Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / November 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Astham and fuel exhaust fumes

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jeff Johnson - 05 Nov 2005 23:44 GMT
Hello everyone,,,first time posting here. I have asthma controlled very well
by Advair. A coupld of days ago  I was visiting my brother who flys Learjets
so I spent about an hour with him in a hanger. Off and on I was getting
whiffs of exhaust as planes would taxi by. My breathing seems a bit worse
since then so I am somewhat paniced that I have damaged my lungs somehow
with the exhaust fumes. The fumes were not so bad I was coughing and the
planes were a short distance--but I suppose the wind carries it.

So can an hour exposure to such fumes damage my lungs even further? I am not
quite sure how lungs rid themselves of toxins---but I assume they do.

Perhaps my breathing issues are related to something way different. But I am
surely worrying thinking jet exhaust is more toxic than car or diesel. So
someone give me some bad news or good news.
Merlin - 06 Nov 2005 00:42 GMT
G'day Jeff, jet exhaust is usually JET-A1 fumes, (similar to ordinary
power kerosene) these fumes are excepionally potent for many asthmatics
with petroleum sensitivity.
Simply by the air volume ingested the effect would be worse, than
ordinary vehicle traffic exposure.
Obviously you have substantial sensitivity in this particular area.
There are methods of assisting reduction of this problem.
Cheers, Merlin.
Jeff Johnson - 06 Nov 2005 01:17 GMT
What methods? Did I damage my lungs you think? I did cough or have any
symptons during the time I was exposed for say 40 min off/on. The condo unit
below me is doing some work so it is possible all the dust from that is the
cause.

But I am concerned I damaged my lungs.

> G'day Jeff, jet exhaust is usually JET-A1 fumes, (similar to ordinary
> power kerosene) these fumes are excepionally potent for many asthmatics
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> There are methods of assisting reduction of this problem.
> Cheers, Merlin.
Merlin - 06 Nov 2005 03:05 GMT
G'day Jeff, I am not a medical person but would expect one short
exposure would not be all that lethal. Many people work in it
constantly.
You would probably be just as exposed following a smoky vehicle for a
reasonable distance on a highway.
Did you have stinging watery eyes at the time?
With sensitivity problems they need to be understood, avoided and a
method of desensitisation can be very helpful.
In that you mention already having an asthma problem you would already
likely have some lung damage. The short exposure you had would be
marginal increase if any.
There is supposed to be a doctor on this site and it will be most
interesting to see what he has to say. But I doubt he will post to
answer such a question.
He appears to be only interested in arguing about ridiculous things all
the time.
If you understood your sensitisation issues I may be able to assist
with a desens routine but see what eventuates here.
Cheers, Merlin.
Jeff Johnson - 06 Nov 2005 03:17 GMT
My eyes were not watery at all. Yes I have to believe such short exposure is
not a problem. People work at gas stations, airports, etc. But I read jet
fuel exhaust very toxic.

What is desenstizing---I am unfamiliar with that and asthma.

> G'day Jeff, I am not a medical person but would expect one short
> exposure would not be all that lethal. Many people work in it
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> with a desens routine but see what eventuates here.
> Cheers, Merlin.
Merlin - 06 Nov 2005 04:30 GMT
G'day Jeff, it becomes quite debateable but essentially there are
various kinds of problem causes, this may be from bugs affecting the
respiratory system or allergic reactions etc. My interest is only with
allergy kinds of problems.
It is common for people involved with various substances to generate
effects from that exposure, this may be skin rashes, irritated air
ways, or even massive reactions where normal body function is involved.

With an allergy the body has some form of reaction, this may be hives,
or generated congestion in the airways, headaches, and numerous other
symptoms. Over time and repeated cycles of exposure the problem
develops moreso.
Normal medical practice is to use drugs to try to arrest the effect of
an exposure situation. In effect this is like a masking method, the
person can keep being exposed to the problem substance without having
to suffer effects as would normally be the case.
>From my point of view and experience this is not a clever method for
problem control, as usually the body sensitisation increases and the
problem develops moreso often requiring increasing medication. If
medication is then ceased the problem may really have manifested to the
point where that person is entirely medication dependent.
The desensitising idea is to determine what the problem sensitising
causes actually are and either remove that problem source or
encapsulate it. But one way or another disable those causitive items.
(often multiples)
In some cases a vaccine can be used to produce a desensitised effect,
but my interest is in a different method of natural routines and
altered lifestyle.
In effect using gathered intelligence to overcome the problem coupled
with a system of remedial routines.
A typical example might be a person living in a closed apartment with
carpets that have aged, been through repeated cleaning cycles, have
some internal composting effect happening in them, maybe some moulds
present, animal matter ingress and that kind of thing.
Of course these elements may become airborne in the form of dust and
gases and may develop substantial allergic effect for the person, who
eventually develops a permanent problem etc. Normally this kind of
person may have a severe worsening cough which would develop into a
full blown asthmatic kind of situation over time.
(Some children may develop the problem for other reasons at earlier
ages.)
Under normal circumstances he would keep receiving medication from his
doctor to alleviate the problem, and also become sickly, usually
receiving antibiotics to try to assist the associated illness problems,
but the body has a limited ability to receive punishment and eventually
asthmatic problems would be present.
Generally this circumstance continues and medication useage increases
as the person becomes more ill.
So that is what commonly happens. Your circumstance may be different
but you would follow the reasoning and appreciate the logic.
My interest is to try to determine what a person may be exposed to and
attempt to remove it, thus trying to create a situation where natural
healing may happen using a series of assistive routines to try to allow
a desensitising effect to generate. In many cases this can be very
effective.
Of course we are basing this method on "every effect has a cause" which
can be very assistive.
I would suggest to you that motor vehicle exhausts of equivalent volume
have similar potency to jet engines.
How long have you had your problem and how severe is it?
Do you have any idea of how your problem is caused, or had any allergy
testing?
What is your antibiotic useage history like and your illness kind of
susceptibility?
Cheers, Merlin.
00doc - 06 Nov 2005 04:59 GMT
> G'day Jeff, it becomes quite debateable but essentially there are
> various kinds of problem causes, this may be from bugs affecting the
> respiratory system or allergic reactions etc. My interest is only with
> allergy kinds of problems.

Wheezing after exposure to a chemical irritant is not due to allergies.

> With an allergy the body has some form of reaction, this may be hives,
> or generated congestion in the airways, headaches, and numerous other
> symptoms. Over time and repeated cycles of exposure the problem
> develops moreso.

Right.

> Normal medical practice is to use drugs to try to arrest the effect of
> an exposure situation. In effect this is like a masking method, the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> medication is then ceased the problem may really have manifested to the
> point where that person is entirely medication dependent.

The part you leave out is that identifying and eliminating triggers is
central to asthma treatment. No doc ever says to just take the meds and not
avoid the trigger. I admit that often the patients can't or won't do it but
that is their own issue, not the advice of the doc.

I do agree with you that with continued exposure things generally get worse
no matter what meds they are taking. But this is a product of the disease
worsening due to continued exposure, not the meds making anything worse or
creating dependance. If the person finds that they crash every time they
stop the meds chances are what is happenening is that the meds allowed them
to continue the exposures (and worsening of their disease) for longer than
they otherwise would have.

> How long have you had your problem and how severe is it?
> Do you have any idea of how your problem is caused, or had any allergy
> testing?
> What is your antibiotic useage history like and your illness kind of
> susceptibility?

Go ahead, answer him. See if you get any real practical advise.

Signature

00doc

Merlin - 06 Nov 2005 05:11 GMT
G'day Gentlemen, sorry Jeff but I seemed to gather from your account
that you had been given drugs for your problem without explanation of
how it was caused or an explanation of "triggers".
I have found that was a general procedure.
I seem to have missed your mention of wheezing was that actually the
case?

Cheers Merlin.
Merlin - 06 Nov 2005 05:36 GMT
G'day 00, your mention is interesting
I do agree with you that with continued exposure things generally get
worse
no matter what meds they are taking. But this is a product of the
disease
worsening due to continued exposure, not the meds making anything worse
or
creating dependance. If the person finds that they crash every time
they
stop the meds chances are what is happenening is that the meds allowed
them
to continue the exposures (and worsening of their disease) for longer
than
they otherwise would have.

So you discount the fact that a person becomes more ill by the effect
of the medication artificially allowing exposure thus maintaining
apparent status quo. Of course the meds don't make anything worse
directly but the increased problem manifestation is hidden by the
effect of the drugs which consequently allow problem effect to be
apparently negated. So the disease progress is hidden until the drug
effect is removed, then "wham"!
I miss your logic.
Cheers, Merlin.
00doc - 06 Nov 2005 04:53 GMT
> With sensitivity problems they need to be understood, avoided and a
> method of desensitisation can be very helpful.

Desensitization works well for most allergic triggers. However, since
chemical irritants, like petroleum product fumes, do not trigger the asthma
via an immune mechanism it is not possible to induce tolerance. i.e.
desensitization will not work. Undersatnding and avoiding is always a good
idea.

> In that you mention already having an asthma problem you would already
> likely have some lung damage. The short exposure you had would be
> marginal increase if any.

I'm not sure I would describe the lungs of all asthmatics as "damaged". They
just have an exaggerated normal response to some things. A short exposure to
an irritant can lead to severe prolonged symptoms at times but I do agree
that that is not the impression I got from Jeff's posts.

> There is supposed to be a doctor on this site and it will be most
> interesting to see what he has to say. But I doubt he will post to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> If you understood your sensitisation issues I may be able to assist
> with a desens routine but see what eventuates here.

If you have any doubts about who is who around here just googles some posts.

Signature

00doc

Merlin - 06 Nov 2005 04:58 GMT
G'day 00, nice to see you back!
Cheers, Merlin.
00doc - 06 Nov 2005 04:47 GMT
> Hello everyone,,,first time posting here. I have asthma controlled very
> well by Advair. A coupld of days ago  I was visiting my brother who flys
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> am surely worrying thinking jet exhaust is more toxic than car or diesel.
> So someone give me some bad news or good news.

I doubt you did permanent damage. After serious episode of irritation it can
take weeks or more for the hyperresponsiveness of the airways to settle down
but I would hope that your exposure was not that bad. If it is not that bad
just try to ride it out. If it is fairly bothersome (like requiring
albuterol on a daily basis) and not getting better than you may need a burst
of steroids.

Signature

00doc

Jeff Johnson - 06 Nov 2005 15:08 GMT
I hope you are right. I guess if 40 minute exposure permantly damaged my
lungs, then airport workers would be dropping like flies. Just worried is
all.

>> Hello everyone,,,first time posting here. I have asthma controlled very
>> well by Advair. A coupld of days ago  I was visiting my brother who flys
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> requiring albuterol on a daily basis) and not getting better than you may
> need a burst of steroids.
Donald Link - 06 Nov 2005 22:45 GMT
You may also be sterile.

>Hello everyone,,,first time posting here. I have asthma controlled very well
>by Advair. A coupld of days ago  I was visiting my brother who flys Learjets
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>surely worrying thinking jet exhaust is more toxic than car or diesel. So
>someone give me some bad news or good news.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.