It's both. That's why Southwest stopped, for instance. Literally just opening a small bag of peanuts around people who aren't eating peanuts is enough to bring someone with a severe allergy into anaphylactic shock.
> What can occur is that the patient smells an allergen, and that smell triggers a strong memory of a past reaction or the fear of having a reaction and signs and symptoms of panic may occur – including an increase in heart rate, tight breathing, flushing of the skin and nervousness, all of which could be mistaken as signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis. ... While smells can linger in the air, the allergen proteins do not, which is why smelling a food will not trigger anaphylaxis.
Interestingly some allergens like those in shellfish /can/ aerosolize in a boiling pot, however according to them peanuts cannot. I can still absolutely see airlines reacting to passengers thinking they're having attacks and eliminating peanut snacks out of caution and to avoid the issues even an imagined attack can cause on a flight. That and the risk of surface contamination probably?
https://www.aaaai.org/tools-for-the-public/conditions-librar...
edit: dang scooped by 5 minutes.
That does sound like something that would be a real issue, but only in close proximity
The vast majority of allergens, on the other hand, are proteins, with the very smallest proteins being on the order of 1 kiloDalton. Large proteins get up into hundreds to thousands of kDa.
He's pretty anxious about food in general, so it actually made a lot of sense.
No it's not. We know for a fact this is not true.
Here's an interesting story (but you can also find ample published literature on it, or even just like... think about how brains work): https://tomstafford.substack.com/p/reasonably-emotional
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage#Somatic_marker_hy...
Second having brain damage and being incapable of processing emotion, doesn't mean that the rest of the brain hasn't been affected. In other words, a brain with an inability to process emotion, may also have an inability to process logical thought outcomes unrelated to the loss of emotional processing.
But look... the brain is complex. It's not some sort of pre-planned construct, as I'm sure you know it's an evolved organ, layered, complex. For example, memory imprint seems to be heavily impacted by emotion. Note that I'm not saying "only formed by", but impacted.
It's why you get PTSD, and it makes sense. Think mouse set upon by cat, the mouse naturally was exceptionally fearful, panicking, adrenaline, and it's very important that the mouse associates any reference to 'cat' with 'fear' and 'apprehension'. So the concept that emotion can fix survival important memories into memory, is seemingly a sensible one.
Yet for all of this, we can lay down knowledge and retain it without a cat standing over our shoulder. Realistically, we have multiple decision making processes, and ways to store memory, and so on, running in parallel.
Parallel also doesn't mean, by the way, that one cannot be affected by the other. You can use one decision making process to affect another. You can quell emotional response with reason, and emotional response can quell logical thought. Again, complex.
Effectively, what I'm saying here is that this is a complex topic. And that I'm sticking with my rendition, whilst explaining that 'parallel' doesn't imply 'isolated'.
By the way, fun 30 minute dive into that book/author/articles, thanks for the link.
To me it seems like if they logically know the smell can not cause harm having a strong emotional fear reaction is illogical. Of course most emotions are so that's not meant to be a blame or anything...
Is it fair to call it "illogical" to panic when someone puts a bag over your head when you were previously kidnapped and almost murdered after someone put a bag over your head?
All considering for the person affected (and my desire to not end up at an alternate airport for hours/overnight) has always seemed like an easy thing to do.
I'm all for consideration for others, especially when crammed into a tight space for hours on end, but once we get into the realm of purely psychological effects, where do we draw the line? For example, there are people that are absolutely convinced that my phone's electromagnetic radiation will cause them discomfort, yet in-flight Wi-Fi is a thing.
To be clear, I'm totally on board with limiting common allergens in airplane food, but please let me eat my own peanuts in peace instead of further facilitating mass hysteria.
> I can still absolutely see airlines reacting to passengers thinking ...
That, plus a dozen other scenarios which airlines do not want paying out in their airplanes. Or even post-flight, if some lawyer wanted to argue that the fatal peanut fell into mommy's purse during her flight back home to her family.
Also, thinking as the airline, I'd do anything possible to avoid causing anaphylaxis on a flight, starting by simply removing common allergens from the menu. In the modern world, pretty much the only times an anaphylaxis attack would actually threaten my life would be camping in the wilderness and on a flight. Anaphylaxis has a great survival rate if you have an epipen and can get to a hospital quickly, and if you can't it's all down to how bad your allergy is and what meds you have available. Maybe I'm stupid but I don't bring on a flight the steroids that I'd bring camping, and I doubt the airplane has a supply either.
Although peanuts served in planes are not in the shell, I can imagine how having potentially allergic people in close contact to people potentially oblivious to allergy issues eating peanuts sitting right next to them and eating peanuts could be problematic.
https://www.aaaai.org/allergist-resources/ask-the-expert/ans...
She visited a friend's house and started getting an itchy throat immediately. Friends knew of her allergy and obviously hadn't prepared any.
Turned out the dog food had peas in it and the bag was open on the other end of the house in the kitchen. (And a supporting role from whatever the dog had slobbered on in the living room)
Sometimes it blows me away how sensitive our bodies can be.
Yes, but consider that we're all descended from people who survived diseases like smallpox. Repeatedly.
And how few nanograms of smallpox virus are needed for LD50, to weed out the insensitive immune systems.