Radiation Risk for Frequent Flyers?

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,133
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Perhaps, but not from those new full-body scanners that everyone is worried about. Kind of ironic that the pilot union is more concerned about the body scanners than a much more serious radiation risk that pilots have always been exposed to.

For Frequent Fliers, a Radiation Risk in the Skies

A paper that will appear in the December issue of the Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, a peer-reviewed publication, argues that travelers who fly 85,000 miles a year or more should be classified as radiation workers.

At airliner altitudes, exposure to radiation from the sun and the stars can be hundreds of times higher than on the surface of the earth, where the atmosphere filters out radiation.
Click to expand...

Yet somehow I predict that people will continue to make more fuss about the body scanners than about the high-altitude radiation.
 
IIRC exposure limits were in place for Concorde crews due to the increased exposure to cosmics because of its operating altitude.
 
So, 30,000 foot closer to the sun for a few hours. Big deal...:D

I would be more worried about the 30 odd something radio isotopes found in the average bottle of red wine.

Perhaps everyone should be classified as radiation workers. :)
 
Well, it doesn't make much sense to have the pilots screened every time they fly. They have already had extensive background checks, and if they wish to crash the plane, they don't need any weapons other than themselves.
 
As a radiation worker, my annual limit is 50mSv.

Somewhat higher than a transpolar any altitude pilot.
The nuclear industry assures me that this is safe, so I feel no pain for pilots.:D
 
So which rays are in cosmic radiation that go through aluminum and glass (usually lead-ed), yet are usually filtered out by the atmosphere ?
 
Skwinty said:
As a radiation worker, my annual limit is 50mSv.

Somewhat higher than a transpolar any altitude pilot.
The nuclear industry assures me that this is safe, so I feel no pain for pilots.:D
Click to expand...

Well, in all fairness if your health is a bit off, then you will not loose your job. However, every professional pilot is one medical away from getting fired, therefore pilots have to take their physical health very seriously.
 
Crossbow said:
Well, in all fairness if your health is a bit off, then you will not loose your job. .
Click to expand...

Says who?
If I develop cancer, I will certainly be laid off and have a fine time trying to prove that my cancer is due to the nuclear industry.

Crossbow said:
However, every professional pilot is one medical away from getting fired, therefore pilots have to take their physical health very seriously.
Click to expand...

I would think that flying a desk instead of an airplane hardly qualifies as losing one's job.
 
Skwinty said:
Says who?
If I develop cancer, I will certainly be laid off and have a fine time trying to prove that my cancer is due to the nuclear industry.
Click to expand...

You would get laid off for getting cancer? Wow! That sure is odd.

There is a woman that I work with who recently developed cancer, and she is still working after chemotherapy and having both of her breasts removed.

In any event, I hardly think that one could pass a Class I Airmen's Medical exam (which is one of the many requirements that need to be met in order to be a Professional Pilot) after undergoing such a procedure, therefore that person could no longer be a Professional Pilot. Also, there are any number of health problems besides cancer that can prevent a person from passing the Class I Medical: any sort of heart condition, high blood pressure, seizures, poor vision, and so on.

The FAA says that, and that is why pilots are so concerned about their health.

By the way, if you did contract cancer, then I am quite sure that you would have a tough time proving in court that your job was responsible for it.

I would think that flying a desk instead of an airplane hardly qualifies as losing one's job.
Click to expand...

Well, the person in question may be given a desk job, then again they may just fire/furlough the person since there are plenty of pilots out there looking for work and the airlines are always looking to cut their payroll.

Also by the way, in my bit of piloting experience (and I am an aircraft owner and a pilot), then I have found that if a pilot fails his medical exam, then he is either fired or furloughed since there many pilots out there looking for work and the airlines are always looking for ways to cut payroll. About the only exception is with military pilots since they have a term of service as opposed to a contract for service, then if a military pilot looses his medical, then the military can always find something else for that person to do.
 
Crossbow said:
You would get laid off for getting cancer? Wow! That sure is odd.
Click to expand...

Do you really think I would be able to retain my radiation worker status?

The point is: Stuff happens and if you are not prepared for it, you are up the creek with no paddle. The woo haa about radiation in airplanes and backscatter machines is IMO, a storm in a thimble.

Are you saying that a Senior Pilot for a commercial airline who surpasses his radiation limit and fails a medical gets booted to the kerb with no compensation?
 
casebro said:
So which rays are in cosmic radiation that go through aluminum and glass (usually lead-ed), yet are usually filtered out by the atmosphere ?
Click to expand...

Don't think of the atmosphere as thin. Remember, a one-inch-square column of it weighs 14.7 pounds. That's a lot more stopping power than the thin windows and skin of an airplane.
 
Skwinty said:
Do you really think I would be able to retain my radiation worker status?

The point is: Stuff happens and if you are not prepared for it, you are up the creek with no paddle. The woo haa about radiation in airplanes and backscatter machines is IMO, a storm in a thimble.

Are you saying that a Senior Pilot for a commercial airline who surpasses his radiation limit and fails a medical gets booted to the kerb with no compensation?
Click to expand...

Well, to answer your question, since I really do not know about your job, so I cannot say what would happen to you if you got cancer. However, I should think that you would at least have some decent health benefits from doing such work. Also, you sound like a highly skilled and educated person, so I am sure that you could find other technical work to do even if you were prevented from working with radioactive materials.

And you are quite correct in saying that "Stuff happens". And you may be quite correct about the radiation issue as well. However, if I paid well over $ 100,000 to be a Professional Pilot then when it came to my health, then I would always err on the side of caution.

As for what happens when pilots get sick, it depends. If the condition is something temporary which prevent a person from flying (say a broken arm or a cold), then likely the person will be given Sick Leave until the injury heals. And after it does heal, then that pilot will go back to work.

On the other hand, if the condition is long-term and/or incurable (say like cancer or a heart defect), then that pilot will likely get fired. However, he will credit for any unused Sick Leave and/or Vacation Time, but he will loose his job all the same.

And unfortunately, flying skills really do not translate too well to many other things so the pilot will have to find a new career. The company may find him a new job in the company that does not require flying, but then again since the company is not obligated to internally place ex-pilots, then may just get rid of him and replace him with someone who can fly.
 
Skwinty said:
As a radiation worker, my annual limit is 50mSv.

Somewhat higher than a transpolar any altitude pilot.
The nuclear industry assures me that this is safe, so I feel no pain for pilots.:D
Click to expand...

Radiation workers have lower rates of cancer incidence than a similar cohort of the general population.

Hormesis proponents ascribe it to radiation hormesis stimulating DNA repair mechanisms by more than the damage caused; the anti-nuclear people deny/ignore it.

Most reputable institutions blame it on the healthy worker effect; the employed tend to be healthier than the unemployed, because employers make an adverse selection against the unhealthy and those with obvious unhealthy habits(smoking, say) in the hiring process. I buy that explanation for most dieases(e.g. expressed as all-cause mortality) but I don't find it particularly convincing for cancer. Apart from lung and skin cancer the risk factors for other cancers are difficult to observe if you are an employee, much less the employer.
 
Sure, I have medical benefits, but they are paid for by me. Same with my pension and insurances. Life is tough for just about everyone.

I am also seeing the issue from the perspective of someone who understands and deals with radiation on a daily basis, so I view the issue differently.

I do not believe that pilots need to worry about radiation putting an end to their careers.
 
Skwinty said:
Sure, I have medical benefits, but they are paid for by me. Same with my pension and insurances. Life is tough for just about everyone.

I am also seeing the issue from the perspective of someone who understands and deals with radiation on a daily basis, so I view the issue differently.

I do not believe that pilots need to worry about radiation putting an end to their careers.
Click to expand...

I expect that you are quite right about that very slight radiation exposure is not a health problem.

However, if someone wants to be a bit extra cautious about their health, then I do feel that one must honor such concerns.
 
The Don said:
A linky :

http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:in-flight-health-cabin-radiation
Click to expand...

That includes some errors. The ozone levels and resulting UV increase don't affect the levels of cosmic protons and their resulting muons and gamma rays. Also, the radio and lower frequency EM radiation from electronic equipment isn't ionizing.

Here are some good pages related to air travel and background radiation:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/comsic-cosmique-eng.php
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/solarflare.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/airline-radiation.html
http://www.sievert-system.org/WebMasters/en/index.html

Here's a general background radiation calculator I like:
http://www.new.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/
 
I think there is a slight difference between the atmosphere and the back-scattering machine. The atmosphere radiation are are known and don't need to be re-calibrated by a technician. Now, one thing which would concern me, is , can those back scattering machine be so calibrated by an incompetent person, or by accident, as to be dangerous ? Like the incident with the therac 25 machine for example ? I am not knowledgeable here... And I get the feeling the "it's safe, trust us" from TSA don't convince anybody, especially while trying at the same time with the enhanced-feel-your-genital pat down trying to force people to use the machines.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, it doesn't make much sense to have the pilots screened every time they fly. They have already had extensive background checks, and if they wish to crash the plane, they don't need any weapons other than themselves.
Click to expand...

You're not thinking through the security implications. The canonical joke is that a pilot cannot take a pocket knife, but he has an axe in the cockpit. However, the axe is firmly located in the plane. The pocket knife could be lost in the airport, or transferred to someone else.

Thus the screening pilots part of the security theatre is at least correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom