3 ms·

Are there such patients who live daily life normally but get sick at a whiff of a cracked chocolate? Will they get as sick from walking in a food court or other

Are there such patients who live daily life normally but get sick at a whiff of a cracked chocolate? Will they get as sick from walking in a food court or other places in daily life? I can't judge this policy as reasonable or draconian.

jonlucc 8y ago
I'm not saying it is right, but I think the idea is that an emergency on a plane forces an emergency landing, which is very expensive and inconvenient. At a food court, they just block off a section and call the paramedics.
scbrg 8y ago
Avoiding a food court is relatively easy. There are other ways to acquire and consume food. Avoiding airplanes pretty much means you never travel longer than a thousand km or so. That's a fairly big restriction. (also, "a whiff of cracked chocolate" is perhaps not as much of a problem as "someone sitting next to you and chewing nuts, and accidentally throwing some of them in your face if there's some turbulence")
- majewsky 8y ago
  > Avoiding airplanes pretty much means you never travel longer than a thousand km or so. Trains exist, and in first-world countries they're usually pleasant to use, even if it takes longer than an airplane. But then again, if being in an airplane cabin with a peanut eater is dangerous, then being in a train wagon with one probably is as well.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > even if it takes longer than an airplane. A lot longer. There's at least a 5x difference between typical plane and train speeds. So a 5-6 hour flight becomes a 25-30 hour train ride. That's a pretty major cost and inconvenience you so blithely dismiss as long as it only affects someone else. Also, please note that it's not that uncommon any more for people to travel over water, and there are no trains there. But I suppose you'd say those people who aren't you should just constrain their choice of job or occupation accordingly. Nothing's a big deal when it's somebody else's problem, right?
    - majewsky 8y ago
      I'm not aware of my dismissing anyone's concerns "as long as it only affects someone else". I flagged your comment since you clearly violate the guideline "Assume good faith".

jonlucc 8y ago

I'm not saying it is right, but I think the idea is that an emergency on a plane forces an emergency landing, which is very expensive and inconvenient. At a food court, they just block off a section and call the paramedics.

scbrg 8y ago

Avoiding a food court is relatively easy. There are other ways to acquire and consume food. Avoiding airplanes pretty much means you never travel longer than a thousand km or so. That's a fairly big restriction. (also, "a whiff of cracked chocolate" is perhaps not as much of a problem as "someone sitting next to you and chewing nuts, and accidentally throwing some of them in your face if there's some turbulence")

majewsky 8y ago
> Avoiding airplanes pretty much means you never travel longer than a thousand km or so. Trains exist, and in first-world countries they're usually pleasant to use, even if it takes longer than an airplane. But then again, if being in an airplane cabin with a peanut eater is dangerous, then being in a train wagon with one probably is as well.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > even if it takes longer than an airplane. A lot longer. There's at least a 5x difference between typical plane and train speeds. So a 5-6 hour flight becomes a 25-30 hour train ride. That's a pretty major cost and inconvenience you so blithely dismiss as long as it only affects someone else. Also, please note that it's not that uncommon any more for people to travel over water, and there are no trains there. But I suppose you'd say those people who aren't you should just constrain their choice of job or occupation accordingly. Nothing's a big deal when it's somebody else's problem, right?
  - majewsky 8y ago
    I'm not aware of my dismissing anyone's concerns "as long as it only affects someone else". I flagged your comment since you clearly violate the guideline "Assume good faith".