Health risks for pilots due to radiation?

[vancouv]

Having read things about the fact that radiation is higher at altitude, I was wondering if there have been any medical studies that have found evidence to support a link between exposure to radiaiton at altitude and health problems?

I'm not looking for details, just whether such a connection has been found.

[HuntandFish]

Studies have been done on the anount of radiation aircrew get .
But I havent seen anything reliable on the effects of the levels recieved on health .

[Rainboe]

As a matter of interest, we once had a Geiger counter on the flight deck at LHR. On the ground, there was 1 click every 6 seconds. On average, during a long range cruise to the Far East, at about 33,000-37,000', on average, there were 6 clicks a second. This increases with more altitude.

These are my own calculations (back of cigarette packet- joke- see later). If you work out average flying hours per year per pilot (about 1/10 of his life) at about 36 times ground level radiation, you have something under 4 times normal person exposure. This increases slightly for Polar/ high latitude flying, and reduces for lower altitude flying.

I believe what is regarded as the acceptable dosage for nuclear power station workers is about 5 normal ground level exposure (probably 10 times as much for the 'superb' British 'Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors' we were told were so goddam brilliant 40 years ago!). The worst of the normal airline exposure calculations does not reach 5.

I have avoided going too closely into Millirads because:
I don't understand them too much myself, and
Most normal people don't either!

My own observations about pilot mortality:
it is indeed extremely good, The regular medicals help as well as an increased respect for health matters and care about smoking and drinking. Hypertension problems tend to get caught early. It results in a higher degree of cancer than the general population, though at a higher average age. One suspicion I have is that prevalence of prostate cancer seems greater, but could this be due to longer survival times for the reasons above or the increased radiation exposure? If radiation is proved to be a significant factor in prostate cancer, I would feel my suspicion was borne out. What I do know without any doubt is the terrible consequences of smoking and alcohol and their effect on longevity. One should always gun for the actual proven increased risks rather than the suspects- it is common lifestyle factors (exercise & obesity, smoking and alcohol, crime) rather than the esoteric (radiation, toxins, food additives, global warming) that should be targeted.

[Rob82]

Companys have to carry out a study to determine the radiation levels aircrew will be exposed to. This is an extract from this years...

"The ‘worst case’ flights for Company aircrew are based on flight times above Lat 45N and would give an effective dosage of 0.016 millisieverts (mSv). Given the annual maximum recommended dose of 6mSv, the individual aircrew would need to spend 375hrs above FL400 in higher latitude routes, to achieve the maximum. This dosage is therefore well within limits for all our aircrew predicted hours at FL400 for 2009."

Rob

[Milt]

Where is the increased radiation supposed to come from or are we measuring the effects of increased exposure to cosmic rays at altitude?

There will be a miniscule of extra radiation for aircrews for those in close proximity to balance weights made of DU. This will be constant regardless of altitude. It would be of interest if anyone has bothered to measure the radiation levels on a flight deck from a large lump of DU in the nose as sometimes used to bring a cg under control.

[AnthonyGA]

The increased radiation comes from cosmic radiation. This radiation, which is mostly proton particle radiation, normally interacts with the atmosphere in ways that shield people on the surface, but as one ascends in altitude, the amount of cosmic radiation to which one is exposed directly increases.

Radiation from depleted uranium is extraordinarily weak and consists primarily of alpha radiation, which can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Crew exposure to radiation from DU is insignificantly small, even if a crew member should stand right next to a block of the metal. Even normal uranium is not very radioactive, and DU is only slightly more radioactive than lead (that is, hardly at all).

I have read (but not verified) that cruise altitudes for the Concorde occasionally had to be modified during periods of intense solar activity in order to reduce radiation exposure, which is non-trivial at the very high altitudes normally flown by this aircraft.

[smudgethecat]

Id guess the pretty disruptive shift patterns many pilots (and others invoved in aviation) have to contend with is a far greater health threat than radiation is.

[rgbrock1]

As a rule, cosmic radiation levels rise with increasing altitude, as Rainboe wrote. (up to about 20 km above ground). The actual radiation level is influenced by a number of factors, most importantly through the shielding provided by the earth's atmosphere. The overall effect for flight crew and travelers is an increased radiation exposure during flights as compared to staying on the ground. Flight crews which spend up to 1000 hours per year on board of of aircraft leads to annual effective radiation doses in the range of 2 to 5 milliSievert (mSv) for most crew. Occasional travelers obtain a fraction of this value through less frequent leisure or occupational flights.

In comparison, the natural background radiation amounts to 2 to 3 mSv per year at most geographical locations worldwide.

Thus, flight crews on average are subject to about twice as much radiation as those who are not.

[Rainboe]

My rough calculations showed that longhaul pilots, particularly ones flying Polar or other high latitude routes, will expect to receive something less than a maximum of 5 times that of permanent temperate-latitude dwellers.

What was a little scary was there was a significant increase in Gieger counter detected radiation with each 4000' increase in altitude. Thus, a lot of time on West Coast-Europe routes, or Far East-Europe routes, or on higher level cruising jets will put a pilot towards the higher limit. Shorthaul flying will reduce the exposure. But smoking, booze and wild wimmin really are the most dangerous factors for longevity! We need a sort of Geiger counter for dangerous wimmin!

[rgbrock1]

Rainboe! A Geiger counter for dangerous wimmin'? I don't find them dangerous at all.
Booze and cigs. are definitely dangerous and certainly affect longevity. (Although as a smoker I know what I'll be dying of. Do you?!!!!)
I find wimmin' certainly do affect a man's longevity. In a very good way!!!!!!

[Fark'n'ell]

But smoking, booze and wild wimmin really are the most dangerous factors for longevity!

Wild wimmin=exercise which according to the medics is supposed to be good for one Rainboe.:ok:

[VadeR102]

I saw a documentary about chernobyl. And in it, they said that (Long haul) pilots take in an equivelent of 20,000+ x-ray's per year worth of radiation.

Scientists also claimed that radiation is nowhere near as dangerous as what they thought it was. Even to this day chernobyl still is radioactive, the city looks like a scene from a zombie movie, deserted. Scientists have taken some animals which are found in the city, even they have some amount of radioactivity in them, they are normal, they die of old age just like any other animal on the planet.

In this documentary, it states how a company used to make special 'stones' out of plutonium (among other products), that when you are sick, you soak the stones in water, and the following day, drink the water. Remember, plutonium is highly radioactive. Can not remember the name off the top of my head, but, in those days, when you saw the company's brand name on a product, you would associate it with quality, like the top brands of today.

[CargoMatatu]

I was also taught that maximum crew duty times for the year were based not only on perceived fatigue levels, but also on the fact that the human body disipates the radiation absorbed at altitude at a specific rate. Sorrry, Guys, but I don't have specific data.

Isn't it nice to know that theye were always thinking of us? :D

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Airlines in the eu are obliged to monitor cosmic radiation levels, we do at my airline and crews can monitor it via the scheduling system. Got no idea how it works though, i think on city pairs and a download from an agency for the cosmic levels

[Matt Skrossa]

The UK has a set of regulations pertaining to cosmic radiation:

The Air Navigation (Cosmic Radiation) (Keeping of Records) Regulations 2000. They can be found in the Air Navigation Order which can be downloaded as CAP 393 from the CAA's website: Civil Aviation Authority Home Page (http://www.caa.co.uk)