cosmic radiation change with altitude

[zxccxz]

Hello guys,

just made a graph with data from cari-6 which is a nasa program to calculate inflight radiation.

It should be self explanatory, but in the bottom right I made an example to help you understand:

if you cruise for 1 hour at 35000ft you get a nice 3.86 uSv of radiation
if you do the same at 41000ft you get +40% of that!

Hope this helps you to make an INFORMED decision next time you have to decide if you want to save fuel!

http://img573.imageshack.us/img573/9150/radiationchangewithalud.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/573/radiationchangewithalud.jpg/)

[18-Wheeler]

Is the same rate day/night?

[David Horn]

Is the same rate day/night?

Cosmic radiation has little or no significant diurnal variation.

[Morrisman1]

this means nothing without knowing the effects of cosmic radiation.

[Broomstick Flier]

Cosmic radiation exposure and air travel

The Canadians have published this study:

Cosmic Radiation Exposure and Air Travel - Environmental and Workplace Health - Health Canada (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/comsic-cosmique-eng.php)

and I quote:

The chance of a cancer occurring is generally believed to be proportional to the level of radiation exposure: the lower the exposure, the lower the risk. For example, the chance of a fatal cancer occurring would be approximately 1% following 30 years of flying, at 1000 hours per year.

[misd-agin]

Broomstick - unfortunately the report doesn't mention what altitude was used to generate the 1% increase/30 yrs/ 1000 hrs/yr.

So it's 40% greater. Who's flying 30,000 hrs at 410 vs. 350? Sun exposure on your days off is a greater risk so it's interesting to have this discussion with tan coworkers. :ugh:

[Jonty]

Sun exposure is a risk, but don't forget that the body needs vitamin D. There was an article in a national newspaper about how the developed world is facing an epidemic of vitamin D difecient diseases. Too much factor 50 is not good for you.

[aterpster]

It is a professional hazard. For those of you who are upset about it find a ground-based career.

Or, please give me a break.

[aterpster]

Jonty:

Sun exposure is a risk, but don't forget that the body needs vitamin D. There was an article in a national newspaper about how the developed world is facing an epidemic of vitamin D difecient diseases. Too much factor 50 is not good for you.

I am an old fart (75). My wife is 74. Our primary care docs have had us on Vitamin D and other supplement pills for many years.

[bubbers44]

Ten years ago I looked at the solar intensity and used that as part of what altitude I was going to fly at. The airline doesn't care but you can look up what the solar radiation will be every day and decide on your own.

Remember in Vietnam how our government told us flying helicoptors around agent orange couldn't hurt you?

[galaxy flyer]

Chart doesn't go high enough--what about FL410-FL470. I'm figuring' that the lowered risk of mid-air and being on top of a lot of weather compensates the odds.

GF

[Checkboard]

I am an old fart (75). My wife is 74. Our primary care docs have had us on Vitamin D and other supplement pills for many years.

BBC News - Vitamins linked with higher death risk in older women (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15238610)

Over-medication. The bane of insurance based healthcare. :hmm:

[Notso Fantastic]

I once flew with a pilot who had his own Geiger Counter. Setting it on the ground on the centre console at LHR, there was one click every 6 seconds on average. As we climbed to cruise altitude 33,000' heading ESE across Europe, the count went up to 6 counts/second- a 36-fold increase. There was also a marked increase going higher up to 37,000'. On the back of an envelope, a 36 fold increase in ground radiation for about 800 hours a year (less than 1/10 of your life)- you're looking at over 4 times a normal ground dwellers radiation. Enough to create a significant statistical risk factor for airline crews. For those spending a significant time on Polar flying as opposed to tropical flying, you go to higher doses.
Having said that, old pilots do tend to be the fittest people I know, and definitely rather immature (like me)!

[misd-agin]

Notsofantastic - Geiger counter is measuring the wrong radiation hazard so it's worthless.

FE years ago took one on flights. It was interesting to see the difference but found out that it wasn't the threat. Matter of fact, we were leaving TAPA(ANU) and all of us were sunburnt. :ooh: Prior cancer survivor, long time high flyer, the risk I face is skin cancer from sunburns while younger.

[Tourist]

A different perspective.......

Sign in to read: How to live to 100... and enjoy it - health - 03 June 2006 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025541.500)


How's this for an elixir of youth: an X-ray, a mild case of sunburn, a couple of beers and a sauna. If you think all that would leave you feeling anything but youthful, think again. Many researchers believe that small doses of "stressors" such as poisons, radiation and heat can actually be good for you - so good that they can even reverse the ageing process. This counter-intuitive effect, called "hormesis", was once considered flaky, but in recent years it has been shown to extend longevity in yeast, fruit flies, protozoans, worms and rodents. If the findings extend to people, it could stretch the average healthy human lifespan to 90, says biologist Joan Smith-Sonneborn of the University of Wyoming in Laramie.

How so? Stressors seem to kick-start natural repair mechanisms, including heat-shock proteins and DNA-repair enzymes, to fix the damage they have caused. If this damage is not too severe, the repair systems may overcompensate, building up enough oomph to repair unrelated damage as well. And if you accept the idea that damage equals ageing, this is nothing less than rejuvenation.

There is already some indirect evidence that hormesis has positive effects on human longevity. Between 1980 and 1988, researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, tracked 28,000 nuclear shipyard workers to study the effects of low doses of radiation. To their surprise, they found that the mortality rate of these workers was 24 per cent lower than in a control group of 32,500 shipyard workers of similar ages who were not exposed to radiation.

An earlier study by legendary epidemiologist Richard Doll found similar low death rates among radiologists, compared with other doctors. Perhaps most strikingly, Barbara Gilchrest of Boston University has shown that feeding fragments of DNA to elderly human cells grown in culture, which mimics the effect of DNA damage, restores their DNA repair capabilities to levels usually seen only in youthful cells.

You may not even have to expose yourself to poisonous chemicals or radiation to see the benefits of hormesis. An increasing number of gerontologists think caloric restriction - the near-starvation diet that is the only reliable way so far of increasing lifespan in animals - works because it is a low-level stressor. Better yet, some compounds with supposed anti-ageing properties, notably vitamin E and melatonin, seem to act hormetically in protozoans: increasing longevity when taken in small amounts but not large ones.

The big unanswered question is at what dose does an otherwise harmful agent become beneficial. Clearly, too much radiation or poison are bad for you. However, there may be a safe way to trick your body's repair mechanisms into overdrive. Smith-Sonneborn and others suspect that the life-extending effects of exercise are also down to hormesis. She proudly practises what she preaches with an exercise regime that she says stresses her body to just the right level to get the optimum response. "I'm 70 and I have the bone density of a 35-year-old," she says.

[bubbers44]

Another thing is being a captain and driving a car in the US my left arm was usually exposed to the suns rays. Now at 67 my left arm looks like it is 90 years old and my right looks 60. My left arm bruises with the slightest bump. Something to think about, I didn't. I could feel the warmth in the cockpit on my left arm but did nothing to protect it from the sun. Once in a while my FO would give me a sunshield but I did nothing myself. Sun damage to your skin takes a long time but it will get you as you age.

[Thrashed]

What is the radiation difference flying 38,000' at the equator vs. 38,000' over the poles? I've done a few polar crossings and I'm sure the radiation exposure is higher. I have not seen the data though.

[Virtual738]

Hiw DID those guys make it to the moon back in 1969 ?? :=

The Shuttle guys were complaing about the effects of radiation when they close their eyes.........they see non stop flashes of bright light.

They were only 214 miles up.
And NASA expect us to believe after travelling 240,000 miles to the moon that it was all so easy !!!

Lies...............lies.

I look forward to the day that all is revealed. :rolleyes::cool::sad::E:{

:)

[18-Wheeler]

Because they didn't fly through the stronger areas of radiation of the Van Allen Belts, hence the mid-course corrections they made going to/from the Moon. They only got a relatively small dose of radiation compared to a few decades of airliner flight at 35,000'+.

Back on-topic .... as mentioned above, does the radiation level increase closer to the poles? I imagine so because of the nature of the magnetic field around the Earth.

[Virtual738]

I take it you still believe in Santa Claus !!

:ugh:

:)

[rh200]

I take it you still believe in Santa Claus !!

Conspiracy theorists,:confused: I guess you still think the world is flat.

[john_tullamarine]

.. back on track, please, chaps.

[Mach Tuck]

I used to be involved on the periphery of research into this.

Radiation increases with altitude though above some 40,000ft the rate of increase reduces (at least for levels where civillian aircraft fly). At a constant altitude it increases from the equator towards the magnetic poles because a) the particles are attracted to the poles and are therefore more concentrated in that region and b) radiation is attenuated by the atmosphere; the atmosphere being deeper at the equator, you have more atmosphere above you and you are therefore more protected.

A trace of the measured radiation on a flight from the UK to Singapore showed a steep increase as the aircraft climbed to its initial cruising level and then a steady reduction as the aircraft progressed south, punctuated by two distinct upticks as higher cruising levels were attained. The level of radiation at TOD Singapore was very significantly lower that at TOC UK even though the aircraft was 8,000ft higher.

It's not much but I hope it helps...

MT

[misd-agin]

You can compare flights between cities pairs using the CARI-6 program.

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute - CARI (http://jag.cami.jccbi.gov/cariprofile.asp)

I researched three long haul city pairs between the U.S. to LHR vs. Tokyo. Radiation on the LHR flights were slightly higher even though the flights were shorter. With shorter flights a greater percentage of the flight is spent in the climb or descent vs. a longer flight. The shorter distance is flown, on average, at higher altitudes, so the net impact between the different city pairs is very small.

[Thrashed]

Thanks, Mach Tuck. You confirmed what I thought to be true.

[zxccxz]

Chart doesn't go high enough--what about FL410-FL470. I'm figuring' that the lowered risk of mid-air and being on top of a lot of weather compensates the odds.http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2716/82251542.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/207/82251542.jpg/)

Here is the complete chart..
Radiation increases DRAMATICALLY with increasing altitude! ( concorde.. )
that's why in the jar ops it's compulsory to carry radiation measuring equipment onboard if you fly very high

(b) 1. an operator shall not operate an aeroplane above 15 000 m (49 000 ft) unless the equipment specified in
OPS 1.680(a)(1) is serviceable, or the procedure prescribed in OPS 1.680(a)(2) is complied with.
2. the commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated shall initiate a descent as soon as
practicable when the limit values of cosmic radiation dose rate specified in the Operations Manual are exceeded.and btw yes with increased latitude there is a lot more radiation! go on the cari website and do it by yourself..
ps: everytime I go fly I chk this:
Space Weather Warnings Currently in Effect (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/warnings_timeline.html)
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Proton.gif
On-line SWPC Weekly Publication in Adobe Acrobat(R) format (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/weekly/index.html)