BA flight attendant 'poisoned' by cabin fumes
 

From the Dec. 4 edition of The Times:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ne...umes-d0bzr38bf

To read the entire article, you have login, but I have cut and paste the article below sent to me by a friend:

[rest of copy-and-pasted article removed per FlyerTalk rules concerning the posting of copyrighted material]

Airtoxic syndrome has been a much discussed issue, most people don't realise that the cabin air supply on most aircraft comes from a bleed in the engines and can get contaminated. Apparently the Bae 146 was quite bad for this, though various investigations have failed to demonstrate unsafe levels of toxic compounds in Cabin air supplies.

That said I believe the 787's (and all future Boeing aircraft) air supply no longer comes from the engine.

.....

I think there's little doubt that cabin air can get contaminated. AIUI the real dispute is whether those incidents have caused the serious health issues that have been experienced by some crew members, or whether those health issues have been caused by other things.

Those who are campaigning on the basis of the former (and who may be right) are very good at making sure that the issue is periodically in the headlines. Although I don't have access to that Sunday Times article, the word "emerged" suggests that this may be another episode of that. I thought that the fact that there's a significant number of claims against airlines was already known and reported. (I leave aside the cynical thought that the journalist has used the phrase "it emerged" as a synonym for "I have just discovered".)

The 787s use air from electrical compressors rather than engine bleed. AIUI this was done to make engine changes quicker and different types of engines more interchangeable. I don't think it has been replicated in any other aircraft yet. The A380 uses bleed air.