Cancer and Cabin Crew

[carey]

Hi Everyone

Does having had Cancer affect my chances of being selected for cabin crew with various airlines? I'm in good health now and in remission. Do I have to declare it when I'm sent for a medical? Any feedback from anyone working in this industry after having had Cancer/Chemotherapy would be appreciated. PM or otherwise

Thanks guys :)

[Thomas coupling]

Why would you want to expose yourself to additional radiation at altitude after having survived one dose of cancer:ugh::ugh:

[carey]

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words Thomas, you must be a medical Doctor...:D

[Thomas coupling]

Carey, I'm serious, there are a number of evidence based reports indicating the heightened risk of radiation exposure at altitude. Have you read anything on the subject? If you have, why would you strive to expose yourself further - I don't understand. Enlighten me, please?
Each transatlantic trip (each way) is the equivalent of atleast 1 chest X ray?

[172_driver]

I am no expert, but came across this link from another thread running in Tech Log about solar flares. Might be of interest.

If you want a bit more information, my previous airline's company doctor produced the following paper on crew radiation exposure (admittedly for Australian conditions), and the limits:

http://www.pprune.org/pub/gen/radiation.htm

[carey]

Hi 172_driver

Thank you for your informative intelligent and deferential post.

Happy flying :)

[Thomas coupling]

Told you:ugh:

[wiggy]

Each transatlantic trip (each way) is the equivalent of at least 1 chest X ray?

I'll raise you a :ugh: :ugh: and a := := because no it's not "equivalent", that's an oft repeated urban myth.

On a transatlantic flight you may be exposed to about the same amount of radiation as you are exposed to in a Chest X-Ray...however the dose rates are massively different, obviously(?), since the flight takes about 6 hours whilst the chest X-ray less than a second... and it's high dose rates that do the real damage.

there are a number of evidence based reports indicating the heightened risk of radiation exposure at altitude.

Agreed, as long as we're aware it's "heightened" by a fraction of a percent. As far as Flight/Cabin Crew are concerned there are a number of reports suggesting there's almost certainly a link between flying and cancer, but the increase in incidence vs. the general population is almost immeasurable. The figures in the paper 172 driver linked to are fairly representative of those I've seen in other research

Epidemiological studies have shown that, for the general public, the % risk of dying of Cancer is about 23%. The most recent radiation risk models indicate that a crew member flying long haul routes for 20 years would increase this risk from 23% to 23.3%.


Carey

Obviously what you declare is up to you, but if you "found out" by your employer it could have unfortunate consequences.

[Thomas coupling]

It depends on who you speak to and what you read, I suppose. Suffice to say there are 'grounds' for suspicion overall. The jury, most certainly are still out on the question. Would any sane person, having suffered from this illness, purposefully expose themselves to the same "probable" cause all over again?
I think not!

Irrespective of cancer, what about fatigue / stress / DVT and finally doing a crappy boring underpaid unloved job....after having gone through a massive stressor illness????

Frequent fliers raise cancer risk | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-200443/Frequent-fliers-raise-cancer-risk.html)

Cancer incidence in airline cabin crew -- Whelan 60 (11): 805 -- Occupational and Environmental Medicine (http://oem.bmj.com/content/60/11/805.full)

[trex450]

it seems that assumptions have been made here about you wanting to be a long haul cabin crew member. I know nothing about radiation levels apart from that they increase with altitude so obviously the long haul world is exposing you to greater levels of the stuff. If you are looking for work with short sector turboprop operators then you would not be flying so high anyway.

[homonculus]

The only twaddle worse than doctors talking about aviation is pilots talking about medicine

Radiation is dangerous. Therapeutic and diagnostic X rays kill 60000 patients a year in the USA alone. However it is both dose and duration dependant. The amount of radiation received in commercial aircraft by crew working usual shifts falls Within the level that has been deemed safe for those of us who work with radiation in medicine. We wear exposure badges and have been universally monitored for 40 years so the statistics are fairly sound. I receive far more radiation from one operation than crew will receive in a month

Sadly whether the dose is over 5 minutes or 8 hours is irrelevant.

If you have had cancer you will not get a new cancer from these exposures. Depending on the tumour your immunity and the risk of further malignancies may be increased whatever your occupation and you also run the risk of relapsing but you won't die from being a trolley dolly

[wiggy]

The only twaddle worse than doctors talking about aviation is pilots talking about medicine

That might depend on what said pilot did in a previous career...

What's your professional opinion on the claim that a transatlantic trip is the equivalent of at least 1 chest X ray?

It's quite possible for a crew member to perform 30 - 40 return transatlantic flights a year - would you support the assertion that this is "equivalent" to 30 - 40 chest X-Rays a year? If not, why not?

( and can I crib your explanation for future use, seeing as I seemingly made a Horlicks of my initial effort :sad:)

[Mac the Knife]

"Therapeutic and diagnostic X rays kill 60000 patients a year in the USA alone."

I don't know where you get your figures from but lumping therapeutic and diagnostic X-rays together is silly.

As you well know, these are very different things.

Therapeutic X-rays are virtually only given for cancer control and the vast majority of deaths are from the original cancer, not the X-rays.

In an authoritative 2004 paper in the Lancet - http://www.imre.ucl.ac.be/rpr/lancet-363.pdf - the excess lifetime cancer cases from diagnostic X-rays was 700 for the UK and 5695 for the USA - a bit less than your 60,000.

Mac

[homonculus]

Gosh - typo error detected by plastic surgeon. The end of my career. Sorry, should indeed be 6000. The silly lumping is the ICRP's proposals not mine!

Wiggy - the problem is what is the dose of radiation for a chest X Ray. In 1920 it was 10,000 mrem. By 1960 it had fallen to 1000 mrem. Today it is 2-5 mrem and new equipment can cut this further.

A transatlantic flight exposes you to 0.238 mrem per hour and some studies have recorded annual exposure of 219 mrem so at first glance it would seem that flying is far worse than an X ray, but to put it in perspective one CT scan can be up to 1500 mrem and the safe annual exposure for healthcare workers is 2000 mrem per year so flying is well within the safe level

In fact the background exposure we get at sea level is 300 mrem per year and rises to 1500 mrem per year at 10,000 feet. Radon gas adds 200 mrem per year.

[Rory Dixon]

The most recent follow up data from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki exposures, now looking at the low dose level exposures, as well as the current data of low dose incorporated radiation follow up (like thorium) can not be explained by the linear non threshold theory of stochastic radiation damage. Other recent scientific results from lab experiments also do not give straight forward, clear cut results on this question.
Thus, calculating cancer deaths from low dose radiation exposure might be an interesting approach for political or tactical reasons, but can not be justified on a scientific basis anymore. In fact, some scientific results even suggest a reduction of cellular effects after low dose radiation exposure.
In one senctence: the question, whether low dose radiation (<100mSv) causes cancer can not seriously be answered at the moment. It might not.
And, homunculus, dose rate is relevant.

[homonculus]

I think the question was whether it was safe for someone in remission to fly as a career. My response was hoping to reassure that the level of exposure was very low in comparison to medical exposure and the risks are negligible.

You seem to be agreeing with me

Although I don't think many will go as far as you and suggest a bit of radiation prevents malignancy!

I will stick with the proven international standards rather than odd papers

[Mac the Knife]

Homoculous, your bias is showing.

Rory didn't suggest that "..a bit of radiation prevents malignancy!"

He cited data which suggests that the accepted model of radiation damage ("any radiation is bad for you!") may not be accurate, and that very low levels may not be harmful.

When one considers the multiple layers of cellular protection preventing the propagation of transcription errors and the various efficient DNA repair mechanisms running this shouldn't be too surprising.

Mac

[HIMSProgram]

Thomas,

"Each transatlantic trip (each way) is the equivalent of atleast 1 chest X ray?"

That's just an old wives tale.

[Gonzo44]

Speaking as crew who has had cancer my advice would be don't do it! The cancer rate amongst crew is very high. To stop cancer coming back you need to eat well & sleep well, both are difficult for crew flying at all hours. Your health is more important than anything else. Good luck with whatever you decide.

[Poire]

You people didn't quite get the question:


In all honesty Carey, you should inform the medical department of the airline you would going to apply for; otherwise, when they find out about it later, it could be grounds for dismissal, or you losing the medical benefits, if any.

There are hundreds of forms of cancers with various degrees of aggressiveness, and remission is a good thing for many forms.

You should, however, give priority to your health. As said here before, an airline career is very demanding and for the most part, very unhealthy, too.

Good luck and all the best

[homonculus]

Sorry poire but this is a rumour Network so creep is to expected.

How do you justify your statement that aviation is unhealthy? Pilots on average are healthier than normal - less cardiovascular events and less of most things as evidenced by data collected by doctors for regulators.

The best answer to the initial question is to discuss it with the potential employers medical department but the idea that aviation is unhealthy or that lots of sleep and rest prevent cancer or cancer recurrence simply has no basis in science

[carey]

Do you have to declare at the medical about the fact that you had cancer 4 years previously? What happens at a medical in general?