BEIRUT

World

Qantas steward to launch landmark pesticides lawsuit

(FILES) This file photo taken on April 22, 2013 shows the tail of a Qantas Airline Airbus A380 at Sydney Airport. AFP PHOTO / FILES / Greg WOOD

SYDNEY: A former Qantas steward who believes he developed Parkinson's disease after repeated exposure to government-mandated pesticides sprayed in the cabin plans to sue Canberra, his lawyer said Monday.

Brett Vollus, 52, worked for Qantas for 27 years as a flight attendant until his early-onset Parkinson's forced him to take redundancy in May this year.

Vollus engaged a specialist lawyer, Tanya Segelov, to look into his case after the Sydney neurosurgeon who made his diagnosis told him he was seeing "a lot" of cabin crew.

"He has no family history of Parkinson's and he believes the Parkinson's has been caused by his exposure to the insecticide that he sprayed as a long-haul flight attendant on at least a fortnightly basis over a period of 17 years when working on board aircraft," Segelov told AFP.

"There is a link in the medical literature between Parkinson's and other motor neurone disease and insecticide and that link is well established," she added.

Comment is being sought by AFP from the Australian government on the case, which is set to be filed next year in the New South Wales Supreme Court.

Segelov won an engine fumes suit in 2010 against East-West Airlines, a regional carrier of now-defunct Ansett Australia, on behalf of a flight attendant who suffered respiratory damage. She said Vollus's case could have national or even global implications.

"This is not an issue confined to Australia, and there are still countries that mandate this spraying as well," she said.

"Some Asian countries still do it, India definitely still does."

The spraying was mandated by the Australian government on World Health Organisation guidelines to prevent the spread of insect-borne diseases like malaria.

The issue raised questions over what the government knew of the potential risks to cabin crew or what is should have known, she added.

Segelov said practices had since evolved to allow spraying to take place once the aircraft was empty, in a hangar, and for the personnel carrying it out to wear protective gear.

"As I understand it from looking at the World Health Organisation requirements that option has always been available, so it would be interesting to know why it was mandated to be sprayed the way that it was," she said.

"From the research I've done I think (the Australian government) were the ones that made the decision to spray on board the planes and they did it in such a way with no protection was offered to my client -- he had a can in each hand, he couldn't even cover his mouth."

 

Recommended

Advertisement

Comments

Your feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.

Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.

Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)

comments powered by Disqus

Advertisement

FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE

Interested in knowing more about this story?

Click here