in flight radition exposure

[piggybank]

I had a long trip the other day and got talking to one of the cabin crew.

My question was do they check how much exposure they have to cosmic radiation. Her answer was in seven years as CC she had never had any advice on this.

A look through Google shows plenty of results, such as http://www.pcaire.com/uploads/Protection_of_air_crew_from_cosmic_radiation_Guidance_materi al.pdf

Do passenger aircraft carry any system of recording what amount of radiation is encountered?

[wiggy]

In the abscence of a learned reply.....

Do passenger aircraft carry any system of recording what amount of radiation is encountered?

As far as I know, not on a routine basis. Concorde used to carry radiation monitors/alarms, not sure any of the current stuff does.

Currently "monitoring" is done by a combination of using data on incoming radiation from the Sun and Galactic cosmic radiation from way beyond, gathered by the geophysicists, combined with computer modelling which takes that data and combines it with typical flight profiles to calculate dose rates.

My question was do they check how much exposure they have to cosmic radiation

With our airline there used to be a facility on the internal intranet to access the calculated doses.

[Northbeach]

Tip of the iceberg here. The industry seems to be silent on this.

I knew a long haul Captian who died of brain cnacer long before he was 60. Makes me wonder what cruising along at 38,000 and above for around 1,000 hours a year for decades does to a person...........can't be good.

Then there is skin cancer...........

and

Air quality.

[Economics101]

Northbeach: generalising from a sample of one is a bit unreliable! (I know of at least one non-flying colleague who died of the same cause - proves nothing)

I suspect that if there are statistically significant excess cancer rates among airline pilots and CC, that the life insurance guys would be on to it and that this would be reflected in premiums, medical assessments, etc. Anyone got any information on that?

[Denti]

Flight personnel is considered radiation exposed personnel, same as workers in nuclear plants and therefore have to be trained and monitored. At least over here in germany. So far there are no special premiums due to radiation exposure for flight crews that i'm aware of.

But then, flight crew numbers are too small in respect to the total population, out of 82 million only around 11.000 are pilots, if you add cabin crew all in all around 22.500, by the way, those 22.500 flight crew amass roughly the same total radiation exposure than the 330.000 ground based radiation exposed workers. Some studies indicate that there is an increased risk of breast and skin cancer, and a slightly increased risk of brain tumors, prostrate cancer and a few others. However studies are difficult since there is a marked "healthy worker" effect and flight crew in general are much healthier than the average worker (i seriously doubt that, but thats what the studies say).

[Economics101]

Denti: Whatever about the numbers in Germany (surely more than 22,500 over half a century of jet airliners?), there are many more - hundreds of thousands? - career pilots and CC elsewhere, especially in the USA. I would imagine that the life insurers, who have a lot of good data and the statistical expertise to control for selection bias (including "healthy worker" effects), would have every interest to pounce on any evidence of significantly increased risk.

Having said that, has anyone had experience of being quoted higher premia?

[Northbeach]

Thanks for the short statistical lecture regarding my statistically "non-significant" dead long haul Captain. I know that his death did not "prove" any link, however it was the first personal "wake up" call for me on this subject. You completely misunderstood the reason I sited that example, or just as likely I did not express it clearly enough.

After his death I looked at the long haul crews differently, white/no hair, wrinkled skin looking old beyond their years. Prior to his death I had not considered the negative impact on health being employed in this industry may have. Being in my 20s at the time I thought I was indestructible.

I seem to recall a FlightSafety foundation article back in the early 90s that looked at the long haul pilots. As I remember the final analysis it was flying long haul takes about 10 years off your life span. Sobering!

I had a skin cancer "surprise" of my own several years ago. Fortunately I am still alive (for me and the few people that care) and can still work. I wonder how much of this is due to being above FL180 and "baking"?

Then again there is the air quality debate.

When I look at the dead silence from the air transportation industry on each of these subjects it reminds me of the tobacco industry in the United States before the litigation. Criminals; they knew their product would kill you. Decades later we have lots of dead people, richer lawyers, product warnings and many more non-smokers.

I think FedEx pilots may monitor radiation exposure. We do not, and I am not sure anybody else does.

I think ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association) has an ongoing skin cancer & pilots study going on.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

piggybank
In the UK we're mandated to monitor levels of cosmic radiation, not sure if this a working time directive or EU Ops - i'm sure the latter for the last 2 years.
Anyway the information is collated and dumped into the scheduling system and calculated via flight leg and using the cari 6 scale (i think). On a yearly basis (calendar year) we have to check the levels and report to crews :\

[wiggy]

I think the problem with this issue is that there are many factors that may effect pilots health e.g. cabin air quality, disrupted sleep patterns, irregular exposure to daylight, disrupted eating patterns...add to that the fact that very roughly around 25% of the general population die of cancer related illness anyway, and it's probably not suprising that any detrimental effects on longevity due to radiation on Long Haul crew are hidden in the statistical noise...

Personally I wouldn't condone hanging the aircraft on "the props" for no good reason, especially over the poles, but I wouldn't lose sleep over flying normal FMC steps.

I think FedEx pilots may monitor radiation exposure. We do not, and I am not sure anybody else does.



I understand FedEx do that because of the nature of some items of cargo they carry, not because of concerns over cosmic radiation - anyone care to comment?

BTW our airline does monitor crew exposure in the way "Mr Angry..." described - I believe it's an EU requirement.

[SiH]

Afternoon all, I'm not a pilot but SLF with an interest in what goes on behind the locked door. I had a discussion with a friend who's a long haul pilot for BA about the effects of radiation as he thought that of his colleagues with children there seemed to be more daughters than sons and wondered if exposure to cosmic rays had anything to do with it. I'm a doctor and the same anecdote is true for surgeons and anaesthetists, though rather than cosmic radiation it's thought to be exposure to anaesthetic gasses that causes it.
I did a literature review to look into the rates of cancer that pilots and cabin crew experienced and whether there was any increase overall or if there was a particular type of cancer that was increased. Naturally the airlines aren't especially keen to fund trials or studies looking at cancer in pilots and crew as it might expose them to a degree of liability from work related disease compensation claims so without funding the research seems to be relatively limited. I found a few Swedish studies that looked into it and there didn't seem to be an increase in overall cancer risk, though it was noted that there was a trend for an increased risk of skin cancer. While I can't comment on whether pilots and crew are careful with their suntan lotion or if they try to tan as quickly as possible but it may be that exposure to sun with repeated episodes of sunburn (albeit relatively mild cases) can increase your risk of skin cancer.
It seems it might not be the cosmic radation that's the problem, but more the sun exposure when you reach your destination!
But that's just my tuppence worth :)

[Biggles78]

SiH, you beat me too it. It seems that the submarine service seem to produce more sons than daughters. Don't know how that stacks up against those big glowing kettles they have inside the hull as opposed to the big red ball in the sky. Special Forces are also supposed to have higher female births than male ones.

There is another thread on this site about long haul pilots and skin damage, long time Captains on the left side of the face and arm.

[n1_spindown]

i'd be really curious about those fedex pilots, what the statistics are from those radiation meters.

[wiggy]

It seems it might not be the cosmic radation that's the problem, but more the sun exposure when you reach your destination!


Seeing the amount of sun exposure some folks subject themselves to during slips, and it's not just the sunbathers, it's the likes of the golfers as well, I reckon you're probably right.

[redsnail]

I did the survey on our crews last year.
We don't fly enough to be considered at serious risk, 2 fleets did not fly enough to hit the 1mSv/year required to be notified of the risk.

People flying around Europe sub FL200 have very little extra exposure. Above FL200 it increases but still negligable. It's the long haul high altitude high latitude flights that have the greatest exposure. The rostering department will factor the rates of exposure into the roster and adjust the flying accordingly. Usually, it's not an issue as the F&D times limit the flying any way.

I worked out a rule of thumb that you'd have to be exposed to the maximum allowable per year (6mSv) for at least 20 years before you'd increase your cancer risk by barely 1%.

Ironically, the guys who were the most paranoid about CR also smoked and had a deep tan...:ugh:

Cosmic aka ionising radiation is not a stand alone risk for aircrew. We all get exposed to it. Any way, I am personally more concerned with circadian rhythm disruptions and what that does to my health. (plus the food etc..)

Some references.

FAA (http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0316.pdf)
WHO (http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/en/)

These should answer most of the questions.

[Denti]

During the last 9 months calculated (the company didn't do the last 3 months yet) flying around 380 block hours during that time shorthaul around europe i received around 1,75mSv of radiation which would make around 4 mS if flying 900 hours a year (which i wont as i fly around a half or two thirds the usual amount due to union work). All flying shorthaul with an average sector length of roughly 1:20 block time, around 1 hour air time, of which at most are spend 20 minutes in cruise altitudes flying over europe and therefore not high latitudes. Switching to MFF flying both longhaul and shorthaul would bring up the yearly exposure level quite a bit, so 6mSv is certainly and easily achievable. However it will be hard to reach the limit of 20mSv during normal flight operation regardless of longhaul or shorthaul flying, same for the lifetime limit of 400mSv.

ECA (http://www.eurocockpit.be/eca/node/166)

[Rory Dixon]

Over the last years, a number of studies have been published in the medical world about cancer risk in airline pilots.
Overall, pilots have a reduced risk of cancer compared to the normal population, but there might be a slight increase in skin cancer, breast cancer, and possibly brain cancer. The latter is (to my memory) rather caused by electromagnetic exposure than radiation, while skin cancer more commonly is thought to be connected to UV light.
If I recall right, there are currently additional epidemilogic studies run for this topic.
The scientific results for risk of radiation in the low dose range (that is below 100 mSv) are not straight forward. Some results do justify the used linear interpolation method for risk calculation, derived from the higher exposures of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing in '45, other studies to indicate a reduced risk in a certain part of the low dose range. Above 100 mSv, there is no disput.
Overall, I wouldn't wory.
I have enclosed an abstract from a recent publication.
Rory

Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2009;136(4):232-9. Epub 2009 Jul 16.
Epidemiological studies of cancer in aircrew.
Abstract
Exposure to cosmic ionising radiation, in addition to other specific occupational risks, is of concern to aircrew members. Epidemiological studies provide an objective way to assess the health of this occupational group. We systematically reviewed the epidemiological literature on health of aircrew members since 1990, focusing on cancer as the endpoint of interest. Sixty-five relevant publications were identified and reviewed. Whereas overall cancer incidence and mortality was generally lower than in the comparison population, consistently elevated risks were reported for breast cancer incidence in female aircrew members and for melanoma in both male and female aircrew members. Brain cancer was increased in some studies among pilots. Occasionally trends of increasing cancer mortality or incidence with increasing estimated radiation dose were reported. Ionising radiation is considered to contribute little if at all to the elevated risks for cancers among aircrew, whereas excess ultraviolet radiation is a probable cause of the increased melanoma risk.

[Northbeach]

Rory,

Thank you for the helpful information and your good post.

Welcome to Pprune.

Northbeach

[Old n Airborne]

A friend of mine had been Senior CC with Virgin. He told me they have some measures in place to control exposure by restricting flight crews to only fly under 1000 hrs per yr, this can be exceeded only by the pilots whom may want the overtime etc.

But then that is only what i have heard from a direct source and not a formal policy backed up with scientific facts.

[wiggy]

I'm afraid your "direct source" hasn't quite got the facts right.

UK flight crew are not allowed to fly more than 900 hours a year, period, due to the regulations for the avoidance of fatigue -and pilots certainly can't do more hours no matter how much overtime they want .