

After all, there's no law against that.

Cathy Weeks

The wife of a friend of mine has an anaphylactic reaction to latex.
Doesn't matter whether she is touches it or inhales the dust the
reaction is the same.

Bizarrely, of her two local hospitals, one is a latex free zone and the
other isn't. Guess which one the ambulance took her when she gave birth
the last time?

Mike Edwards wrote:

Ouch!

OK, I stand corrected. I'd never heard of anaphalactic reactions to
latex - only contact rashes. I'm guessing it's fairly rare.

In some ways it's easier having my kind of allergy - insect venon: 1.
It's treatable (and in my case, I'm being treated), and 2. I never have
to worry about someone blowing bee venom on me, or insisting on
bringing their pet yellow jacket to the movie theater, "because there's
no law against it."

Cathy Weeks