Something occurred to me...

JB has been very proactive in action and voice. They are vested in finding a resolution to the problem. However, there are a few key things to take note of:

• "odors". This is a very specific legal term. Notice how they automatically conclude it's just an odor versus a "possible fume".
• JB is relying on authority figures to make a conclusion. Notice how they allow firefighters to give a hypothesis and they pass it off as nail polish?
  • Was a chemical test conducted to show bloodwork matching the chemical composition of nail polish?
  • Was a controlled experiment conducted to reproduce the symptoms?
  • A proper conclusion does not rely on authority figures to get credibility. As a general rule, i am never convinced because a medical doctor, nurse, firefighter, policeman, or manager says so. The beauty of science is that you can reproduce the results without relying on faith of authority figures.
• They also say that we have experienced such "odors" for the history of the industry.
  • True, and there is plenty of government documentation isolating this as a problem starting from the 1950's.
  • Business as usual isn't a valid way of dismissing the issue. It's still an issue whether it's been there for 100 years or not.
• JB is dismissing claims in a clever way but never actually meeting a scientific standard. Their conclusions need more scientific analysis. Up until then, they should say "INCONCLUSIVE" rather than passing off their hypothesis as fact.
• Are we supposed to be "ok" with casual exposures to bleed air contaminants such as APU exhuast ingestion just because we know the source? (think about that....)