Concerned about cosmic radiation and reproduction.
Here, there are good grounds to think that the health risk of exposure to cosmic radiation is not zero.
The closest I have ever heard to an official figure was back in the late 90’s when an American sources stated an estimated that a twenty year career in Longhaul flying increased your risk of suffering of cancer or a cancer related illness by about 1%. (Haven’t got the reference easily to hand, sorry) It might be worth considering modern career patterns and the changes in fostering and modern flight profiles .
Now whilst you might find that order of magnitude frightning to get that into context these days in the developed world roughly 40% of us will suffer from cancer if some form in our lifetime and currently about 1 in three of us will die from the disease though treatments are improving.
I’ve always been inclined to think that given everything else we are exposed to in and around this job (sleep disruption, time zone changes, disrupted eating habits) plus day to day environmental factors, plus genetic factors radiation exposure in flight is something to think about, not worry about.
For comparison, the average yearly background dose from merely living in Cornwall is around 7mSv, so probably best not to move there if you fly a lot ....
Due to underlying granite that emits radon iirc (see also Aberdeen).
It's very difficult to quantify this kind of risk, we know that walking near a live reactor core will kill you pdq, but not enough is known about the effect very small doses over a long period because it's hard to eliminate all the other factors that affect life expectancy (air pollution, diet, alcohol, smoking, etc etc.). Humans like to have yes /no answers, not probabilistic ones.
Due to underlying granite that emits radon iirc (see also Aberdeen).
It's very difficult to quantify this kind of risk, we know that walking near a live reactor core will kill you pdq, but not enough is known about the effect very small doses over a long period because it's hard to eliminate all the other factors that affect life expectancy (air pollution, diet, alcohol, smoking, etc etc.). Humans like to have yes /no answers, not probabilistic ones.
The closest I have ever heard to an official figure was back in the late 90’s when an American sources stated an estimated that a twenty year career in Longhaul flying increased your risk of suffering of cancer or a cancer related illness by about 1%.
Health Risks of Cosmic Radiation
1. Development of cancer.
A cell may become cancerous as a result of being irradiated, the likelihood being dependent upon the energy and the dose received. For an accumulated cosmic radiation dose of 5 mSv per year over a career span of 20 years (a typical prediction for a long haul crew member), the likelihood of developing cancer will be 0.4%. The overall risk of cancer death in the western population is 23%, so the cosmic radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer death from 23% to 23.4%. For a career span of 30 years, the cancer risk increases from 23% to 23.6%.
2. Genetic risk.
A child conceived after exposure of a parent to ionising radiation is at risk of inheriting radiation-induced genetic defects. These may take the form of anatomical or functional abnormalities apparent at birth or later in life. The risk following an accumulated dose of 5 mSv per year over a career span of 20 years will be 1 in 2,510. For a 30-year career, the risk increases to 1 in 1,700. Again this needs to be considered against a background incidence in the general western population of approximately 1 in 51 for genetic abnormalities, with 2 – 3% of liveborn children having one or more severe abnormalities at birth.
3. Risk to the health of the foetus.
The risks to the foetus from ionising radiation are cancer and mental retardation. There is a background rate of around 1 in 39,000 for neonatal lymphoblastic leukaemia and 1 in 170 for childhood mental retardation within the general population. It is estimated that exposure of the foetus to cosmic radiation for 80 block hours per month will increase the risk by between 1 in 6,000 and 1 in 30,000 depending on the routes flown. The increased lifetime risk of fatal cancer from 1 mSv received during prenatal development is 1 in 10,000 (0.01%).
4. Non-cancer Effects (Degenerative Tissue Risks)
The most important of the non-cancer risks due to radiation exposure are degenerative diseases including heart and digestive diseases, early and late effects in the central nervous system, and cataracts. Non-cancer effects are thought to be deterministic in nature, occurring only above a dose threshold well above aviation doses and most space missions, except for a Mars mission or extraterrestrial exposure to a large SPE. However, recent epidemiological studies indicate threshold concepts do not seem to hold indicating these risks are a concern for spaceflight.
1. Development of cancer.
A cell may become cancerous as a result of being irradiated, the likelihood being dependent upon the energy and the dose received. For an accumulated cosmic radiation dose of 5 mSv per year over a career span of 20 years (a typical prediction for a long haul crew member), the likelihood of developing cancer will be 0.4%. The overall risk of cancer death in the western population is 23%, so the cosmic radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer death from 23% to 23.4%. For a career span of 30 years, the cancer risk increases from 23% to 23.6%.
2. Genetic risk.
A child conceived after exposure of a parent to ionising radiation is at risk of inheriting radiation-induced genetic defects. These may take the form of anatomical or functional abnormalities apparent at birth or later in life. The risk following an accumulated dose of 5 mSv per year over a career span of 20 years will be 1 in 2,510. For a 30-year career, the risk increases to 1 in 1,700. Again this needs to be considered against a background incidence in the general western population of approximately 1 in 51 for genetic abnormalities, with 2 – 3% of liveborn children having one or more severe abnormalities at birth.
3. Risk to the health of the foetus.
The risks to the foetus from ionising radiation are cancer and mental retardation. There is a background rate of around 1 in 39,000 for neonatal lymphoblastic leukaemia and 1 in 170 for childhood mental retardation within the general population. It is estimated that exposure of the foetus to cosmic radiation for 80 block hours per month will increase the risk by between 1 in 6,000 and 1 in 30,000 depending on the routes flown. The increased lifetime risk of fatal cancer from 1 mSv received during prenatal development is 1 in 10,000 (0.01%).
4. Non-cancer Effects (Degenerative Tissue Risks)
The most important of the non-cancer risks due to radiation exposure are degenerative diseases including heart and digestive diseases, early and late effects in the central nervous system, and cataracts. Non-cancer effects are thought to be deterministic in nature, occurring only above a dose threshold well above aviation doses and most space missions, except for a Mars mission or extraterrestrial exposure to a large SPE. However, recent epidemiological studies indicate threshold concepts do not seem to hold indicating these risks are a concern for spaceflight.
Thanks for tracking that down megan., .
I realise my closing comment in my last post about might well appear a bit flippant...it wasn’t meant to be.
What I meant to say is is that IMHO exposure to cosmic radiation shouldn’t be at the top of anybody’s worry list about things we do and can control in this line of work (on and off duty) that can change our risk of developing cancer....
(A while long back, obviously, but as an example I remember working with a number of captains who would refuse an option of higher level because of their concerns about radiation.....and then having finished the brief discussion would in all probability light up another cigarette.....
)
I realise my closing comment in my last post about might well appear a bit flippant...it wasn’t meant to be.
What I meant to say is is that IMHO exposure to cosmic radiation shouldn’t be at the top of anybody’s worry list about things we do and can control in this line of work (on and off duty) that can change our risk of developing cancer....
(A while long back, obviously, but as an example I remember working with a number of captains who would refuse an option of higher level because of their concerns about radiation.....and then having finished the brief discussion would in all probability light up another cigarette.....
)Last edited by wiggy; 3rd Sep 2018 at 07:23.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a theory of Hormesis that says that small doses of radiation may actually be benign or even beneficial.
For those with an interest or time to kill: Radiation Hormesis: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Full paper here
It's not all bad news - so relax in Cornwall or Aberdeen
Hormesis is the stimulation of any system by low doses of any agent (Luckey, 1980a). Large and small doses of most agents elicit opposite responses. A dose that elicits a response which separates positive from negative effects is the threshold dose; it is the “zero equivalent point” (ZEP) for that specific parameter. Low dose is any dose below ZEP. Dose rate is also important. Taking one pill per day may be life-saving; taking 365 of most pills in one day would be lethal.
It's not all bad news - so relax in Cornwall or Aberdeen
All giggles aside this is a very interesting website
SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids
SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a rad badge that measures radiation, it is attached to my id. This is from the days when I was flying into hotzones with EPA/DHS. Once it reaches a certain color, you cannot fly until cleared. Still have them on the id, just to keep a watch. You can buy them on the internet.
Home
Go with rad triage, as the measured dosage limit begins very low. While it is for acute dosage, the timeframe of exposure they consider acute is a bit vague. Anyways, this is what we used.
Thi measures gamma radiation, which I guess is the harmful one (photons), but in what we call cosmic rays, there are photons (gamma rays), electrons, protons, nuclei, neutrinos, but the bulk of the "cosmic radiation" is protons.
Guess it is like butter vs margarine...
Home
Go with rad triage, as the measured dosage limit begins very low. While it is for acute dosage, the timeframe of exposure they consider acute is a bit vague. Anyways, this is what we used.
Thi measures gamma radiation, which I guess is the harmful one (photons), but in what we call cosmic rays, there are photons (gamma rays), electrons, protons, nuclei, neutrinos, but the bulk of the "cosmic radiation" is protons.
Guess it is like butter vs margarine...
Last edited by underfire; 5th Sep 2018 at 16:46.
I seem to vaguely remember some flight crew health study from the soviet union back then from a LONG time ago. One of the few where some truly huge commercial pilot population had been monitored. IIRC one of the surprises to me was that flight crew seemed to have some increased risk of heart problems due to high altitude radiation. Unfortunately it was a long time ago and I can't provide any link or details. Maybe someone else has it?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those lucky enough to have flown the AEW Shackleton 'twixt the 1970s to the 1990s didn't seem to suffer any damage to "swimmers", judging from the 8Sqn birth rate.
The 1940s designed radar under this 'frame allegedly transmitted enough wiggly amps into the ether that we weren't supposed to switch it on overland as it was rumoured to seriously affect the analogue TVs of that period.
The thermionic valve-powered AN-APS20 radar had a monstrous aerial requiring 2 special engine-driven generators to keep it powered, so although we're talking different radiation frequencies l question whether the cosmic variety actually competes with the "Shack" output coupled with the proximity of the crew to the source.
I never launched my "swimmers" on operational sortie(s) from choice but at least I'm still around to joke about it, for now. ��
The 1940s designed radar under this 'frame allegedly transmitted enough wiggly amps into the ether that we weren't supposed to switch it on overland as it was rumoured to seriously affect the analogue TVs of that period.
The thermionic valve-powered AN-APS20 radar had a monstrous aerial requiring 2 special engine-driven generators to keep it powered, so although we're talking different radiation frequencies l question whether the cosmic variety actually competes with the "Shack" output coupled with the proximity of the crew to the source.
I never launched my "swimmers" on operational sortie(s) from choice but at least I'm still around to joke about it, for now. ��
In addition to Barking's comments, <going off topic slightly> there was a school of thought on the squadron that linked what appeared to be a 'higher than normal' onset of cancers various with prolonged exposure to the AN-APS20.
I'm still chuckling over the lead-lined jock strap idea.. "Is that a lead-lined jock strap or are you just pleased to see me?"
I'm still chuckling over the lead-lined jock strap idea.. "Is that a lead-lined jock strap or are you just pleased to see me?"
