Radiation Risk From EFIS?

[aidybennett]

I was speaking to someone recently who said that the sitting on the flight deck of a glass-cockpit airliner (particually an aircraft like the B747-400, with very large EFIS screens) was equivelent to reciving several X-rays during each flight. Any comments on the truth of this, and if it is true, the implications? :eek:

[Tinstaafl]

How would sitting in front of the CRT display be different to sitting in front of a TV?

There is an increased radiation dosage received as a result of altitude however. Don't know how much of an increase it is.

[GlueBall]

Transition to the Triple 7 with new flat panel displays. No radiation risk from those pixels! Also, change your computer monitor to TFT (Thin Film Transistor) flat panel, or work off your laptop. Further, to save your eyeballs from unnecessary cathode radiation at home, replace your TV with a new High Definition plasma screen. :cool:

[mad_jock]

Its nonsense. If you were getting an equivalent of even 1 x-ray per flight they would be exceeding by a wide margine 7.5mSv.
which is the maximum dose rate that professional radiation workers are allowed to receive.

This rumour about monitors does the rounds every so often usually started when someone in the office dosn't like their monitor and they think they can get a new one.

If your really worried i can see if i can get some report titles from a relation who is a Radiation Protection Advisor, but be warned reading Health Physics Notices is proberly more dangerous that the CRT's.

MJ

[aidybennett]

Tinnsafi-that was one of the things that go me wondering-I understand one does recieve a small amount of radiation from T.V. but I don't sit in front of five at once at a distance of two feet for five plus hours.

But in fact I wasn't really worried-the source was a bit suspect anyway-but I was interested if any one had some informed comments on it-thanks Mad Jock.
P.S. Sorry if I appear to start topics then run away-I don't have my own computer and have to come to the public liberery to do this! :p

[NewBloke]

Funny that someone mentioned (Sorry can't remember now !!) about radiation exposure at high altitude. I can remember reading an article on this once and it made quite worrying reading. I think it was Flight International or something. Although I can't remember specific numbers - the radiation exposure aircrew experience at altitude is significantly higher than on the ground. They were talking about health risks atc.. but at the end of the day it was too expensive to fit X-Ray shielding glass to cockpit windows !! Oh well... sorry if I've lead this thread astray. I was told at work by health and safety spods that VDU's and the like do not damage your eyes, but they can strain them due to the continuous focussing at the same fixed distance. Their solution was to look at something in the distance every half hour or so to re-focuss your lamps. Dunno how that would work in a cockpit ! ;)

[mad_jock]

that is very true exposure risk is greater the higher you fly. Also an issue is that during a fire the depleted uranium that they use for ballast is very nasty. oxidises very hot and if inhaled does all sorts of damage.

All of the rad stuff is very subjective because it only adds to the enviroments dose so its very hard to prove that the additional dose is the cause of any problems.

BNFL still dosn't admit libality for anyone getting cancer but they do have a compensation scheme if you don't follow legal process.

I used to be a registered rad worker who had to carry a film badge. Its a personal descision if you are willing to take the addition risks involved. For myself it is worth it. The chaps who get the real big stuff are the concorde pilots and mil pilots, under the tropause it is an acceptable risk (in my opinion)

MJ

[Thomas coupling]

Don't read the following if you're worried :eek:


radiation info (http://www.aeromedix.com/articles/radiation/index.html)

[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: Thomas coupling ]