Not Becoming a Pilot because of the Radiation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Becoming a Pilot because of the Radiation
When you decide if you want to become an airline pilot, do you take the unknown effect of Galactic Radiation in consideration, too? I'm afraid of this Radiation and the effect that it will provoke.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this a wind up? Do you ever travel in a car, or cross the road, or expose yourself to the various viruses and germs of the general public? Do you go out in the sun on holiday - and do you fly to your holiday destination? Or do you wrap yourself up in cotton wool at home and feed yourself only pasteurised, homogenised, guaranteed organic, fat-free, non-carcinogenic or toxic foods?
The airlines monitor radiation absorbance, and pilots have a legally limited maximum annual exposure to it, similar to radiographers. Currently, in my airline, the calculated received radiation is about 5% of the maximum annual limit. There is no evidence to suggest that pilots have an increased risk of cancer as a result of cosmic (not galactic) radiation.
Rather than running scared from a subject you have no knowlege of, why don't you do a bit of research into the relative risks that daily life presents? Although, you never know, you could get killed in a car crash on the way to the library. 3500 people in Britain were killed on the roads last year, more than twice the number of people killed in air crashes in the world. Makes you think - I hope.
The airlines monitor radiation absorbance, and pilots have a legally limited maximum annual exposure to it, similar to radiographers. Currently, in my airline, the calculated received radiation is about 5% of the maximum annual limit. There is no evidence to suggest that pilots have an increased risk of cancer as a result of cosmic (not galactic) radiation.
Rather than running scared from a subject you have no knowlege of, why don't you do a bit of research into the relative risks that daily life presents? Although, you never know, you could get killed in a car crash on the way to the library. 3500 people in Britain were killed on the roads last year, more than twice the number of people killed in air crashes in the world. Makes you think - I hope.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been some very high level research into the topic, however the last time that I read an article on it, the conclusion was that there was negligible impact on crew health, and increased cancer tended to come from sitting around the pool once at the destination.
Anyway, most of us have been exposed far more by Chenobyl and the like than radiation from space. If you are that worried about health from it, don't do it because of a more documented reason such as DVT, terrorism or fear of alien attack.
Anyway, most of us have been exposed far more by Chenobyl and the like than radiation from space. If you are that worried about health from it, don't do it because of a more documented reason such as DVT, terrorism or fear of alien attack.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, thanks for the replies.
I did a little research on the internet the last days about this topic and I found interesting sites where they try to bring more light into these facts.
Some pilots say that they even accept to fly on lower levels just because of the lower radiation. Some pilots are afraid , as I read. The trip Newark-Hong-Kong complies to 3 chest x-rays. Is this not dangerous at the long term?
I did a little research on the internet the last days about this topic and I found interesting sites where they try to bring more light into these facts.
Some pilots say that they even accept to fly on lower levels just because of the lower radiation. Some pilots are afraid , as I read. The trip Newark-Hong-Kong complies to 3 chest x-rays. Is this not dangerous at the long term?
dying while flying
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well.. in all fairness to the topic starter, some of the guys I fly with have a 'family jewels' FL370 limit.
Personally, I think this is pointless. The difference between 370 and 410 is, what, 1000m ? What difference is that going to make to radiation that's already come x-lightyears !
Interestingly, the doc at my last C1 reckoned that most pilots expired from cancer in their late 70s/early 80s. Nothing to do with radiation, just the fact that (aside from oddities) the only two things that get you are heart disease and the aforementioned cancer. As we are a reasonably healthy and fit group, compared to Joe Average, heart disease is not the primary cause of death, hence..... dah dah dah.. cancer.
I believe he was about to publish a paper on the subject and that may have influenced his ramblings
And yes, it's indoubtedly a wind-up topic !
Personally, I think this is pointless. The difference between 370 and 410 is, what, 1000m ? What difference is that going to make to radiation that's already come x-lightyears !
Interestingly, the doc at my last C1 reckoned that most pilots expired from cancer in their late 70s/early 80s. Nothing to do with radiation, just the fact that (aside from oddities) the only two things that get you are heart disease and the aforementioned cancer. As we are a reasonably healthy and fit group, compared to Joe Average, heart disease is not the primary cause of death, hence..... dah dah dah.. cancer.
I believe he was about to publish a paper on the subject and that may have influenced his ramblings
And yes, it's indoubtedly a wind-up topic !
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dubh linn...Eire
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I don't believe its as bad as radiation from a mobile phone or some telecoms transmitting equipment, I work now as a telecoms engineer and if I am not buried in a base station I am on the phone, I am packing it in to embark on the rocky road to flying in a microwave yadda yadda yadda plus I am spending countless hours on the net (PPRUNE AND ALARM CLOCK SNOOZE BUTTON ARE DAMAGING TO MY WELL-BEING). So I will probably be the first to experience some kickback down the road due to this radiation but I doubt it will happen to the extent they claim. If what the medical experts say is correct about mobiles I should have a hole in my left ear by now.
I never fly without my aluminium foil pyramid on my head. Not only does it protect me from radiation, but it increases my mental capacity!
I used to wear a full body lead-suit to prevent the rays hitting me, but my C-150 couldn't get airborne anymore!
Probably more likely to die in a plane-crash than from radiation poisoning - and the likelihood of dying in a plane-crash (of your own devices or not) is extremely low. Probably more likely to die from the rays of the sun, than radiation, in real life.
I used to wear a full body lead-suit to prevent the rays hitting me, but my C-150 couldn't get airborne anymore!
Probably more likely to die in a plane-crash than from radiation poisoning - and the likelihood of dying in a plane-crash (of your own devices or not) is extremely low. Probably more likely to die from the rays of the sun, than radiation, in real life.
wow - what a post, but i gotta tell you, statistically, I have got more chance of
* Being run over by a bus being driven by a three legged labrador
or
*Being able to to my PPL in a B747
or
* Being able to get from Hong Kong to London in 14minutes
or
* Being electrocuted by bedside alarm clock !
Than I have of contracting a fatal form of Cancer derived by exposure to the sun at flying altitude.
* Being run over by a bus being driven by a three legged labrador
or
*Being able to to my PPL in a B747
or
* Being able to get from Hong Kong to London in 14minutes
or
* Being electrocuted by bedside alarm clock !
Than I have of contracting a fatal form of Cancer derived by exposure to the sun at flying altitude.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DDC8,
read this http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=/pub...CosmicRad.html
available here on pprune
I wouldn't give it a second thought, far more dangerouse things to worry about here on Terra-Firma, and before anyone asks i'm not a pesimist or a hypocondriac!!
regards
G
read this http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=/pub...CosmicRad.html
available here on pprune
I wouldn't give it a second thought, far more dangerouse things to worry about here on Terra-Firma, and before anyone asks i'm not a pesimist or a hypocondriac!!
regards
G
Last edited by Giorgio; 29th Apr 2002 at 12:11.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies!!
Gorgio I read this report, interesting, thankyou.
I found another site, where different questions are answered.
<http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/Cat38.html>
What do you think? Well, 1 or 2 questions are a bit exaggerated in my opinion.
Gorgio I read this report, interesting, thankyou.
I found another site, where different questions are answered.
<http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/Cat38.html>
What do you think? Well, 1 or 2 questions are a bit exaggerated in my opinion.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company for which I work says the following:-
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends a maximum exposure from occupational sources of 20 mSv (20,000 Sv (microsieverts)) per year (averaged over a period of 5 years)
Occupational exposure for flight and cabin crew will depend on the route, altitude and aircraft type. On average, dose rates received will be in the order of:
Long haul aircraft - 5 Sv (microsieverts) per hour;
Short haul aircraft - 1-3 Sv (microsieverts) per hour dependent on the altitude reached.
On the basis of work already carried out at the airline, we expect that:
long haul crew will have an annual exposure of approximately 1/5 of the recommended dose limit, ie. 4 mSv per year;
short haul crew will have an annual exposure of approximately 1/10 of the recommended dose limits, ie. 2 mSv per year.
Hope that helps
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends a maximum exposure from occupational sources of 20 mSv (20,000 Sv (microsieverts)) per year (averaged over a period of 5 years)
Occupational exposure for flight and cabin crew will depend on the route, altitude and aircraft type. On average, dose rates received will be in the order of:
Long haul aircraft - 5 Sv (microsieverts) per hour;
Short haul aircraft - 1-3 Sv (microsieverts) per hour dependent on the altitude reached.
On the basis of work already carried out at the airline, we expect that:
long haul crew will have an annual exposure of approximately 1/5 of the recommended dose limit, ie. 4 mSv per year;
short haul crew will have an annual exposure of approximately 1/10 of the recommended dose limits, ie. 2 mSv per year.
Hope that helps
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a WHIMP you must be Douglas. I'll tell you what: How about you get yourself one of those sterilised plastic bubbles big enough to get some basic furniture in, zip yourself into it and stay there for the next 20 years, until the global warming gets so bad it melts the plastic, and hey presto, you've had a life devoid of all danger, irritants and bugs.
In the meantime, stop thinking about such a dangerous occupation as flying and leave that up to the obviously derranged few who like a risk now and then, and perhaps even a beer or two.
GET A LIFE MY FRIEND.............
In the meantime, stop thinking about such a dangerous occupation as flying and leave that up to the obviously derranged few who like a risk now and then, and perhaps even a beer or two.
GET A LIFE MY FRIEND.............
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well , over the last few months we’ve heard loads of reasons why not to choose a job in aviation.
Firstly, there’s the lack of jobs right now,…fair enough!
Then there’s the risk of hijacking ..again fair enough!
Crap hours…fair enough again!
Airline food…bloody good reason!
RADIATION?????...
If that’s a worry, then, basic salary for a train driver is now £28K!
Firstly, there’s the lack of jobs right now,…fair enough!
Then there’s the risk of hijacking ..again fair enough!
Crap hours…fair enough again!
Airline food…bloody good reason!
RADIATION?????...
If that’s a worry, then, basic salary for a train driver is now £28K!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This guy does have a point. I'm not sure why people are trying to argue with him. I agree though that cancer is just another risk you have to accept with the job.
True to say that more studies need to be done looking into cancer and the link with flight crew, but I can say now that flight crew do have a higher incidence of cancer compared to per head of the population.
A link to the BMJ for those interested can be found here:
http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issue.../news/95b.html
It would have been interesting if someone had posted about the consequences of DVT in the airline industry back in the early 1990's. I wonder what kind of response that person would have received!!!!!
True to say that more studies need to be done looking into cancer and the link with flight crew, but I can say now that flight crew do have a higher incidence of cancer compared to per head of the population.
A link to the BMJ for those interested can be found here:
http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issue.../news/95b.html
It would have been interesting if someone had posted about the consequences of DVT in the airline industry back in the early 1990's. I wonder what kind of response that person would have received!!!!!
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS27
Not a very illuminating article, I suggest. It would seem logical to me that a group of people who have access to lots of sun (as we do) would display an increased risk of malignant melanoma. UV has a very difficult job penetrating an aircraft's fuselage! The suggestion that there might be an increased incidence of leukaemia amongst aircrew has slightly more credibility (in the context of cosmic radiation exposure), but the depth and scope of such studies as have been made are insufficient to draw any reliable conclusions.
It is true, however, that the incidence of cancers of all kinds is increasing in all sectors of the population. This may well be down to two things: firstly, our increased life expectancy makes it more likely that cancer will be the thing that finally kills us; secondly, improvements in medical analysis often now identify cancer as the culprit when it would have been put down to something else in earlier times.
The fact is, life is dangerous and will eventually kill you. You cannot avoid death, however much you try and protect yourself. There are reasonable precautions that people can take to avoid excessive risk, but if you want to live any kind of fulfilled life risk will inevitably be present. I have competed in motor-racing, ridden motorbikes, smoked (a long time ago), spent 22 years in the military with all that that entails, and engaged an a myriad of other 'risky' activities over the last 46 years. I'm still most likely to die of simple old age, closely followed by being run over by a bus. Somewhere up there may be getting killed by my lover's 25 year-old husband while I'm on the job (I wish). The risks to my health presented by radiation exposure in my aeroplane are miniscule by comparison.
Not a very illuminating article, I suggest. It would seem logical to me that a group of people who have access to lots of sun (as we do) would display an increased risk of malignant melanoma. UV has a very difficult job penetrating an aircraft's fuselage! The suggestion that there might be an increased incidence of leukaemia amongst aircrew has slightly more credibility (in the context of cosmic radiation exposure), but the depth and scope of such studies as have been made are insufficient to draw any reliable conclusions.
It is true, however, that the incidence of cancers of all kinds is increasing in all sectors of the population. This may well be down to two things: firstly, our increased life expectancy makes it more likely that cancer will be the thing that finally kills us; secondly, improvements in medical analysis often now identify cancer as the culprit when it would have been put down to something else in earlier times.
The fact is, life is dangerous and will eventually kill you. You cannot avoid death, however much you try and protect yourself. There are reasonable precautions that people can take to avoid excessive risk, but if you want to live any kind of fulfilled life risk will inevitably be present. I have competed in motor-racing, ridden motorbikes, smoked (a long time ago), spent 22 years in the military with all that that entails, and engaged an a myriad of other 'risky' activities over the last 46 years. I'm still most likely to die of simple old age, closely followed by being run over by a bus. Somewhere up there may be getting killed by my lover's 25 year-old husband while I'm on the job (I wish). The risks to my health presented by radiation exposure in my aeroplane are miniscule by comparison.