Cosmic Cancer and Radiation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Research into cosmic radiation
Hi ,
some one has mentioned here recently that there are a few universities investigating the effects of high frequency european flights and the dosages of cosmic radiation recieved (or something like this )
does any one have any links or email addresses for the universities concerned , its something that i'm quite interested in
any info would be appreciated ,
cheers
some one has mentioned here recently that there are a few universities investigating the effects of high frequency european flights and the dosages of cosmic radiation recieved (or something like this )
does any one have any links or email addresses for the universities concerned , its something that i'm quite interested in
any info would be appreciated ,
cheers
Psychophysiological entity
I seem to recall that there is an AME operating from a suite in an hotel just north of LGW that is or was on a committee regarding the affects of radiation on aircrew. Anyone recall the name?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northampton
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't think cosmic radiation was of an issue until you were above 49,000' (15,000 metres)? Or are there very slight periods that break past this point say, when there's a solar flare?
I really wish I knew more about this subject too, but I recall the ATPL manual saying basically what I said above...
Rgrds and replies appreciated,
Jack.
I really wish I knew more about this subject too, but I recall the ATPL manual saying basically what I said above...
Rgrds and replies appreciated,
Jack.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cheers anticrash , have checked it out ,
reason why i mentioned it was a friend of mine thats a radioligist (probably not spelt right ) mentioned a conference in leeds that she was at recently and aircrew exposure to radiation was brought up .
she was comparing european flights (2 to 3 hours ) to the level of radiation used in various X-rays , and when i heard that it was possible to be equivalent to half a chest X- ray thats when i got interested
the figures are not concrete due to a low level of research in to the topic , but i could do four european flights a day , 5 times a week , i should be glowing by now ,
so when some one mentioned a dedicated study , i was interested to finally learn the truth ,
its obvious that the higher you go the more radiation there is , and with most modern jets hitting FL400 and above , we must be getting a fair bit , particularly if you do 900 hours a year .
and thats with out slolar flare activity
just a thought
reason why i mentioned it was a friend of mine thats a radioligist (probably not spelt right ) mentioned a conference in leeds that she was at recently and aircrew exposure to radiation was brought up .
she was comparing european flights (2 to 3 hours ) to the level of radiation used in various X-rays , and when i heard that it was possible to be equivalent to half a chest X- ray thats when i got interested
the figures are not concrete due to a low level of research in to the topic , but i could do four european flights a day , 5 times a week , i should be glowing by now ,
so when some one mentioned a dedicated study , i was interested to finally learn the truth ,
its obvious that the higher you go the more radiation there is , and with most modern jets hitting FL400 and above , we must be getting a fair bit , particularly if you do 900 hours a year .
and thats with out slolar flare activity
just a thought
Enigmatologist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Tottering Upon Brink
Age: 69
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm If we go down in mines we get irradiated by radon and if we go up very high we get irradiated by cosmic rays. My other hobby is nuclear submarines so that's out. I guess it's back to rowing.
Seriously maybe you should get a dosiometer and start tracking your exposure. It would be an interesting test.
Seriously maybe you should get a dosiometer and start tracking your exposure. It would be an interesting test.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The (old) Australian Flight Attendants Association carried out a survey on AN cabin crew, in the late 80's/early 90's. Results showed that there was nothing to worry about. Maybe on Concorde?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys, but it does affect also those of us only cramped up in a B737. It all depends where you are in the world, the further close to the poles, the worse it gets. And the radiation differs a lot from day to day. As you all know itis a JAR requirement to keep tabs on the radiation for all crew members, but it seems most airlines have "forgotten" about it.
I have heard of a company that can exactly monitor radiation, not based on statistics, but on actual data. I will come back when I have done a little more "fishing".
I have heard of a company that can exactly monitor radiation, not based on statistics, but on actual data. I will come back when I have done a little more "fishing".
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On 2 Sept Loose Rivets wrote:
I seem to recall that there is an AME operating from a suite in an hotel just north of LGW that is or was on a committee regarding the affects of radiation on aircrew. Anyone recall the name?
You can see how often I look at PPrune these days.
The 2 AMEs who run Airport Medical Services are Dr Edgington and Dr Goodwin. Im not sure which one of them sat on the committee but last time I was there for my medical I had a chat to Dr Goodwin about radiation.
I went to get my medical done on my way to work to operate a trip and due to the fact that I was in uniform Dr Goodwin asked me where I was going. I told him and as it was a bit of a grey day he remarked that at least I would get to see some sunshine. Yeah, I said. And also get another dose of cosmic radiation into the bargain. Ah well, replied the Dr in all seriousness. It might even be good for you, noone really knows what effect it may have.
Strangely enough a few months later I read an article in a newspaper that made the point that the graph of DNA damage done against radiation exposure is not a linear line but is actually a J shaped curve. Small doses seem to stimulate the immune system to destroy altered strands of DNA which had the potential to turn cancerous. (Not sure how small the dose needs to be though)
I seem to recall that there is an AME operating from a suite in an hotel just north of LGW that is or was on a committee regarding the affects of radiation on aircrew. Anyone recall the name?
You can see how often I look at PPrune these days.
The 2 AMEs who run Airport Medical Services are Dr Edgington and Dr Goodwin. Im not sure which one of them sat on the committee but last time I was there for my medical I had a chat to Dr Goodwin about radiation.
I went to get my medical done on my way to work to operate a trip and due to the fact that I was in uniform Dr Goodwin asked me where I was going. I told him and as it was a bit of a grey day he remarked that at least I would get to see some sunshine. Yeah, I said. And also get another dose of cosmic radiation into the bargain. Ah well, replied the Dr in all seriousness. It might even be good for you, noone really knows what effect it may have.
Strangely enough a few months later I read an article in a newspaper that made the point that the graph of DNA damage done against radiation exposure is not a linear line but is actually a J shaped curve. Small doses seem to stimulate the immune system to destroy altered strands of DNA which had the potential to turn cancerous. (Not sure how small the dose needs to be though)
Psychophysiological entity
Dr Goodwin, that's the name. A mine of information on lower back surgery too.
Interesting about small doses of radiation...I suppose it's the reason we have a DNA helix repair mechanism
Interesting about small doses of radiation...I suppose it's the reason we have a DNA helix repair mechanism
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The best in the world... of course!!!
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High-Flying Crews Face Cosmic Cancer
High-Flying Crews Face Cosmic Cancer
Add cosmic radiation to the confirmed list of threats to the health of long-haul flight crews, although we don't know where it ranks along with deep vein thrombosis, boredom or the food.
A British study has confirmed what pilots and flight attendants (and other studies) have been saying for decades. Spending too much time in the rarified air up there can be hazardous to your health.
The study of 411 British Airways pilots showed increased rates of melanoma, colon and brain cancers attributable to cosmic rays. There's also a risk to the unborn children of pregnant crew members. "There's more data coming out about the risks," Michael Mijatov, of the Australian Flight Attendants Association, told The Age.
"There's evidence that the higher you are, the more exposure you have to cosmic rays. He said female crew members more than 16 weeks pregnant are already prevented from working. Cosmic rays are made up of neutrons, gamma and alpha rays put out by the sun.
The atmosphere filters most of them out before they reach earth but most airliners fly above much of that protective layer.
(From Aweb News)
Add cosmic radiation to the confirmed list of threats to the health of long-haul flight crews, although we don't know where it ranks along with deep vein thrombosis, boredom or the food.
A British study has confirmed what pilots and flight attendants (and other studies) have been saying for decades. Spending too much time in the rarified air up there can be hazardous to your health.
The study of 411 British Airways pilots showed increased rates of melanoma, colon and brain cancers attributable to cosmic rays. There's also a risk to the unborn children of pregnant crew members. "There's more data coming out about the risks," Michael Mijatov, of the Australian Flight Attendants Association, told The Age.
"There's evidence that the higher you are, the more exposure you have to cosmic rays. He said female crew members more than 16 weeks pregnant are already prevented from working. Cosmic rays are made up of neutrons, gamma and alpha rays put out by the sun.
The atmosphere filters most of them out before they reach earth but most airliners fly above much of that protective layer.
(From Aweb News)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I understand (which is not much) the Airline I work for are planning to introduce a system which can accurately measure the radiation in combination of flight path and altitude. I will let you know the company when I have found out which one it is. I understand it is a JAR requirement to keep tabs on radiation levels but it seems most "forget it".
Regards
Regards
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Snowland
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read a research report regarding flight crew exposure to cosmic radiation. The resarchers found unusal high precentage of skin cancer etc. However when the research was done with military pilots (fighter pilots) no abnormal effects were found. A fighter pilot is far more exposed to cosmic radiation (canopy) and the researchers pointed out that the aircraft fuselage should give sufficient blockage fram radiation.
As a followup, they compared the flight crews flying to sunny destinations and those flying destinations such as britain-iceland. There was a big difference. The researchers suggested that the pilot where in fact well shelterd while in the aircraft. The effects where instead due to the large number of short "burns" that i.e. charter crews where exposed to.
I found the research quite interesting
As a followup, they compared the flight crews flying to sunny destinations and those flying destinations such as britain-iceland. There was a big difference. The researchers suggested that the pilot where in fact well shelterd while in the aircraft. The effects where instead due to the large number of short "burns" that i.e. charter crews where exposed to.
I found the research quite interesting
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: gone surfin'
Age: 58
Posts: 2,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Signeti, you could refine your search a little, by using a medical database such as http://omni.ac.uk/medline/.
It might be a little fiddly at first, but will probably help sort the wheat from the chaff.
It might be a little fiddly at first, but will probably help sort the wheat from the chaff.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Norwich
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
signeti:
I have a link here that might interest you. - There are many, many others, so I shall be back later, when I find some more, if you are still interested.
www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181873-1.html
surtyp:
Has your memory come up with the name of the company that provides real time radiation monitoring? - I have heard of one: www.Globalog.com
- there is quite a lot of information on their homepage.
halfbaked_boy:
A dosimeter is required for aircraft flying above 49000 feet. It is for alert if the radiation rises above a pre-set level, and requires an immediate descent. But it is not good for measuring the radiation accumulated during the flight.
kilo-club SNA:
Those researchers that claim that the fuselage blocks off the radiation are in conflict with other researchers who claim that the radiation at 40000 feet would require a shell of 20 inches (50 centimeters) of lead. - And this is really not anything to discuss when we talk about airplanes, is it?
And with regard to skin cancer - yes, who knows? It could be from sunburns, but how would you explain a rate of 4 times the usual of leuchemia? - or the latest cancer study I have seen from November last year, an incident rate of breast cancer of 5 times for female cabin attendants having flown more than 5 years compared to c/a's having flown less than 5 years?
There is a lot to think about, and the least we should do is to keep an account on how much we are exposed to.
I have a link here that might interest you. - There are many, many others, so I shall be back later, when I find some more, if you are still interested.
www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181873-1.html
surtyp:
Has your memory come up with the name of the company that provides real time radiation monitoring? - I have heard of one: www.Globalog.com
- there is quite a lot of information on their homepage.
halfbaked_boy:
A dosimeter is required for aircraft flying above 49000 feet. It is for alert if the radiation rises above a pre-set level, and requires an immediate descent. But it is not good for measuring the radiation accumulated during the flight.
kilo-club SNA:
Those researchers that claim that the fuselage blocks off the radiation are in conflict with other researchers who claim that the radiation at 40000 feet would require a shell of 20 inches (50 centimeters) of lead. - And this is really not anything to discuss when we talk about airplanes, is it?
And with regard to skin cancer - yes, who knows? It could be from sunburns, but how would you explain a rate of 4 times the usual of leuchemia? - or the latest cancer study I have seen from November last year, an incident rate of breast cancer of 5 times for female cabin attendants having flown more than 5 years compared to c/a's having flown less than 5 years?
There is a lot to think about, and the least we should do is to keep an account on how much we are exposed to.
Last edited by Arctic Flyer; 19th Nov 2004 at 12:56.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but how would you explain a rate of 4 times the usual of leuchemia? (sic)
First thing you do is ignore the paper and go to the abstract and look for the letter 'p' followed by a number. It's the only thing in the paper that matters, it would tell you if '4 times the usual' means anything.
but how would you explain........ a study I have seen from November last year, an incident rate of breast cancer of 5 times for female cabin attendants having flown more than 5 years compared to c/a's having flown less than 5 years
See above, search for the 'p'. If it was significant, I would then ask whether flight attendants who had worked for > 5 years were older then flight attendents who had worked for < 5 years. If so, get a bulb going off in my head which said older people get breast cancer more than younger people. Then I'd get somebody who understood statistics better than me to work out what 'p' was for a study comparing different jobs of groups of workers of similar ages.
And if you got significant results, you'd have to prove it was due to cosmic radiation and not something that was in airline food, which I would have to assume was more likely
First thing you do is ignore the paper and go to the abstract and look for the letter 'p' followed by a number. It's the only thing in the paper that matters, it would tell you if '4 times the usual' means anything.
but how would you explain........ a study I have seen from November last year, an incident rate of breast cancer of 5 times for female cabin attendants having flown more than 5 years compared to c/a's having flown less than 5 years
See above, search for the 'p'. If it was significant, I would then ask whether flight attendants who had worked for > 5 years were older then flight attendents who had worked for < 5 years. If so, get a bulb going off in my head which said older people get breast cancer more than younger people. Then I'd get somebody who understood statistics better than me to work out what 'p' was for a study comparing different jobs of groups of workers of similar ages.
And if you got significant results, you'd have to prove it was due to cosmic radiation and not something that was in airline food, which I would have to assume was more likely
Moderator
I'm not sure which study you refer to. I would love to have a look at it. There are a huge number of confounding factors which may, or may not have been taken into account here. For example, breast cancer risk is also increased if the individual has never had children/breast fed. Is the rate different in flight attendants because of this? Or is it an age effect (also related to the risk as slim_slag said). You can "prove" anything you want with statistics. It is how carefully the analysis is carried out that maters.
Cheers,
BM
Cheers,
BM
signeti
I'm not sure why people think there is a "low level of research", thers's a stack, but most of it is inconclusive, perhaps because the effects are not as great as we think? The comparison between chest X-Ray dosages and flight dosages comes up a lot but the dose rates are vastly different, and it's the rate, more than the total dose that does a lot of the damage. ( btw you can sit in a house in a granite rich area of the world and receive the equivalent of several chest X-Rays a year)
For the Solar flare "fans", flares produce big spikes in the radiation level but the main contributor to the radiation we get is the background Cosmic Radiation (which doesn''t come from the Sun, so much for the accuracy of ther report from "The Age")...and interestingly ( or perhaps not ) when the Sun is at the minimum of it's 11 year activity cycle ( which it is now), and flares are at their most infrequent, Cosmic Radiation is at it's peak..
IMHO there are more important health factors to consider in this job , such as oil fumes, disrupted sleep,irregular exposure to sunlight and as somebody else has mentioned, airline food, if people insist on worrying about radiation, they should worry about Ultraviolet radiation
Regards
I'm not sure why people think there is a "low level of research", thers's a stack, but most of it is inconclusive, perhaps because the effects are not as great as we think? The comparison between chest X-Ray dosages and flight dosages comes up a lot but the dose rates are vastly different, and it's the rate, more than the total dose that does a lot of the damage. ( btw you can sit in a house in a granite rich area of the world and receive the equivalent of several chest X-Rays a year)
For the Solar flare "fans", flares produce big spikes in the radiation level but the main contributor to the radiation we get is the background Cosmic Radiation (which doesn''t come from the Sun, so much for the accuracy of ther report from "The Age")...and interestingly ( or perhaps not ) when the Sun is at the minimum of it's 11 year activity cycle ( which it is now), and flares are at their most infrequent, Cosmic Radiation is at it's peak..
IMHO there are more important health factors to consider in this job , such as oil fumes, disrupted sleep,irregular exposure to sunlight and as somebody else has mentioned, airline food, if people insist on worrying about radiation, they should worry about Ultraviolet radiation
Regards