Originally posted by wiggy
Despite the inevitable anecdotes the general informed opinion seems to be that any small increased incidence of cancer due to radiation exposure in flight is almost immeasurable against the general background incidence.
True, wiggy. The following info will put things into further perspective.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that
Americans receive an average radiation dose of 620 millirem per year, about half each from natural background radiation and man-made sources, and that this dose level “has not been shown to cause humans any harm.”
The American Nuclear Society “Personal Radiation Dose Worksheet” allows you to calculate your annual dose based on numerous variables, such as where you live (altitude, geography, proximity to a power plant), how you live (including a dose estimate of 0.5 millirem per hour in the air for “jet plane travel”—admittedly an approximation, given variations in flight altitude, latitude—the Earth’s magnetic shielding is weaker over the poles—and solar activity level), food/air/water intake (e.g., radon), and medical tests:
http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dose.../dosechart.pdf
The NRC has its own (online) annual dose calculator, which factors in dose from airline travel differently, by total miles traveled (1 millirem per 1,000 miles traveled):
NRC: Personal Annual Radiation Dose Calculator
Here is a printer-friendly worksheet version of the above:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-...-worksheet.pdf
According to a meta-analysis in the January 2015
JAMA Dermatology:
Risk of Melanoma in Pilots and Cabin Crew | Dermatology | JAMA Dermatology | The JAMA Network
“Pilots and cabin crew have approximately twice the incidence of melanoma compared with the general population.” It surmised, however, that the cause was not cosmic rays but could be UVA exposure, and that regarding lifestyle factors, pilots and cabin crew did not have “more sunny vacations,” etc., than the general population.
As I mentioned previously, low-level radiation exposure has been shown to actually reduce cancer rates. Here is a dramatic example of that, from the
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol. 9, No. 1, Spring 2004:
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf
“An extraordinary incident occurred 20 [now 32] years ago in Taiwan. Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with cobalt-60 [sources] (half-life: 5.3 y), was formed into construction steel for more than 180 buildings, which 10,000 persons occupied for 9 to 20 years. They unknowingly received [total] radiation doses that averaged 0.4 Sv [40 rem]—a ‘collective dose’ of 4,000 person-Sv [400,000 rem].
“Based on the observed seven cancer deaths,
the cancer mortality rate for this population was assessed to be 3.5 per 100,000 person-years [of exposure]. Three children were born with congenital heart malformations, indicating a prevalence rate of 1.5 cases per 1,000 children under age 19.”
By comparison, “
The average spontaneous cancer death rate in the general population of Taiwan over these 20 years is 116 persons per 100,000 person-years. Based upon partial official statistics and hospital experience, the prevalence rate of congenital malformation is 23 cases per 1,000 children. Assuming the age and income distributions of these persons are the same as for the general population, it appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure.”
This sort of thing drives the anti-nukes bonkers.