cosmic radiation change with altitude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: sa
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cosmic radiation change with altitude
Hello guys,
just made a graph with data from cari-6 which is a nasa program to calculate inflight radiation.
It should be self explanatory, but in the bottom right I made an example to help you understand:
if you cruise for 1 hour at 35000ft you get a nice 3.86 uSv of radiation
if you do the same at 41000ft you get +40% of that!
Hope this helps you to make an INFORMED decision next time you have to decide if you want to save fuel!
just made a graph with data from cari-6 which is a nasa program to calculate inflight radiation.
It should be self explanatory, but in the bottom right I made an example to help you understand:
if you cruise for 1 hour at 35000ft you get a nice 3.86 uSv of radiation
if you do the same at 41000ft you get +40% of that!
Hope this helps you to make an INFORMED decision next time you have to decide if you want to save fuel!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cosmic radiation exposure and air travel
The Canadians have published this study:
Cosmic Radiation Exposure and Air Travel - Environmental and Workplace Health - Health Canada
and I quote:
The chance of a cancer occurring is generally believed to be proportional to the level of radiation exposure: the lower the exposure, the lower the risk. For example, the chance of a fatal cancer occurring would be approximately 1% following 30 years of flying, at 1000 hours per year.
The Canadians have published this study:
Cosmic Radiation Exposure and Air Travel - Environmental and Workplace Health - Health Canada
and I quote:
The chance of a cancer occurring is generally believed to be proportional to the level of radiation exposure: the lower the exposure, the lower the risk. For example, the chance of a fatal cancer occurring would be approximately 1% following 30 years of flying, at 1000 hours per year.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broomstick - unfortunately the report doesn't mention what altitude was used to generate the 1% increase/30 yrs/ 1000 hrs/yr.
So it's 40% greater. Who's flying 30,000 hrs at 410 vs. 350? Sun exposure on your days off is a greater risk so it's interesting to have this discussion with tan coworkers.
So it's 40% greater. Who's flying 30,000 hrs at 410 vs. 350? Sun exposure on your days off is a greater risk so it's interesting to have this discussion with tan coworkers.
Sun exposure is a risk, but don't forget that the body needs vitamin D. There was an article in a national newspaper about how the developed world is facing an epidemic of vitamin D difecient diseases. Too much factor 50 is not good for you.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonty:
I am an old fart (75). My wife is 74. Our primary care docs have had us on Vitamin D and other supplement pills for many years.
Sun exposure is a risk, but don't forget that the body needs vitamin D. There was an article in a national newspaper about how the developed world is facing an epidemic of vitamin D difecient diseases. Too much factor 50 is not good for you.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ten years ago I looked at the solar intensity and used that as part of what altitude I was going to fly at. The airline doesn't care but you can look up what the solar radiation will be every day and decide on your own.
Remember in Vietnam how our government told us flying helicoptors around agent orange couldn't hurt you?
Remember in Vietnam how our government told us flying helicoptors around agent orange couldn't hurt you?
Chart doesn't go high enough--what about FL410-FL470. I'm figuring' that the lowered risk of mid-air and being on top of a lot of weather compensates the odds.
GF
GF
I am an old fart (75). My wife is 74. Our primary care docs have had us on Vitamin D and other supplement pills for many years.
Over-medication. The bane of insurance based healthcare.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once flew with a pilot who had his own Geiger Counter. Setting it on the ground on the centre console at LHR, there was one click every 6 seconds on average. As we climbed to cruise altitude 33,000' heading ESE across Europe, the count went up to 6 counts/second- a 36-fold increase. There was also a marked increase going higher up to 37,000'. On the back of an envelope, a 36 fold increase in ground radiation for about 800 hours a year (less than 1/10 of your life)- you're looking at over 4 times a normal ground dwellers radiation. Enough to create a significant statistical risk factor for airline crews. For those spending a significant time on Polar flying as opposed to tropical flying, you go to higher doses.
Having said that, old pilots do tend to be the fittest people I know, and definitely rather immature (like me)!
Having said that, old pilots do tend to be the fittest people I know, and definitely rather immature (like me)!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notsofantastic - Geiger counter is measuring the wrong radiation hazard so it's worthless.
FE years ago took one on flights. It was interesting to see the difference but found out that it wasn't the threat. Matter of fact, we were leaving TAPA(ANU) and all of us were sunburnt.
Prior cancer survivor, long time high flyer, the risk I face is skin cancer from sunburns while younger.
FE years ago took one on flights. It was interesting to see the difference but found out that it wasn't the threat. Matter of fact, we were leaving TAPA(ANU) and all of us were sunburnt.
Prior cancer survivor, long time high flyer, the risk I face is skin cancer from sunburns while younger.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A different perspective.......
Sign in to read: How to live to 100... and enjoy it - health - 03 June 2006 - New Scientist
How's this for an elixir of youth: an X-ray, a mild case of sunburn, a couple of beers and a sauna. If you think all that would leave you feeling anything but youthful, think again. Many researchers believe that small doses of "stressors" such as poisons, radiation and heat can actually be good for you - so good that they can even reverse the ageing process. This counter-intuitive effect, called "hormesis", was once considered flaky, but in recent years it has been shown to extend longevity in yeast, fruit flies, protozoans, worms and rodents. If the findings extend to people, it could stretch the average healthy human lifespan to 90, says biologist Joan Smith-Sonneborn of the University of Wyoming in Laramie.
How so? Stressors seem to kick-start natural repair mechanisms, including heat-shock proteins and DNA-repair enzymes, to fix the damage they have caused. If this damage is not too severe, the repair systems may overcompensate, building up enough oomph to repair unrelated damage as well. And if you accept the idea that damage equals ageing, this is nothing less than rejuvenation.
There is already some indirect evidence that hormesis has positive effects on human longevity. Between 1980 and 1988, researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, tracked 28,000 nuclear shipyard workers to study the effects of low doses of radiation. To their surprise, they found that the mortality rate of these workers was 24 per cent lower than in a control group of 32,500 shipyard workers of similar ages who were not exposed to radiation.
An earlier study by legendary epidemiologist Richard Doll found similar low death rates among radiologists, compared with other doctors. Perhaps most strikingly, Barbara Gilchrest of Boston University has shown that feeding fragments of DNA to elderly human cells grown in culture, which mimics the effect of DNA damage, restores their DNA repair capabilities to levels usually seen only in youthful cells.
You may not even have to expose yourself to poisonous chemicals or radiation to see the benefits of hormesis. An increasing number of gerontologists think caloric restriction - the near-starvation diet that is the only reliable way so far of increasing lifespan in animals - works because it is a low-level stressor. Better yet, some compounds with supposed anti-ageing properties, notably vitamin E and melatonin, seem to act hormetically in protozoans: increasing longevity when taken in small amounts but not large ones.
The big unanswered question is at what dose does an otherwise harmful agent become beneficial. Clearly, too much radiation or poison are bad for you. However, there may be a safe way to trick your body's repair mechanisms into overdrive. Smith-Sonneborn and others suspect that the life-extending effects of exercise are also down to hormesis. She proudly practises what she preaches with an exercise regime that she says stresses her body to just the right level to get the optimum response. "I'm 70 and I have the bone density of a 35-year-old," she says.
Sign in to read: How to live to 100... and enjoy it - health - 03 June 2006 - New Scientist
How's this for an elixir of youth: an X-ray, a mild case of sunburn, a couple of beers and a sauna. If you think all that would leave you feeling anything but youthful, think again. Many researchers believe that small doses of "stressors" such as poisons, radiation and heat can actually be good for you - so good that they can even reverse the ageing process. This counter-intuitive effect, called "hormesis", was once considered flaky, but in recent years it has been shown to extend longevity in yeast, fruit flies, protozoans, worms and rodents. If the findings extend to people, it could stretch the average healthy human lifespan to 90, says biologist Joan Smith-Sonneborn of the University of Wyoming in Laramie.
How so? Stressors seem to kick-start natural repair mechanisms, including heat-shock proteins and DNA-repair enzymes, to fix the damage they have caused. If this damage is not too severe, the repair systems may overcompensate, building up enough oomph to repair unrelated damage as well. And if you accept the idea that damage equals ageing, this is nothing less than rejuvenation.
There is already some indirect evidence that hormesis has positive effects on human longevity. Between 1980 and 1988, researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, tracked 28,000 nuclear shipyard workers to study the effects of low doses of radiation. To their surprise, they found that the mortality rate of these workers was 24 per cent lower than in a control group of 32,500 shipyard workers of similar ages who were not exposed to radiation.
An earlier study by legendary epidemiologist Richard Doll found similar low death rates among radiologists, compared with other doctors. Perhaps most strikingly, Barbara Gilchrest of Boston University has shown that feeding fragments of DNA to elderly human cells grown in culture, which mimics the effect of DNA damage, restores their DNA repair capabilities to levels usually seen only in youthful cells.
You may not even have to expose yourself to poisonous chemicals or radiation to see the benefits of hormesis. An increasing number of gerontologists think caloric restriction - the near-starvation diet that is the only reliable way so far of increasing lifespan in animals - works because it is a low-level stressor. Better yet, some compounds with supposed anti-ageing properties, notably vitamin E and melatonin, seem to act hormetically in protozoans: increasing longevity when taken in small amounts but not large ones.
The big unanswered question is at what dose does an otherwise harmful agent become beneficial. Clearly, too much radiation or poison are bad for you. However, there may be a safe way to trick your body's repair mechanisms into overdrive. Smith-Sonneborn and others suspect that the life-extending effects of exercise are also down to hormesis. She proudly practises what she preaches with an exercise regime that she says stresses her body to just the right level to get the optimum response. "I'm 70 and I have the bone density of a 35-year-old," she says.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing is being a captain and driving a car in the US my left arm was usually exposed to the suns rays. Now at 67 my left arm looks like it is 90 years old and my right looks 60. My left arm bruises with the slightest bump. Something to think about, I didn't. I could feel the warmth in the cockpit on my left arm but did nothing to protect it from the sun. Once in a while my FO would give me a sunshield but I did nothing myself. Sun damage to your skin takes a long time but it will get you as you age.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NE PA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the radiation difference flying 38,000' at the equator vs. 38,000' over the poles? I've done a few polar crossings and I'm sure the radiation exposure is higher. I have not seen the data though.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hiw DID those guys make it to the moon back in 1969 ?? 
The Shuttle guys were complaing about the effects of radiation when they close their eyes.........they see non stop flashes of bright light.
They were only 214 miles up.
And NASA expect us to believe after travelling 240,000 miles to the moon that it was all so easy !!!
Lies...............lies.
I look forward to the day that all is revealed.
The Shuttle guys were complaing about the effects of radiation when they close their eyes.........they see non stop flashes of bright light.
They were only 214 miles up.
And NASA expect us to believe after travelling 240,000 miles to the moon that it was all so easy !!!
Lies...............lies.
I look forward to the day that all is revealed.
Last edited by Virtual738; 10th Nov 2011 at 02:48.
Because they didn't fly through the stronger areas of radiation of the Van Allen Belts, hence the mid-course corrections they made going to/from the Moon. They only got a relatively small dose of radiation compared to a few decades of airliner flight at 35,000'+.
Back on-topic .... as mentioned above, does the radiation level increase closer to the poles? I imagine so because of the nature of the magnetic field around the Earth.
Back on-topic .... as mentioned above, does the radiation level increase closer to the poles? I imagine so because of the nature of the magnetic field around the Earth.