Cancer and Cabin Crew
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cancer and Cabin Crew
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
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
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?
Each transatlantic trip (each way) is the equivalent of atleast 1 chest X ray?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
http://www.pprune.org/pub/gen/radiation.htm
Each transatlantic trip (each way) is the equivalent of at least 1 chest X ray?
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.
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.
Last edited by wiggy; 28th Jan 2012 at 08:40.
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
Cancer incidence in airline cabin crew -- Whelan 60 (11): 805 -- Occupational and Environmental Medicine
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
Cancer incidence in airline cabin crew -- Whelan 60 (11): 805 -- Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a house
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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
homonculus
The only twaddle worse than doctors talking about aviation is pilots talking about medicine
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 )
Last edited by wiggy; 28th Jan 2012 at 22:13.
Plastic PPRuNer
"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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: D
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Plastic PPRuNer
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Over Chibougamau
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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