OSHA: Proposed Standard For Indoor Air Quality: ETS Hearings, September 29, 1994
OSHA: Proposed Standard For Indoor Air Quality: ETS Hearings, September 29, 1994
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED STANDARD FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY
Thursday, September 29, 1994
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.
BEFORE: HONORABLE JOHN VITTONE
Administrative Law Judge
AGENDA
PAGE
Christopher Witkowski 2104
Alice Evans 2116
Mary O'Shea 2121
Questions:
Debra Janes 2144
Ms. El-Mekawi 2146
Lee Hathon 2152
James Repace 2155
Ms. Sherman 2158
Randolph D. Smoak, Jr. 2164
Questions:
Darryl Alexander 2176
Bill Borwegen 2188
Diane Carlson 2200
Cathy Sarri 2208
Phil Thornton 2208
Margaret Jackson 2214
Questions:
Rex Tingle 2217
Darryl Alexander 2220
John DeFazio 2227
Jim Dinegar 2231
Clawson Eli 2253
Ms. Sherman 2255
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT NO. IDENTIFIED RECEIVED
42 2103 2163
43 2103 2163
44 2103 2163
45 2115 2163
46 2143 2163
47 2143 2163
48 2172 ---
49 2182 ---
50(A-D) 2186 2216
P R O C E E D I N G S
9:30 a.m.
JUDGE VITTONE: Good morning, everybody.
Before beginning with our first group of witnesses, let me ask, are there any preliminary matters that need to be raised at this point? Ms. Sherman, do you have anything?
MS. SHERMAN: No.
JUDGE VITTONE: Okay. Anybody else? Good. My first panel of witnesses this morning is a three-person panel from the Association of Flight Attendants. Good morning. Who's going to be the chair of the group?
MR. WITKOWSKI: I'll be the chair.
JUDGE VITTONE: Okay. Would you please state your name for the record? Please identify the other participants in the panel and who you represent.
MR. WITKOWSKI: Yes, my name is Christopher Witkowski. I'm the Director of Air Safety and Health for the Association of Flight Attendants. On my left is Mary O'Shea, who is a member of the Association of Flight Attendants and works for a major carrier. Next to her is Alice Evans, who is also a member of the Association of Flight Attendants and who also works for another major carrier.
JUDGE VITTONE: Let me ask you, Mr. Witkowski, have you already, or has the association already submitted a statement for the record?
MR. WITKOWSKI: Yes, we submitted one back in August.
JUDGE VITTONE: In August.
MR. WITKOWSKI: I brought two additional copies.
JUDGE VITTONE: Okay. Can I have one right now, please?
(Brief pause)
MS. WARD: Mr. Witkowski, have you made any changes? Yes?
JUDGE VITTONE: Wait a minute, let me make sure I get everything here on the record. So why don't you just hold that question there, okay? Ms. Ward?
Do me a favor. Give copies to the OSHA panel and also ... we're going to be off the record a second.
(Discussion held off the record)
JUDGE VITTONE: Are there two statements, or are there three statements?
MR. WITKOWSKI: There's three.
JUDGE VITTONE: There are three statements. There's one from Mary O'Shea, one from Alice Evans, and one from you?
MR. WITKOWSKI: That's right.
JUDGE VITTONE: Could I have a copy of the one from you? All right, I have one. Thank you. The extra copies you gave me included all three of them?
MR. WITKOWSKI: Yes.
JUDGE VITTONE: All right. My law clerk has placed them on the table out front. Let me check with the reporter. Yesterday we left off with Exhibit 41-A? Okay. Ms. O'Shea's testimony will be 42, Ms. Evans' testimony will be 43, and Mr. Witkowski's testimony will be 44.
(The documents referred to were marked for identification as Exhibits No. 42, No. 43, and No. 44.)
JUDGE VITTONE: Now these were all submitted on September the 29th?
MR. WITKOWSKI: This copy, yes.
JUDGE VITTONE: All three of these, each copy?
MR. WITKOWSKI: Yes.
JUDGE VITTONE: Okay. Ms. Ward, you asked Mr. Witkowski a question. I want to make sure it gets on the record. Could you restate it please?
MS. WARD: Are the three statements distributed this morning the same as those filed in the docket on August 13?
MR. WITKOWSKI: No. There were some changes made to the statements that were filed this morning.
MS. WARD: Okay. To all three?
MR. WITKOWSKI: Yes.
MS. WARD: Thank you.
JUDGE VITTONE: Mr. Witkowski, as I understand it, each of you wants to make an oral presentation. You also have a short video that you want to show to the audience, too.
MR. WITKOWSKI: Yes, Judge.
JUDGE VITTONE: Okay. If you're ready to proceed, would you go ahead and do that please? You can start however you want to. If you want to talk first, or if you want the two of your colleagues to talk first, however you want to do it. You can start now.
MR. WITKOWSKI: What I'd like to do to begin is to show a brief videotape that lasts about ten minutes. It is a story done by ABC News/20-20 in which they reported on a survey by the Harvard School of Public Health on contaminants in airline cabins to add to a little bit of data to the study of airliner cabin air quality. I'd like to just begin and play that tape.
MS. SHERMAN: Mr. Witkowski, are you planning to leave a copy of this videotape?
MR. WITKOWSKI: Yes, I am.
MS. SHERMAN: So it will be in the docket office available for people to see?
MR. WITKOWSKI: Yes.
MS. SHERMAN: Thank you.
MR. WITKOWSKI: This study was conducted ...
JUDGE VITTONE: Mr. Witkowski, you're going to have to talk to the microphone, or nobody can hear you, or the reporter, more importantly.
MR. WITKOWSKI: The study was conducted between the months, I believe, of February and April 1994. The two principal investigators that led the team were Dr. Jack Spengler and Dr. Harriet Burge who are with the Harvard School of Public Health. They served on a committee for the National Academy of Sciences, which produced a report in 1986 in airliner cabin air quality.
JUDGE VITTONE: All right.
JUDGE VITTONE: Could you please make sure that volume is up as loud as possible?
"...air passengers talk about it more. They don't feel good, they're wondering if it's the air in the cabin, pollutants that come out of the chemicals in the toilet, that off-gas from the seats, the things that come out of the ovens. It is a very unhealthy environment.
"During the past decade, complaints about the quality of air in airplanes have been stacking up like jets at the nation's busiest airports. Many passengers get off flights complaining of headaches, fatigue, and nasal congestion -- symptoms they attribute to their flying experience.
"Critics say the problem stems back to the oil crisis of the 1970's which spurred manufacturers to build planes that use less fuel. In fact, they developed ventilation systems that use less fuel but also took in less fresh air. That, says the critics, has affected air quality.
"Throughout the debate, the flight attendants have been the most vocal in their complaints about air quality. Pam Touchstone has been a flight attendant for more than ten years. She remembers one time when she and the other attendants on her flight were overcome, gasping for breath. 'We found ourselves, six out of seven flight attendants sitting down on a plane full of passengers, unable to work, unable to have any presence out in the aisle until we made a stop.'
"Congressman Peter DeFazio, a frequent flyer, is convinced that the air in airline cabins is not fit to breathe. DeFazio makes regular coast-to-coast trips from Washington, D.C. to Oregon, his home state. 'I've had the sinus problems, I've had the headaches. I get sick as frequently as any other frequent flyer. You sit next to someone who's sick, you get sick. You hear someone two rows behind you coughing and snorting. You're pretty likely to get sick. They're putting that into the system. It's an extraordinarily unhealthy environment.'
"The debate about cabin air quality intensified last year when the Centers for Disease Control reported they were investigating four different flights to determine the possibility of transmitting TB on airplanes.
"One case involves California management consultant Bob Kahn. He and his wife, Patty, were on a plane with a passenger who was later diagnosed with contagious tuberculosis. After the flight, Patty tested negative, but Bob tested positive. Now Bob takes a daily drug regime to try to kill the tuberculosis bacteria. 'I take it in the morning, and I'm taking it five days a week.' The San Francisco Department of Health is also now investigating the possibility that Mr. Kahn and other passengers got TB on the flight.
'The idea was statistics, and when ten out of 25 people on a particular flight tested positive for tuberculosis, that's not a random chance.'
"The plane that the Kahns' flew, the MB-80, is part of a new generation of aircraft which filters and recirculates up to 50 percent of the cabin air, unlike older aircraft which utilized 100 percent fresh air. This new ventilation system which uses recirculated air is at the center of the debate about cabin air quality.
The director of Air Safety and Health for the Association of Flight Attendants is Chris Witkowski. 'When we had most planes with 100 percent fresh air, the air used to come in almost totally clean and then be exhausted every three minutes. Today, with the 50 percent fresh air and 50 percent recycled air, the plane isn't completely changed until approximately seven minutes or even longer in some cases. So you have air that has less quality to begin with, it's got more contaminants, and it stays in the plane longer.'
"But airline industry experts say that recirculated air works just fine. Michael Rioux is Vice President of Engineering for the Air Transport Association, a trade association representing all the airlines. 'We certainly don't want people to believe that we're trying to squeeze another nickel out of everybody's wallet just because we found out a way to make the airplane use less air. So what they've done is they've developed a system still maintaining, in fact, improving the ventilation flow to each passenger that's sitting in the airplane.'
"The recirculated air system relies on sophisticated filters to trap air contaminants. Critics charge that airlines don't replace the filters often enough. But the Air Transport Association says that airlines strictly follow manufacturer's guidelines for filter maintenance.
"So, does cabin air pose a threat to health? Does the use of recirculated air foster an environment in which bacteria or viruses are more easily transmitted? To date, the only scientific study of airplane air quality has been done by the Department of Transportation in 1989. That study confirmed that smoking was indeed a health hazard. But many experts say the DOT study did not adequately study such things such as pollutants or germ transmission or inadequate ventilation as possible health threats.
"To begin to get some answers to these questions, 20/20 commissioned an independent survey. The 20/20 survey was lead by Dr. John Spengler, Professor of Environmental Health at the Harvard School of Public Health, and by Dr. Harriet Burge, Associate Professor of Environmental Microbiology, also of Harvard. Both are internationally know experts, each having more than 20 years studying environmental air quality and airborne microbes. 'Within fifteen seconds of both my watch and the IAQ...'
"A survey began two months ago with Drs. Spengler and Burge preparing Harvard Research Engineer Tom Dumyahn and Research Assistant Carrie Dahlstrom to collect the data on the airplane. Dumyahn and Dahlstrom set out to collect data in eleven categories, including such things as carbon dioxide, noise levels, organic compounds, as well as samples of dust, to be tested for contaminants, something that has never been tested before in airplanes.
"The testing was done without the knowledge of the airline industry. Dumyahn and Dahlstrom conducted extensive tests during boarding and while in flight. They also vacuumed up samples during de-planing. In all, they flew on every domestic airline, 22 flights in 10 different aircraft models. They sat in the front and rear of coach sections of flights with an average passenger load of nearly 80 percent. 'When the plane actually is in cruise, they're staying pretty consistently around 1,500.'
"When Doctors Spengler and Burge analyzed the data, they found some surprises. For example, they found high levels of carbon dioxide. These levels indicate inadequate ventilation and may be the cause of symptoms like fatigue and headaches and sinus problems.
"'Would these levels be a particular concern to the workers on the plane, the pilots or the attendants?'
"'The pilots probably aren't experiencing the same levels at all, considering that they have different ventilation systems. I would expect they would be of considerable concern to the flight attendants.'
"The Harvard survey's biggest surprise is bad news for people with asthma and allergies. Mites, minute disease-causing bugs, were found in dust samples collected from seats and carpets. The levels were high enough to indicate that mites had nested, possibly settling in permanently. And they found extensive evidence of cat allergens, presumably brought on by passengers. Allergens are substances that can trigger allergic reactions.
"'Your eyes hurt, you might have sneezing episodes, you might have coughing and congestion. And I think this is a very important finding that has never been mentioned before.'
"The dust samples also revealed relatively high levels of endo-toxins, which are substances found in the cell walls of certain bacteria. They are potentially toxic substances never before linked to airplanes. The Harvard researchers think these may be a cause of the dry-eye and scratchy-throat symptoms suffered by many air travellers.
"'My expectation would be that if we continued to sample, the average would be higher in airplanes than in housedust, which is very, very surprising.'
"'We've often heard complaints from flight attendants about their malaise, their symptoms of eye irritation, throat, respiratory problems. And this certainly is a biological entity that can contribute to that or cause that. So I think it warrants a further investigation.'
"The Harvard scientists paid particular attention to the way in which air travelled inside the plane. They wanted to know if passengers seated in the back of the cabin are susceptible to the germs of those in the front of the plane.
"Michael Rioux of the Airport Transport Association says, 'that's not possible, because the airflow in the plane is top to bottom, not front to back. If you're talking about two rows back or two rows up, you wouldn't have any effect at all, as far as a forward and aft movement.'
"So if the air comes from top to bottom but doesn't move back and forth, you're not going to get the breathing of a person several rows back or several rows in front?
"(Michael Rioux): 'That's correct. Somebody in row 33 wouldn't be affected by someone in row 2 or even row 3.'
"But the Harvard Scientists say that is not true. They conducted a special ventilation test. 'I think we've demonstrated beyond a doubt that we can pick up contaminants or indicators of that throughout the plane, so that if it were released in seat 16, in seat 28 you're going to see part of that; seat 35 you're going to see part of that.'
"What about tuberculosis, something that has been of great concern to the public?
"'Tuberculosis is not a disease that can be controlled by ventilation, and there's actually really quite good data in the literature to indicate that no amount of ventilation will prevent tuberculosis.'
"So what is the bottom line? Even though there are no final answers, this survey does identify potential explanations for some of the common complaints from flyers, such as nasal congestion, eye and throat irritation, and fatigue.
"Overall, would you describe airplane air quality as 'safe?'
'I don't think I would ever categorically say that this is a safe environment. It's very worrisome. It worries me when I hear people doing that, because you can't ever know that.'
"And until this problem is thoroughly examined, people like Pam Touchstone worry that their health may be compromised. 'This is easily dismissed because there are a lot of variables, there are a lot of things that are going on out there that attributes to this problem. But it's very simple, and it's just common sense. It's about fresh air.'
(Barbara Walters): "'Well, Timothy Johnson is in our Boston studio. What does the airline industry say about this?'
(Timothy Johnson): "'Well, as you know, Barbara, a few weeks ago, they released their own study concluding that air in airplanes was safe. We obviously feel that the Harvard researchers have uncovered some new questions that need to be answered. I stress they are preliminary questions. We need much more study. The Air Transport Association today released a statement saying they are looking forward to reviewing the Harvard findings. They want to reassure the public that air travel is safe.'
(Barbara Walters): "'Well, in the meantime ..."
(End of Video)
JUDGE VITTONE: Mr. Witkowski, we can take care of that when you're done. For the record, the video that you just showed was a portion of a television program from the American Broadcasting Company, ABC News?
MR. WITKOWSKI: That's right.
JUDGE VITTONE: Do you know the date of that program?
MR. WITKOWSKI: I believe it was, I think, oh, it's at the beginning of the tape.
JUDGE VITTONE: It will indicate it on the tape?
MR. WITKOWSKI: Yes.
JUDGE VITTONE: Okay.
MR. WITKOWSKI: There was one point I wanted to make about the tape, a clarification.
JUDGE VITTONE: Go ahead.
MR. WITKOWSKI: At one point Dr. Burge was asked the question about tuberculosis and airplane cabins and whether ventilation has any effect on the spread of tuberculosis. And she said that increased ventilation can't prevent tuberculosis. I asked her about that later, and she told me that by increasing ventilation you can, however, reduce the risk of spreading tuberculosis on the aircraft. So increased ventilation serves as a way to increase dilution of contaminants, including tuberculosis bacteria.
JUDGE VITTONE: Okay.
MS. SHERMAN: Your Honor, may I identify Exhibit 45?
JUDGE VITTONE: Yes. That will be Exhibit 45, the tape from the ABC television program.
(The document referred to was marked for identification as Exhibit No. 45.)
JUDGE VITTONE: Mr. Witkowski, what do you want to do now?
MR. WITKOWSKI: Well, Judge Vittone, I'd like to begin by having Alice Evans give her testimony.
JUDGE VITTONE: All right. Ms. Evans, if you're ready, go ahead.
MS. EVANS: Yes, sir. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Alice Evans. I've been a flight ...
JUDGE VITTONE: Ms. Evans, I'm sorry, pull that thing closer to you so we can make sure everybody hears you and we can get you recorded.
MS. EVANS: I have been a flight attendant for a major airline for 23 years, and I'm a member of the Association of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO. On behalf of myself and many other flight attendants who share my experiences, I am pleased to speak to you today on OSHA's proposed rule on indoor air quality and the effect of poor air quality in my place of work, the airplane.
While passengers often complain of poor air quality, flight attendants have the greatest reason for concern. Flight attendants who routinely work in cabins with poor air quality complain of respiratory difficulties, including dizziness, severe headaches, and loss of balance.
Despite hundreds of reported incidences of health-related problems relating to cabin air, the federal government agency that oversees aviation workers' safety and health has failed to take any action.
In 1975, the Federal Aviation Administration claimed complete jurisdiction over aviation crewmember health and safety. Since that time, aviation workers' safety and health have fallen under the jurisdiction of the FAA as the regulatory agency that oversees air safety. Yet the FAA has done nothing to help me or my flying partners.
For example, when air quality problems occur, there is very little protection and recourse available to those who work within this environment. This unfair situation results from provision 4(B)(1) in the OSHA Act that provides for partial OSHA preemption whenever another federal agency regulates the working conditions of the employees.
Let me tell you what happened to me in May of this year. My experience is similar to many of my flying partners. Shortly after takeoff, I noticed that there just did not seem to be enough air to breathe. I started feeling hot and light-headed. My colleagues experienced the same symptoms.
When I went to the cockpit to alert the pilots, I was told that they could not talk to me because there was a "problem in the cabin." Fifteen minutes later, the second officer called me. He told me that the cabin altitude, and by that I mean cabin air pressure, went over 10,000 feet and that the gauge was broken and that they would have to control cabin altitude manually. Because I did not want to discuss this in front of passengers, I went up to talk with the officer.
I reported that all eight flight attendants were experiencing difficulty breathing, tingling in their arms and hands, and nausea. I asked the pilots to provide us with as much fresh air as possible. They told me this was already being done, at which time I noticed that one of the controls regulating the fresh air was not turned on.
I returned to my duties and was pouring coffee and drinks when I had to stop. I went to the service center feeling disoriented. Later, another flight attendant told me that I had been unable to let go of the coffee pot, and one of my crewmembers caught me as I passed out.
I was helped to the cockpit, where I could receive 100 percent oxygen out of the view of passengers. After three requests, the second officer went back into the cabin and confirmed that something was wrong. After taking oxygen for a few minutes, I was concerned about my crew and went back into the service center.
My flying partners continued to experience difficulties. My own vision was blurring, and I was unable to hold onto objects.
This problem was affecting not only flight attendants. Many passengers complained, and in fact, there usually are lines for the bathroom after the food service and movie. But that day, the bathrooms and aisles were empty, because most passengers appeared asleep. An infant became very ill as well.
The pilots were informed that most of the flight attendants were down and unable to perform their duties, should an emergency situation arise. Despite a request to land the airplane, the captain would only descend from 35,000 to 31,000 feet. With more than two hours before landing, he ordered all crewmembers to receive a mandatory ten minutes of oxygen.
Approximately one hour away from our destination, I requested that upon arrival, a supervisor meet our flight and that my crew receive medical attention. Unfortunately, no one met us, and I do not know if the request was relayed.
Several hours later, we went to the hospital and received bloodwork. The blood tests showed nothing, but we continued to feel very ill. We were released and went to our motel.
By the evening, I decided that I could not work the next day. We returned to see the doctor, and he authorized that we simply return home. The doctor could not explain nor did he know what was wrong or what had happened. He suggested that we suffered from oxygen deprivation, along with possible ozone exposure and hypoxia.
To this date, I still have received no specific information about that terrible flight.
Sadly, I have discovered that my experience is not uncommon. We are not the only group of flight attendants to get seriously ill from poor air quality in our workplace.
And yet, the federal agency charged with protecting my health and safety has done nothing to date to address this situation.
How long will flight attendants' health and the related safety of passengers remain at risk? Will the federal government wait until people die, because, during an emergency situation, flight attendants were unable to respond due to serious health problems relating to poor cabin air?
The Association of Flight Attendants has supported efforts to modify the OSHA Act. We believe OSHA should have general authority to regulate occupational safety and health for all workers. However, OSHA should have the flexibility to give jurisdiction over regulation of particular safety and health hazards to another agency if OSHA determines that the other agency has and is enforcing a standard that is as effective as the applicable OSHA standard.
As a member of AFA. I fully support OSHA's efforts to improve indoor air quality for American workers including its proposed level of 800 ppm of carbon dioxide. Workers in buildings and enclosed spaces should get enough fresh air to reduce the likelihood of illness and to improve their well being and productivity. Even more so, flight attendants need to breathe air that remains below the maximum standard for carbon dioxide, or in other words, provides a minimum amount of fresh air to our workplace.
As safety professionals, the lives of our passengers may depend on our ability to perform our emergency and first aid duties. No longer should be subjected to intermittent, involuntary impairment that permanently damages our health and leaves our passengers undetected.
Please act now so that other flight attendants do not have to suffer from experiences similar to mine. The fact that I work on an airplane should not preclude the federal government from requiring that I work in a safe and healthy environment.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to share my experience with you, and I will answer any questions that you may have.
JUDGE VITTONE: Thank you, Mr. Evans.
Mr. Witkowski, who's next?
MR. WITKOWSKI: Mary O'Shea will be the next witness.
JUDGE VITTONE: Ms. O'Shea?
MS. O'SHEA: Good morning.
My name is Mary O'Shea, and I've been a flight attendant for a national airline for five years. I'm also a member of the Association of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO.
On behalf of myself and my flying partners, I'm pleased to speak to you today on OSHA's Proposed Rule and the effect of poor air quality in our workplace, the airplane cabin.
It's been a little over one year since I worked a three day trip during which I experienced severe health problems. In the days, weeks and months that followed my incident, I was so impaired that I was unable to work.
While it is frustrating to be so ill, what is equally upsetting has been my company's and the government's total disinterest concerning my and other's illnesses. The airline and the Federal Aviation Administration have refused to do anything about our air quality problem. This is why I'm here today.
You've already heard Ms. Evans' story. She outlined the fact that despite claiming jurisdiction over aviation crew member health and safety, the FAA has failed to make any serious effort to address occupational safety and health issues outside of the area of crash survivability.
Poor cabin air quality affects not only the health of flight attendants, but the safety of passengers and crew as well. When flying, safety is a flight attendant's primary responsibility. On average, flight attendants work 12 to 14 hours a day, averaging five to seven take-offs and landings a day, while seeing to the needs of approximately 900 to 1200 passengers during routine three day trips.
Flight attendants do more than simply serve refreshments and evacuate an airplane in an emergency situation. We must deal with possible hijackers and terrorists. We are the fire department at 30,000 feet who must be able to detect and fight in-flight fires. We are the paramedics, effectively handling in-flight medical emergencies ranging from heart attacks to turbulence-related injuries. Flight attendants assist passengers in aircraft decompressions and are the on-site bomb squad. In addition, we perform normal safety and service duties on board the aircraft.
Flight attendants save lives in the event of a crash. Just this year during the crash of a DC-9 in Charlotte, North Carolina, a flight attendant was credited with saving the lives of numerous individuals.
When a flight attendant is sickened by the affects of poor air quality, he or she may not be able to perform important safety duties. Let me tell you what happened to me.
On July 9, 1993, I reported to work for a three day trip. En-route to our first destination, I became dizzy, disoriented, and developed a severe headache -- symptoms my flying partners were also experiencing. The first flight attendant notified the captain, who invited us to go to the flight deck and use oxygen. I took advantage of this, and while my symptoms were temporarily alleviated, I remained unable to perform my duties. I spent most of the remaining flight seated.
Upon arrival, I went straight to my hotel room and slept. When I woke the next morning, I felt better. I continued to feel well that day, and the next morning. However, on my second flight on July 11th, I once again began to experience headache, dizziness and nausea. The symptoms became more severe on the next leg of the trip, and I notified the captain that I and the other flight attendants were sick. However, the pilots informed us that the gauges were reading normal.
It was on the following flight that our symptoms became severe. I was so dizzy that I was walking into seat backs and bulkheads, dropping cups, spilling beverages, and pouring coffee over my hands. I couldn't even help provide a passenger with his choice of beverage, bringing him orange juice repeatedly instead of the apple juice he had requested.
I became completely disoriented. I was having difficulty walking. My legs and arms were numb and tingling. My head was aching. My ears were ringing loudly, and my vision began to fail.
When I walked to the rear galley, I found the other three flight attendants laughing uncontrollably and disoriented. The senior flight attendant had us all sit down and take oxygen. In addition, we noticed t