Cancer Amongst Pilots
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's what I posted on the Tech log on 31 March, re: Wx Radar and Health:
The old Wx radars use a magnetron for power, on the order of 60,000 watts peak power - in pulses. That is about 700 watts average power, same as a full size microwave oven, which also uses a magnetron. You may worry about your Wx radar on a walkaround, but how about the microwave oven in the lounge that was made by semi-slave labor to questionable compliance with industry standards?
The solid state radars, beginning in about 1980, typically are less than 150 watts peak power - less than one watt average power, so you will be hit in the head by the swinging antenna before you are close enough to be exposed to significant radiation.
Even with high power Wx radar, you would have to be running it facing a steel wall to have enough power mirrored into the cockpit to matter. Wx radar will not penetrate metal. Sidelobes in modern flat plate antennas and radomes are almost nonexistent, and with the advent of forward looking windshear systems, their sidelobes have been suppressed to zilch.
While you nervous nellies are fixating on the Wx radar, largely because of its name, do you put the TCAS and DMEs in standby while on the ground? They are typically in the realm of 500 watts peak power, and a decent walkaround will get you up close to them.
One way to know if the Wx radar in your DC-x or old Boeing or A300B4 is magnetron or solid state is to note warmup time. If not already in standby, a magetron takes up to a minute or more to warm up and begin transmitting. Solid state radars are instant on.
GB
The old Wx radars use a magnetron for power, on the order of 60,000 watts peak power - in pulses. That is about 700 watts average power, same as a full size microwave oven, which also uses a magnetron. You may worry about your Wx radar on a walkaround, but how about the microwave oven in the lounge that was made by semi-slave labor to questionable compliance with industry standards?
The solid state radars, beginning in about 1980, typically are less than 150 watts peak power - less than one watt average power, so you will be hit in the head by the swinging antenna before you are close enough to be exposed to significant radiation.
Even with high power Wx radar, you would have to be running it facing a steel wall to have enough power mirrored into the cockpit to matter. Wx radar will not penetrate metal. Sidelobes in modern flat plate antennas and radomes are almost nonexistent, and with the advent of forward looking windshear systems, their sidelobes have been suppressed to zilch.
While you nervous nellies are fixating on the Wx radar, largely because of its name, do you put the TCAS and DMEs in standby while on the ground? They are typically in the realm of 500 watts peak power, and a decent walkaround will get you up close to them.
One way to know if the Wx radar in your DC-x or old Boeing or A300B4 is magnetron or solid state is to note warmup time. If not already in standby, a magetron takes up to a minute or more to warm up and begin transmitting. Solid state radars are instant on.
GB
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although it has nothing to do with cosmic radiation or ionizing radiation at all I undertook the effort to compare the power of various transmitters:
bluetooth: 0.001 W to 0.1 W
wireless LAN: 0.1 W to 1 W
cordless DECT phone: 0.250 W
radar altimeter: 0.500 W
cell phone: 2 W
mobile analog radio: 4 W
amateur radio: 25 W to 750 W
cell phone tower: 50 W
TCAS: 250 W
civil marine radar for small boats: 2000 W
aircraft weather radar: 35 W to 12000 W
tv radio antenna: 100000 W
While 250 W from TCAS antennas sound like a lot of power, these antennas radiate in all directions. So these 500 W become relative again, compared to 500 W radiated from a unidirectional source like a weather radar.
In any way: From a physicists point of view common sense would dicate to shut down high power antennas when humans are working around them. Because like mentioned before although radio waves (radar, microwaves, UHF, VHF, ...) do not ionize you atoms, they heat your body. While heating your stomach is probably not that dangerous, heating your eyball is.
Power Point concerning weather radar:
http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/study-group...RTCA-Biggs.ppt
bluetooth: 0.001 W to 0.1 W
wireless LAN: 0.1 W to 1 W
cordless DECT phone: 0.250 W
radar altimeter: 0.500 W
cell phone: 2 W
mobile analog radio: 4 W
amateur radio: 25 W to 750 W
cell phone tower: 50 W
TCAS: 250 W
civil marine radar for small boats: 2000 W
aircraft weather radar: 35 W to 12000 W
tv radio antenna: 100000 W
While 250 W from TCAS antennas sound like a lot of power, these antennas radiate in all directions. So these 500 W become relative again, compared to 500 W radiated from a unidirectional source like a weather radar.
In any way: From a physicists point of view common sense would dicate to shut down high power antennas when humans are working around them. Because like mentioned before although radio waves (radar, microwaves, UHF, VHF, ...) do not ionize you atoms, they heat your body. While heating your stomach is probably not that dangerous, heating your eyball is.
Power Point concerning weather radar:
http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/study-group...RTCA-Biggs.ppt
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radiation
The key point is this (harking back to my physics degree)...
Alpha radiation is stopped by a single sheet of paper
Beta radiation is stopped by thin piece of foil or a window
Gamma radiation is virtually unstoppable
In other words, the aircraft skin or windows will stop alpha and beta radiation, and gamma (ionising) radiation is almost as likely to reach you at low altitude as at high.
My top tips to avoid cancer in aviation:
1) Turn off transponder, DME, radalt, and other transmitters while doing the walkaround - and dont transmit on COM
2) Wear suncream and hat while doing walkaround on a sunny day
3) Avoid x-rays where poss since these give you more radiation than in flight
4) Stop smoking
5) Eat lots of fresh fruit and veg
Alpha radiation is stopped by a single sheet of paper
Beta radiation is stopped by thin piece of foil or a window
Gamma radiation is virtually unstoppable
In other words, the aircraft skin or windows will stop alpha and beta radiation, and gamma (ionising) radiation is almost as likely to reach you at low altitude as at high.
My top tips to avoid cancer in aviation:
1) Turn off transponder, DME, radalt, and other transmitters while doing the walkaround - and dont transmit on COM
2) Wear suncream and hat while doing walkaround on a sunny day
3) Avoid x-rays where poss since these give you more radiation than in flight
4) Stop smoking
5) Eat lots of fresh fruit and veg
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Needs Some Comments
HERR STIFFLER QUOTED A REPORT FROM A MD:
Quote:
1. I avoid radiation for myself whenever possible.
2. I do not let dentists X-ray my mouth.
3. I do not get chest X-rays for a long-standing cough since I am not a cigarette smoker.
4. When considering a CT in a child, I think long and hard about this and discuss the very real dangers with the parents. If the clinical picture fits, the CT usually is unnecessary.
5. If a doctor ever recommended a CT, I would request an MRI
-------------------
I completly agree with 1 and 2. 1 is obvious, 2 it seems that especially in the US the dentists are very trigger-friendly i.e. everyone gets an x-ray, which is absolutly useless.
As for number 3 - if it is a long standing cough I would get an X-ray as please don't forget: non-smokers get lung cancer as well (less often though) and it could be related to some other kind of oulmonary disease that requires diagnosis and treatment (Sarcoidosis, metastasis, TBC, pneumonia to name a few).
4 and if the benefit outways the risk I get a CT for my kid (e.g. car accident, rule out cerebral hemorrhage)
5 you may ask if a MRI would do the trick as well. MRI is good for certain questions and CT is better for others. Leave it to the professional to decide which one is better but asking never hurts.
As for health risk related to flying PubMed shows 17 papers, one of the more recent and reliable one is this one:
Cosmic radiation exposure and cancer risk among flight crew.
Cancer Invest. 2004;22(5):743-61.
Sigurdson AJ, Ron E.
Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7238, USA.
Nearly 20 epidemiologic or related studies of cancer incidence and mortality have been published during or since 2000, with several reporting increased risks of female breast cancer among flight attendants and melanoma among both pilots and cabin crew. Occasionally, excesses of other cancers have been observed, but not consistently. Although the real causes of these excess cancer risks are not known, there is concern that they may be related to occupational exposures to ionizing radiation of cosmic origin. It is possible that confounding risk factors may partially or totally explain the observed relationships, but several investigations are beginning to address lack of past adjustment for reproductive factors and sun exposure with improved study designs. With progress in aviation technology, planes will fly longer and at higher altitudes, and presumably the number of flights and passengers will increase. To respond responsibly to the real and perceived risks associated with flying, more extensive data are needed, but special efforts should be considered to ensure new projects can genuinely add to our current knowledge.
PMID: 15581056 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Quote:
1. I avoid radiation for myself whenever possible.
2. I do not let dentists X-ray my mouth.
3. I do not get chest X-rays for a long-standing cough since I am not a cigarette smoker.
4. When considering a CT in a child, I think long and hard about this and discuss the very real dangers with the parents. If the clinical picture fits, the CT usually is unnecessary.
5. If a doctor ever recommended a CT, I would request an MRI
-------------------
I completly agree with 1 and 2. 1 is obvious, 2 it seems that especially in the US the dentists are very trigger-friendly i.e. everyone gets an x-ray, which is absolutly useless.
As for number 3 - if it is a long standing cough I would get an X-ray as please don't forget: non-smokers get lung cancer as well (less often though) and it could be related to some other kind of oulmonary disease that requires diagnosis and treatment (Sarcoidosis, metastasis, TBC, pneumonia to name a few).
4 and if the benefit outways the risk I get a CT for my kid (e.g. car accident, rule out cerebral hemorrhage)
5 you may ask if a MRI would do the trick as well. MRI is good for certain questions and CT is better for others. Leave it to the professional to decide which one is better but asking never hurts.
As for health risk related to flying PubMed shows 17 papers, one of the more recent and reliable one is this one:
Cosmic radiation exposure and cancer risk among flight crew.
Cancer Invest. 2004;22(5):743-61.
Sigurdson AJ, Ron E.
Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7238, USA.
Nearly 20 epidemiologic or related studies of cancer incidence and mortality have been published during or since 2000, with several reporting increased risks of female breast cancer among flight attendants and melanoma among both pilots and cabin crew. Occasionally, excesses of other cancers have been observed, but not consistently. Although the real causes of these excess cancer risks are not known, there is concern that they may be related to occupational exposures to ionizing radiation of cosmic origin. It is possible that confounding risk factors may partially or totally explain the observed relationships, but several investigations are beginning to address lack of past adjustment for reproductive factors and sun exposure with improved study designs. With progress in aviation technology, planes will fly longer and at higher altitudes, and presumably the number of flights and passengers will increase. To respond responsibly to the real and perceived risks associated with flying, more extensive data are needed, but special efforts should be considered to ensure new projects can genuinely add to our current knowledge.
PMID: 15581056 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tower
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DRDR, ".. aircraft weather radar: 35 W to 12000 W tv radio antenna: 100000 W"
Weather Radar is obviously the strongest, reason why FC are required to turn this off on touchdown just before exiting the RWY. It would be interesting to know how many Watts the VOR's are transmitting as all enroute VOR are being overflown. These antennas will make you infertile.
Strange, as nobody mentioned regarding the diet of crew which are mostly composed of microwaved food. We know some countries already banned microwave oven, due to the proven studies that microwaved food becomes carcinogenic.
Weather Radar is obviously the strongest, reason why FC are required to turn this off on touchdown just before exiting the RWY. It would be interesting to know how many Watts the VOR's are transmitting as all enroute VOR are being overflown. These antennas will make you infertile.
Strange, as nobody mentioned regarding the diet of crew which are mostly composed of microwaved food. We know some countries already banned microwave oven, due to the proven studies that microwaved food becomes carcinogenic.
Last edited by C-N; 19th Jul 2009 at 19:50. Reason: spacing
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently VORs transmit with powers up to Kilowatts. But as UHF is non ionizing radiation I would not think that it makes you infertile. Esspecially while sitting in a an aluminium tube which is acting as a faraday cage.
Regardings microwave ovens:
The waves do not escape the oven. So don't worry. Although some microwave food does indeed look scary and is therefore probably troublesome...
p.s.: Want to see a bad a** VOR? Take a look here: http://www.lancesanders.com/pix/newdfw.jpg
Regardings microwave ovens:
The waves do not escape the oven. So don't worry. Although some microwave food does indeed look scary and is therefore probably troublesome...
p.s.: Want to see a bad a** VOR? Take a look here: http://www.lancesanders.com/pix/newdfw.jpg
Last edited by DRDR; 20th Jul 2009 at 17:47.
A slight digression from radiation. I've not followed every link posted in this thread but i do seem to remember a study being carried out over many years on UK flightcrew. The results showed that crew have a significantly longer average lifespan than the population in general (can't recall the exact numbers but it is several years) This was attributed to the regular health "screening" (i.e medicals) throughout their working lives and the fact that many (but not all 
) try to pursue a healthier lifestyle in order to keep passing their medical. Interestingly the group that had the highest average lifespan were the flight engineers, who outlived pilots by 2 years.
) try to pursue a healthier lifestyle in order to keep passing their medical. Interestingly the group that had the highest average lifespan were the flight engineers, who outlived pilots by 2 years.
