Originally Posted by
Vindiesel
Why is there increased cancer/radiation risk doing flying that crosses the equator (lower radiation exposure and lower average cruise altitudes) to/from LHR/JFK than flying the same hours a year in an A330 at FL400 between MEL and PER at higher latitudes?
Radiation exposure is much more about higher latitude and high altitude rather than sector length and I would bet the pilot doing the domestic flying at higher altitude and higher latitudes gets more annual radiation exposure.
Good Question and certainly an area to be looked at in ULH flying.
A Qantas Longhaul Captain did a lot of work in this area (Capt Ian Gillies?). He was working with one of the Universities as I understand it.
ARE ULTRA-LONG AIRPLANE FLIGHTS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH?
https://www.asam.org.au/news/are-ult...ad-your-health
“There's not much you can do about the cosmic rays, though. Each time a passenger flies, they are exposed to a tiny amount of radiation from space. "The more time you're on the plane, the more radiation exposure you'll get," says Steven Barrett, an aerospace engineer at MIT.
However, the radiation most travellers are exposed to in a given year falls comfortably within the recommended radiation exposure for a member of the public. "The very frequent travellers who are flying on long-haul flights could potentially go above the recommended limits of radiation exposure," says Barrett, who has calculated how much radiation flyers are exposed to. "But that's not within the region where you'd have any real health concerns." It's unclear how harmful these still-low levels of radiation exposure are, or if they are harmful at all, he says.
Pilots and other flight crewmembers do spend enough time in the air that the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention considers them radiation workers. The agency recommends they try to limit their time on flights that are very long, fly at high altitudes, or fly over the poles”.