Radiation risk in airflight
Guest
Posts: n/a
Radiation risk in airflight
Radio 4 (BBC in the UK) Today Program had an item about the alleged risk of ionising radiation to crew and PAX during airflights.
Is this yet another piece of media sensationalism or is there any truth in it?
I was always given to understand that one gets more radiation from sitting infront of a Colour TV or a Computer Monitor and much more from a dental Xray than from normal air travel.
Can anyone with the technical knowledge give me some facts on this please?
Is this yet another piece of media sensationalism or is there any truth in it?
I was always given to understand that one gets more radiation from sitting infront of a Colour TV or a Computer Monitor and much more from a dental Xray than from normal air travel.
Can anyone with the technical knowledge give me some facts on this please?
Guest
Posts: n/a
from news.bbc.co.uk (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_963000/963334.stm)
The risk that airline passengers and staff face from cosmic and solar radiation is to be measured by scientists.
Radiation from the sun and other sources, is mainly absorbed by different layers of the atmosphere when it hits the earth.
However, at higher altitudes, the atmosphere is thinner and offers less protection.
Previous studies into the potential health effects of frequent exposure have been contradictory.
Now British scientists are linking up with Virgin Atlantic to fit aircraft with equipment to measure radiation within the cabin.
The study is being backed by the Civil Aviation Authority, whose medical director Robert Hunter said: "We need a better understanding of the factors that may cause the radiation dose rates in aircraft to vary.
"In particular we need to determine the influence of solar activity. The radiation dose from a transatlantic flight is similar to the dose from a chest x-ray."
'Poorly understood'
Project scientist Dr Bob Bentley, of the Mullard Space Science Laboratory at University College London, said: "We know that cosmic radiation at aircraft altitudes is several orders of magnitude more intense than that experienced at ground level, because there is less protection from our atmosphere.
"But the extent and nature of the risk to aircraft and aircrew is poorly understood."
Increased air travel is thought to be responsible for a jump in the overall amount of radiation to which the average Briton is exposed.
Figures from the National Radiological Protection Board show that the average annaul dose is 2.6 milli Seiverts - the equivalent of 13 chest x-rays.
Some studies have linked a career on high-altitude aircraft with an increased cancer risk.
Danish pilots who had clocked up more than 5,000 flying hours in their careers had a slight increase in the risk of one type of leukaemia.
Another suggested a higher incidence of bone and breast cancer among female cabin crew who had been flying for more than 15 years.
However, a British Airways study suggested that pilots and flight engineers could actually be at less risk of cancer.
The effect of regular medicals and better levels of general fitness may well be either disguising or outweighing the increased risk of cancer.
The health effects of frequently disrupting the body's natural clock by crossing time zones has also never been fully assessed.
Radiation from the sun and other sources, is mainly absorbed by different layers of the atmosphere when it hits the earth.
However, at higher altitudes, the atmosphere is thinner and offers less protection.
Previous studies into the potential health effects of frequent exposure have been contradictory.
Now British scientists are linking up with Virgin Atlantic to fit aircraft with equipment to measure radiation within the cabin.
The study is being backed by the Civil Aviation Authority, whose medical director Robert Hunter said: "We need a better understanding of the factors that may cause the radiation dose rates in aircraft to vary.
"In particular we need to determine the influence of solar activity. The radiation dose from a transatlantic flight is similar to the dose from a chest x-ray."
'Poorly understood'
Project scientist Dr Bob Bentley, of the Mullard Space Science Laboratory at University College London, said: "We know that cosmic radiation at aircraft altitudes is several orders of magnitude more intense than that experienced at ground level, because there is less protection from our atmosphere.
"But the extent and nature of the risk to aircraft and aircrew is poorly understood."
Increased air travel is thought to be responsible for a jump in the overall amount of radiation to which the average Briton is exposed.
Figures from the National Radiological Protection Board show that the average annaul dose is 2.6 milli Seiverts - the equivalent of 13 chest x-rays.
Some studies have linked a career on high-altitude aircraft with an increased cancer risk.
Danish pilots who had clocked up more than 5,000 flying hours in their careers had a slight increase in the risk of one type of leukaemia.
Another suggested a higher incidence of bone and breast cancer among female cabin crew who had been flying for more than 15 years.
However, a British Airways study suggested that pilots and flight engineers could actually be at less risk of cancer.
The effect of regular medicals and better levels of general fitness may well be either disguising or outweighing the increased risk of cancer.
The health effects of frequently disrupting the body's natural clock by crossing time zones has also never been fully assessed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's certainly nothing new - and having heard the article on R4 this morning thought it was a well researched and balanced piece of reporting. There are papers around examining it - the various space agencies ar even more worried - never mind the odd trip on Concorde think what 6 months on Mir would do?
G
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Check out this article right here at PPRuNe:
http://www.pprune.org/pub/gen/radiation.htm
(As referred to by STP)
------------------
There's nothing like an airport for bringing you down to earth.
[This message has been edited by Dr. Red (edited 09 October 2000).]
http://www.pprune.org/pub/gen/radiation.htm
(As referred to by STP)
------------------
There's nothing like an airport for bringing you down to earth.
[This message has been edited by Dr. Red (edited 09 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
ICAO Annex 6 requires all aircraft operating above 15000m (49000ft) to carry a radiation indicator capable of measuring the dose rate of total cosmic radiation received (i.e the total of ionising and neutron radiation from galactic and solar origin).
Also beware of Klingons on the starboard bow
Also beware of Klingons on the starboard bow
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's easy to look at cancer rates and blame it on flying, but what is more difficult is to actually separate the "flying" part of the job from other factors that may increase risk.
I recall the study done on Icelandic crews that showed higher rates than the general population in Iceland, but how do you separate out the flying from the fact that Icelandic crews are spending more time laying in the sun and out "playing" in the sun in more equatorial parts of the world?
Problem is that pilots and f/a's also have more opportunity to be "out in the sun" then do people in other jobs.
I recall the study done on Icelandic crews that showed higher rates than the general population in Iceland, but how do you separate out the flying from the fact that Icelandic crews are spending more time laying in the sun and out "playing" in the sun in more equatorial parts of the world?
Problem is that pilots and f/a's also have more opportunity to be "out in the sun" then do people in other jobs.
