Cancer Amongst Pilots
Five Green. I believe the proposed limit is 10 msv units (Milli or Micro Sieverts??) and that, by calculation and projection, pilots AVERAGE about 2 - 3 msvs per year. The 6msv limit sounds sensible since you'd have reason to be grounded if you got to 9msv.
Can dosimeters be bought? How much? IIRC, there are different types depending on which types of radiation you are expecting to have to measure.
Britannia Airways did some measuring of radiation exposure a few years ago but I'm not aware of the results.
Can dosimeters be bought? How much? IIRC, there are different types depending on which types of radiation you are expecting to have to measure.
Britannia Airways did some measuring of radiation exposure a few years ago but I'm not aware of the results.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: EU
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I eared that drinking whisky and smoking cigarets counteract the effect of radiations or at least if you get a cancer you won't know if it's due to cosmic radiations or alcool.
In fact and more seriously it will be allways difficult to know exactly the origin of a diseases unless you know all of the facts you'll be facing artefacts.
From my point of view anyway I would not be surprised that man hide us the truth. Like paludism is not considered as a professional sickness irradiation will probably never be either.
Enjoy your flights............and moreover your drinks at arrival
In fact and more seriously it will be allways difficult to know exactly the origin of a diseases unless you know all of the facts you'll be facing artefacts.
From my point of view anyway I would not be surprised that man hide us the truth. Like paludism is not considered as a professional sickness irradiation will probably never be either.
Enjoy your flights............and moreover your drinks at arrival
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just curious...given you fly x number of hours per year in the danger zones.
1. Are the rates of radiation higher in day than night, or is it a background thing?
2. Does blocking direct exposure of the sun to the skin make a difference? That is, putting newspapers, sunshades, etc up on the windscreen...does that help?
1. Are the rates of radiation higher in day than night, or is it a background thing?
2. Does blocking direct exposure of the sun to the skin make a difference? That is, putting newspapers, sunshades, etc up on the windscreen...does that help?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Composition of cosmic radiation:
93 % protons
6.4 % alpha-particles (He-ions)
0.6 % other ions like Li, B and Bi
Enegry of cosmic radiation:
100000000 eV to 100000000000000000000 eV
Due to their very high enery these ions create secondary radition when entering the earths atmosphere. From 4 km to 20 km this secondary radition does mainly consist of electrons, positrons and photons.
Shielding:
Alpha particles will be absorbed by a sheet of paper. Of course this depends on their energy. But I am confident that ions will be absorbed by all the metal around you.
Eletrons and positrons on the other way will not be entirely absorbed by a piece of paper. You would need some layers of metal. Most of them will probably be absorbed by all the stuff around you. So I would not worry too much about them too.
Unfortunately photons (also called gamma rays or x-rays) are more or less unimpressed by all the stuff around you. You would need massive shields (for example thick lead sheets) to get rid of them. So you will be bombarded by photons when flying around. These photons will produce tertiary radiation when colliding with other atoms (e.g. in you body) which then can create damage to you DNA. The amount on damage depends on the mass and energy and biologic material. A good indicator is the amount of energy these particles deposit in you body multiplicated by a factor depending on the particle. This will get you an energy in the unit Sievert (Sv).
Now you will get these photons when being on the ground. So the question is, how much more energy you will get when flying around in the stratosphere.
If you are sitting around (which means you are not working with nuclear materials) you will get 2.4 mSv in a year. These are 0.0024 Sv.
Now let's compare:
teaching nuclear physics one year 0.00001 Sv
sitting around one year 0.00240 Sv
x-ray stommach 0.00380 Sv
smoking one year 0.00880 Sv
Results in you body:
changes in blood 0.2500 Sv
temporary radiation sickness 1.0000 Sv
really serious radiation sickness 4.0000 Sv
death 8.0000 Sv
Of cours if you get 0.25 Sv in 10 years you will not get blood changes. But if you get them in a short time, you will probably get them. But it's not that easy to say how short the time should be. In any way you should think about adding the energies over time. At the moment we assume a linear relationship between energy dose (Sv) and the probability for cancer. Although this can probably change when looking at small amounts of energy.
Allowed exposure in one year:
people working in exposed areas 0.0200 Sv
anybody else 0.0100 Sv
Life long exposure limit for exposed workes:
0.400 mSv
Conclusion:
If I would be flying around professionally (I am not, I am just teaching around;-), I would make the following calculation:
Energy dose "available" for flying aournd, assuming that I want to become 100 years old:
0.400 Sv - 100 x 0.00240 Sv = 0.1600 Sv
Then I would take a look at the online calculator for energy doses:
http://jag.cami.jccbi.gov./cariprofile.asp
This gives me a dose of 0.0001 Sv for a 40.000 ft 12 hour flight from FRA to LAX in February.
Which means that I could do this flight
0.1600 Sv / 0.0001 Sv = 1600 times
That sounds a lot, but you know better than I how many flights you do in your professional life. And please beware, that energy doses can be much higher when...
...flying higher
...flying during solar activity
...flying northern (on northern hemisphere) or southern (on southern hemisphere)
Suggestion:
Take the FAA energy dose calculator (URL provided above) and log your exposure before each flight. You will then be able to know when you have exceeded the official lifetime limit.
I hope all of this made any sense... Greetings, DRDR.
93 % protons
6.4 % alpha-particles (He-ions)
0.6 % other ions like Li, B and Bi
Enegry of cosmic radiation:
100000000 eV to 100000000000000000000 eV
Due to their very high enery these ions create secondary radition when entering the earths atmosphere. From 4 km to 20 km this secondary radition does mainly consist of electrons, positrons and photons.
Shielding:
Alpha particles will be absorbed by a sheet of paper. Of course this depends on their energy. But I am confident that ions will be absorbed by all the metal around you.
Eletrons and positrons on the other way will not be entirely absorbed by a piece of paper. You would need some layers of metal. Most of them will probably be absorbed by all the stuff around you. So I would not worry too much about them too.
Unfortunately photons (also called gamma rays or x-rays) are more or less unimpressed by all the stuff around you. You would need massive shields (for example thick lead sheets) to get rid of them. So you will be bombarded by photons when flying around. These photons will produce tertiary radiation when colliding with other atoms (e.g. in you body) which then can create damage to you DNA. The amount on damage depends on the mass and energy and biologic material. A good indicator is the amount of energy these particles deposit in you body multiplicated by a factor depending on the particle. This will get you an energy in the unit Sievert (Sv).
Now you will get these photons when being on the ground. So the question is, how much more energy you will get when flying around in the stratosphere.
If you are sitting around (which means you are not working with nuclear materials) you will get 2.4 mSv in a year. These are 0.0024 Sv.
Now let's compare:
teaching nuclear physics one year 0.00001 Sv
sitting around one year 0.00240 Sv
x-ray stommach 0.00380 Sv
smoking one year 0.00880 Sv
Results in you body:
changes in blood 0.2500 Sv
temporary radiation sickness 1.0000 Sv
really serious radiation sickness 4.0000 Sv
death 8.0000 Sv
Of cours if you get 0.25 Sv in 10 years you will not get blood changes. But if you get them in a short time, you will probably get them. But it's not that easy to say how short the time should be. In any way you should think about adding the energies over time. At the moment we assume a linear relationship between energy dose (Sv) and the probability for cancer. Although this can probably change when looking at small amounts of energy.
Allowed exposure in one year:
people working in exposed areas 0.0200 Sv
anybody else 0.0100 Sv
Life long exposure limit for exposed workes:
0.400 mSv
Conclusion:
If I would be flying around professionally (I am not, I am just teaching around;-), I would make the following calculation:
Energy dose "available" for flying aournd, assuming that I want to become 100 years old:
0.400 Sv - 100 x 0.00240 Sv = 0.1600 Sv
Then I would take a look at the online calculator for energy doses:
http://jag.cami.jccbi.gov./cariprofile.asp
This gives me a dose of 0.0001 Sv for a 40.000 ft 12 hour flight from FRA to LAX in February.
Which means that I could do this flight
0.1600 Sv / 0.0001 Sv = 1600 times
That sounds a lot, but you know better than I how many flights you do in your professional life. And please beware, that energy doses can be much higher when...
...flying higher
...flying during solar activity
...flying northern (on northern hemisphere) or southern (on southern hemisphere)
Suggestion:
Take the FAA energy dose calculator (URL provided above) and log your exposure before each flight. You will then be able to know when you have exceeded the official lifetime limit.
I hope all of this made any sense... Greetings, DRDR.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, the DC-10 and 747 classic would be safer for the SLF, as they carry a ton of sheet lead in the sidewalls, for noise insulation. The 727 had a lot, too. By now, however, most of it has probably been removed to save weight.
GB
GB
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you google on Ian Getley you will get up to date research by Ian and the University of New South Wales on radiation. He is a current Qantas Captain and measures radiation in flight.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Middle of nowhere
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radiation risks
Classified radiation workers (working in hospitals and nuclear plants) are permitted no more than 20 milliSv per working year (so 9mSv is fairly low).
To put this into context, if you live near Sellafield, the background radiation averages 2 mSv per year, whilst in Cornwall the background count is about 8 mSv per year.
Pregnant women have a much lower dose limit, but I can't remember it.
Dose meters may be obtained through National Radiation Protection Board (UK). I think you have to have some training though-might be worth checking.
The relevant regulations are Ionising Radiation Regulations (1999).
Didn't Concorde used to have a radiation monitor?
To put this into context, if you live near Sellafield, the background radiation averages 2 mSv per year, whilst in Cornwall the background count is about 8 mSv per year.
Pregnant women have a much lower dose limit, but I can't remember it.
Dose meters may be obtained through National Radiation Protection Board (UK). I think you have to have some training though-might be worth checking.
The relevant regulations are Ionising Radiation Regulations (1999).
Didn't Concorde used to have a radiation monitor?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good article on aviation radiation dose
A good overview on aviation dose (circa 2000 but still valid on the basics) is here:
http://ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/vi-2000-1
http://ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/vi-2000-1
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: FL0005
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I came across this study a while ago when looking into cancer rates amongst airline pilots. It is a study of cancer occurances in Nordic Airline pilots over a 50 year period.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=124549
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=124549
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similar study for Cabin Crew in Europe
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/158/1/35
and for cockpit crew 1967-1997
http://www.epidem.com/pt/re/epidemio...1000-00014.htm
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/158/1/35
and for cockpit crew 1967-1997
http://www.epidem.com/pt/re/epidemio...1000-00014.htm
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Twlight Zone
Age: 69
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not get chest X-rays for a long-standing cough since I am not a cigarette smoker
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: spain
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather radar
Do anybody know if weather radar might have any affect on
operating crew, we know it will harm people who are infront
but how about the people who are literally sitting on top of the
radar during any given flight??
operating crew, we know it will harm people who are infront
but how about the people who are literally sitting on top of the
radar during any given flight??
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do anybody know if weather radar might have any affect on
operating crew,
operating crew,
In normal operation, very little energy leaks from the onboard radar. A cellphone in one's shirt pocket probably emits 10,000x more free microwave radiation than one is likely to encounter coming from a properly working aircraft radar package, including all components from power supply to the radome.
If something is not properly connected or is otherwise malfunctioning, microwave energy may leak out where it should not be. Such conditions likely will appear as a system malfunction. If not, they are likely to be located during periodic system checks.
Standing in front of operating radar units is not advisable, but that is difficult to experience with aircraft radar. Larger aircraft have interlocks that prevent operation on the ground. Small aircraft with radar have skillful pilots who remember to leave it in standby until underway.
Of course, a little tinfoil (or lead) in one's cap is a optional precaution. When it begins to heat up for no clear reason, leave the area asap!
Last edited by arcniz; 5th Apr 2007 at 02:33.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC, my 757 allows the use of Wx radar whilst on the ground.
But it is not so nice to paint persons and buildings with high-power focus-beam microwaves while taxiing or parked. Might sort out the discount-price pacemakers real fast, along with some other dramatic negatives.
Wonder if your 757 makes you override something to paint with the radar when on the ground, or if it automatically limits power, inclines the beam, or just doesn't distinguish the case?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Microwaves are NOT ionizing radiation. And microwaves are reflected by metal (therefore metal dishes are used for focusing them). So if you are sitting behind the antenna you do not have to worry about biological effects (heating your body e.g.).
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Microwaves are NOT ionizing radiation.
a) Induced electrical currents - troublesome per se in electronic circuits and other conducting objects where the 'stray' electricity can do bad things.
b) Induced heating - in less conductive materials... such as flesh, eyeballs, etc. Exactly what the consumer microwave oven is intended to do to food in a controlled space.
Some researchers also believe that recurring electromagnetic fields induced in tissue, nerves, etc. can alter normal biological mechanisms enough to cause cell abnormalities and possible disease. This is the common thread in most concerns about cellphone antennas radiating close to the body. No broad consensus exists yet in this regard, but frequent problems are not evident.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ..
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radiation Protection Fabric and other thoughts
See this link for Demron, a radiation "proof" fabric. Apparently light weight. Why could this not be incorporated into a/c linings or even the flight deck linings? Blankets for crew rest? That would halve the exposure. $$ I imagine.
http://www.radshieldstore.com/
I fly s/h but had a mate at QF and they were limited to 1 route per month over the poles. This was about 5 years ago.
From other reading I have done the most exposure seems to be in the cockpit, cabin is more safe due to cargo underneath and more metal above.
Thoughts?
http://www.radshieldstore.com/
I fly s/h but had a mate at QF and they were limited to 1 route per month over the poles. This was about 5 years ago.
From other reading I have done the most exposure seems to be in the cockpit, cabin is more safe due to cargo underneath and more metal above.
Thoughts?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all learned in our ATPL's that at 40 000ft the air is 25% that of the surface, meaning you only have 25% of the protection from cosmic radiation. So yes, you definately are at more risk.
I know above 52 000 ft aircrew must wear a radiation badge and strict limits apply to how many hours they're allowed to fly over a period of time. Doesn't really help us though!!
I know above 52 000 ft aircrew must wear a radiation badge and strict limits apply to how many hours they're allowed to fly over a period of time. Doesn't really help us though!!