Air Force fighter pilots face an increased risk of testicular and prostate cancers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,743
Received 2,727 Likes
on
1,160 Posts
Air Force fighter pilots face an increased risk of testicular and prostate cancers
Bad news 
Air Force fighter pilots face an increased risk of testicular and prostate cancers, though the exact reason why can not be determined.
The Department of the Air Force published a massive study with nearly 450,000 participants in May, finding the fighter pilots and weapons systems officers were 29 percent more likely to develop testicular cancer, 24 percent more likely to be diagnosed with melanoma and 23 percent more likely to have prostate cancer.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...cer/ar-AAPWz5w
Air Force fighter pilots face an increased risk of testicular and prostate cancers, though the exact reason why can not be determined.
The Department of the Air Force published a massive study with nearly 450,000 participants in May, finding the fighter pilots and weapons systems officers were 29 percent more likely to develop testicular cancer, 24 percent more likely to be diagnosed with melanoma and 23 percent more likely to have prostate cancer.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Duh….
They spend a lot of time above the protective effects of the lower atmosphere and absorb more radiation. Far less, of course, than airline air and cabin crew, so a lower risk.
it would be interesting to see if there is a direct correlation to the hours flown….
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30585313/
They spend a lot of time above the protective effects of the lower atmosphere and absorb more radiation. Far less, of course, than airline air and cabin crew, so a lower risk.
it would be interesting to see if there is a direct correlation to the hours flown….
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30585313/
RADAR side effect?
Interesting RADAR correlation and medical issues; during briefings BUFF crewmembers sat by position (P,CP,RN,N,EW,G) Observing from the back, the Radar Nav, Navs and Gunners were at various levels of hair loss. Obviously not the same medical issue but wonder if the AF tracked BUFF Crew dogs in their study.
I had the opportunity in the 90s to attend a briefing with Research Engineers working on helmet visors to counter LASER issues. In several conversations with them they related medical issues within their department and staff that worked on RADAR projects.
I had the opportunity in the 90s to attend a briefing with Research Engineers working on helmet visors to counter LASER issues. In several conversations with them they related medical issues within their department and staff that worked on RADAR projects.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
Allegedly, some of it even involved other people…..
A headline like that is just an invitation to banter.
Excessive size of equipment to begin with - combined with compression effect of speed jeans and hard seat pan in high-g turns?
Excessive size of equipment to begin with - combined with compression effect of speed jeans and hard seat pan in high-g turns?
Salute!
I always thot that pulling all the gees might concentrate bad things down low. And then there were all the cosmic rays up in the stratosphere, heh heh.
I tink the rrohids were more of a problem due to the gees and such.....
Gums sends...
I always thot that pulling all the gees might concentrate bad things down low. And then there were all the cosmic rays up in the stratosphere, heh heh.
I tink the rrohids were more of a problem due to the gees and such.....
Gums sends...
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Force fighter pilots face an increased risk of testicular and prostate cancers, though the exact reason why can not be determined.
Many years ago on a uni course we were given a study demonstrating the statistical link between owning a telephone (a landline, not a mobile, this was early eighties
) and getting cancer. It was of course, intentionally, hokum. The purpose was to demonstrate the illusions of cause and effect from casual use of statistics.I note the study period is 1970 to 2004, that's my era, and the era of many folk on here, so its hardly contentious to point out that study sample is going to include a massive majority of old-school military aviators.
In population percentage terms, you going to have a massive bias towards hard-living, party-animal, heavy drinking, red-meat eating, sexually promiscuous, alpha males. How many teetotal vegans do think there will be amongst those 34K last century fighter pilots.
The comparison group (400K+) non-flying military males, could be a little apples and oranges in terms of lifestyle/career profiles. Common sense suggests civilian aircrew/cabin crew would have been a far better comparison group???? (Probably a resource issue stopping that happening.)
If you follow the links and read the study, a very different picture starts to emerge (so often the case as public media so often cherry picks studies to create headlines and readership).
The issues I refer to are detailed in the sections covering "confounding issues" and it pretty upfront that most of it is unknown/undetermined. It also noticeably steers aways from the socially politically "near the knuckle stuff". They have focus on the vietnam era and the F100. I'm thinking booze, shagging, smoking and terrible diet would have been off the clock amongst that cohort. Agent Orange gets a mention as well.
Two other things to note. The overall incidence of all type sof cancer are lower than the population average, so its far from all bad news (the study points out that fighter pilots are a healthy bunch out the box, which again we all know). And that there have been huge swings in the incidence of some of the cancers types over certain quite narrow periods of time, which they admit is yet another significant confusing factor.
tl/dr
Read the whole study. It does not appear that alarming.
In summary, the findings of this study do not justify wholesale changes to cancer preventionrecommendations for U.S. Air Force fighter aviators.
it does appear massively inconclusive and throws up any number of holes:
Because of contradictory evidence in the literature, the tenuous associations in this study thatcould be explained by unmeasured confounding, and the potential for medical interventions to
cause harm (e.g., screening exams leading to unnecessary biopsies), our results do not justify new universal cancer screening recommendations for fighter aviators.
cause harm (e.g., screening exams leading to unnecessary biopsies), our results do not justify new universal cancer screening recommendations for fighter aviators.
I was once told by a very high ranking academic that the true purpose of all studies was to recommend that more study is needed. That appears to be the case here.
A sensitivity analysis excluding F-100 aviators suggested that particularfighter airframes, not the occupation of fighter aviation, may be more predictive of certain canceroutcomes. Further studies are recommended to elicit airframe factors that may contribute to thesedifferences in cancer incidence and mortality.
Last edited by Richard Dangle; 26th Oct 2021 at 06:38.
There'll be know-alls everywhere on here. Oh, wait...Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,743
Received 2,727 Likes
on
1,160 Posts
You don't thing its anything to do with the amount of radium used on the dials of your big firke orf watches?
No real criticism of the authors as they are open about the methods, but if your aim is to avoid false negatives, then why not just choose a higher threshold for the family-wise error rate? The results would at least be a lot more intuitive to the reader. I suspect that this approach wouldn't pass review if submitted to a journal, though possibly the purpose of this report was slightly different to an academic study.
I also wonder whether a false positive would really be less concerning if it were being described to a former fighter pilot!
I also wonder whether a false positive would really be less concerning if it were being described to a former fighter pilot!
Almost 2000 hours in the F-100 and played a lot of beach volleyball in Santa Monica, but I don't think my $9.99 Coleman watch had any radium on it. You can never be too careful.
Allegedly, some of it even involved other people…..
Salute!
Good to see okie post here.
If I ran an insurance company for old farts, I would love those pilots that passed physicals for thirty years that most folks would have flunked. Just the first exams failed many wannabe jocks. The guy in front of me at Pensacola medical exam had a problem, and I got an appointment to Annapolis a week later. Then, another day or two I got the USAFA appointment.
Most of my friends that started with me back in the sixties and went west either got shot down or got some weird cancer and died. Lost two roomies just this past year, and not due to the stoopid virus.
Just as with the climate studies, the authors of this one ask for more $$$ to do another study.
Gums sends...
Good to see okie post here.
If I ran an insurance company for old farts, I would love those pilots that passed physicals for thirty years that most folks would have flunked. Just the first exams failed many wannabe jocks. The guy in front of me at Pensacola medical exam had a problem, and I got an appointment to Annapolis a week later. Then, another day or two I got the USAFA appointment.
Most of my friends that started with me back in the sixties and went west either got shot down or got some weird cancer and died. Lost two roomies just this past year, and not due to the stoopid virus.
Just as with the climate studies, the authors of this one ask for more $$$ to do another study.
Gums sends...
I wonder...
Is the incidence of testicular cancer somehow related to the self-percieved size of the testicles?
And prostrate troubles due perhaps (!) to the excess flatulence their career path seems to produce?
Is the incidence of testicular cancer somehow related to the self-percieved size of the testicles?
And prostrate troubles due perhaps (!) to the excess flatulence their career path seems to produce?
