Cosmic radiation from MRs
Apr 4, 2009, 7:53 pm
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,968
Some information specific to frequent flyers from that WHO data sheet:
So, I guess that means that those FTers who earn their elite status via segments instead of miles are likely to have less exposure to cosmic radiation because they tend to fly more short-haul instead of long-haul segments.
So, how would we go about recording our personal cumulative radiation doses?
Aircrew and frequent flyer exposure
Radiation dose is measured in milliSieverts (mSv). Aircrew flying 600-800 hours per year are exposed to 2 to 5 milliSievert (mSv) of radiation each year in addition to the usual radiation of 2-3 mSv through man-made (mostly medical) and natural radiation sources. Aircrew are now recognized in many countries as occupationally exposed to radiation, and radiation protection limits for aircrew are similar to those established for nuclear workers. Frequent flyers generally do not reach the number of hours flown by aircrew. Thus, unless they fly as much or more than typical aircrew, their radiation exposure and associated possible health risks are likely to be lower than that of aircrew.
Short-haul flights are often flown at lower altitudes than long-haul flights, so that generally, shorthaul flights incur less radiation exposure than long-haul flights. The other factors which influence CR exposure levels vary with each flight. Also, methods of measuring CR are still being developed and compared by scientists.
Radiation dose is measured in milliSieverts (mSv). Aircrew flying 600-800 hours per year are exposed to 2 to 5 milliSievert (mSv) of radiation each year in addition to the usual radiation of 2-3 mSv through man-made (mostly medical) and natural radiation sources. Aircrew are now recognized in many countries as occupationally exposed to radiation, and radiation protection limits for aircrew are similar to those established for nuclear workers. Frequent flyers generally do not reach the number of hours flown by aircrew. Thus, unless they fly as much or more than typical aircrew, their radiation exposure and associated possible health risks are likely to be lower than that of aircrew.
Short-haul flights are often flown at lower altitudes than long-haul flights, so that generally, shorthaul flights incur less radiation exposure than long-haul flights. The other factors which influence CR exposure levels vary with each flight. Also, methods of measuring CR are still being developed and compared by scientists.
WHO recommendations concerning cosmic radiation
National governments are advised:
• to protect flying personnel by law from excessive radiation exposure.
Airline management is advised:
• to assess and track aircrew radiation doses;
• to provide aircrew with a record of their personal cumulative radiation dose;
• to consider radiation exposure and to reduce occupational radiation exposure where
feasible in creating flight rosters;
• to inform personnel about the effects of cosmic radiation;
• to the extent possible, warn personnel about potential major solar proton events, and
advise those who have traveled in an area of increased radiation during an SPE.
Aircrew are advised:
• to keep themselves informed about health effects of cosmic radiation;
• to record their personal cumulative radiation doses on a regular and permanent basis (if
not done by the respective airline or governmental bodies);
• to consider radiation exposure when selecting flight schedules;
• to limit flight travels during pregnancy.
Frequent flyers are advised:
• to keep themselves informed about health effects of cosmic radiation;
• to limit flight travels during pregnancy.
If the flying time of a frequent flyer is similar to that of aircrew, they are advised:
• to record their personal cumulative radiation doses on a regular and permanent
basis;
• to consider radiation exposure when selecting flight schedules.
National governments are advised:
• to protect flying personnel by law from excessive radiation exposure.
Airline management is advised:
• to assess and track aircrew radiation doses;
• to provide aircrew with a record of their personal cumulative radiation dose;
• to consider radiation exposure and to reduce occupational radiation exposure where
feasible in creating flight rosters;
• to inform personnel about the effects of cosmic radiation;
• to the extent possible, warn personnel about potential major solar proton events, and
advise those who have traveled in an area of increased radiation during an SPE.
Aircrew are advised:
• to keep themselves informed about health effects of cosmic radiation;
• to record their personal cumulative radiation doses on a regular and permanent basis (if
not done by the respective airline or governmental bodies);
• to consider radiation exposure when selecting flight schedules;
• to limit flight travels during pregnancy.
Frequent flyers are advised:
• to keep themselves informed about health effects of cosmic radiation;
• to limit flight travels during pregnancy.
If the flying time of a frequent flyer is similar to that of aircrew, they are advised:
• to record their personal cumulative radiation doses on a regular and permanent
basis;
• to consider radiation exposure when selecting flight schedules.
So, how would we go about recording our personal cumulative radiation doses?
Apr 4, 2009, 8:23 pm
#17
Join Date: Sep 2007
Programs: HH-S WS-G
Posts: 659
flight crews have more to worry about. Occasionally during a severe solar storm you can get a pretty strong dose but even then the worst i heard was equivalent to a few chest x-rays.
you can check your exposure here ( http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/f...n_profile.html )
you will need to guestimate some flight levels
you can check your exposure here ( http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/f...n_profile.html )
you will need to guestimate some flight levels
Apr 5, 2009, 2:12 am
#18
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Duluth, GA
Programs: AAdvantage PLT, AA 2MM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 2,268
Here are some studies that suggest that radiation exposure may be a problem (for aircrew at least).
Incidence of cancer among female flight attendants: a meta-analysis.
Cancer incidence among male military and civil pilots and flight attendants: an analysis on published data.
Both show increased cancer rates in aircrew (about 1.5X the average person for breast cancer and melanoma - although a confounding factor is that aircrew tended to take more vacations in sunny areas also).
This one shows that the amount of radiation exposure may exceed what is considered safe for a fetus after 15 TATLs.
Seems like radiation exposure is an occupational hazard and if you're pregnant, you might want to avoid those MRs. I doubt it's much of a problem for the average adult passenger though.
Incidence of cancer among female flight attendants: a meta-analysis.
Cancer incidence among male military and civil pilots and flight attendants: an analysis on published data.
Both show increased cancer rates in aircrew (about 1.5X the average person for breast cancer and melanoma - although a confounding factor is that aircrew tended to take more vacations in sunny areas also).
This one shows that the amount of radiation exposure may exceed what is considered safe for a fetus after 15 TATLs.
Seems like radiation exposure is an occupational hazard and if you're pregnant, you might want to avoid those MRs. I doubt it's much of a problem for the average adult passenger though.
Apr 5, 2009, 12:48 pm
#20
Join Date: May 2006
Location: MYF/CMA/SAN/YYZ/YKF
Programs: COdbaUA 1K MM, AA EXP, Bonbon Gold, GHA Titanium, Hertz PC, NEXUS and GE
Posts: 5,848
Personally, I think all the people posting tin-foil hat jokes are being far too dismissive. The effects of radiation while flying can be either benign or quite strong, depending on where, when and how often you are flying. Someone who does a bunch of US transcon and mid-con mileage runs has little to worry about. Similarly, someone doing a lot of flights to Hawai'i or over the pond isn't being exposed to all that much. The real risk, especially as it applies to members of this site, are those doing polar flights to places like HKG, SIN, BKK and the like. NRT is a bit less of a risk because the flight flies a more southerly routing, but I would definately think twice about doing frequent HKG runs.
Apr 5, 2009, 2:15 pm
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,968
Personally, I think all the people posting tin-foil hat jokes are being far too dismissive. The effects of radiation while flying can be either benign or quite strong, depending on where, when and how often you are flying. Someone who does a bunch of US transcon and mid-con mileage runs has little to worry about. Similarly, someone doing a lot of flights to Hawai'i or over the pond isn't being exposed to all that much. The real risk, especially as it applies to members of this site, are those doing polar flights to places like HKG, SIN, BKK and the like. NRT is a bit less of a risk because the flight flies a more southerly routing, but I would definately think twice about doing frequent HKG runs.
I agree with this point. The farther north or south you travel, the more radiation exposure you have. I guess it's a good thing that on my trip to NRT this summer I'm routing via LAX instead of up and over the pole.
Another point I would make is that we don't really know the long-term effects of cosmic radiation exposure on polar routes because, until relatively recently (within the last 20 years), aircraft did not have the range to fly these extremely remote routings. AA did not start flying to Asia over the North Pole until very recently. Radiation exposure is a cumulative thing, so we should start looking for effects among frequent flyers and flight crews within the next 25-30 years (as the first generation of polar flyers grows old).
Last edited by ESpen36; Apr 5, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Apr 5, 2009, 9:54 pm
#22
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: UA Gold-MM, AA Gold-MM, F9-Silver, Hyatt Something, Marriott Gold, IHG Plat, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 6,404
Apr 5, 2009, 9:57 pm
#23
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: UA Gold-MM, AA Gold-MM, F9-Silver, Hyatt Something, Marriott Gold, IHG Plat, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 6,404
Does the plane block any substantial amount of cosmic radiation? As a EE, I can tell you that planes make good Faraday cages, and hence block a good amount of EM waves in the bands that you might care about -- cellular, AM/FM, etc. But I don't know what the wavebands are for cosmic off the top of my head. If the plane does block some radiation, it would seem that maybe the middle seat in the back isn't so bad after all, as it would keep you away from the windows!
Apr 6, 2009, 7:59 am
#25
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ATL, BHM, DUB, County Wexford
Programs: DL DM, AA ExPlt, Diamond HH, HY, BW, & Titanium Elite Marriott
Posts: 4,868
Lets all go party at Chernobyl.
The information posted there states that you are exposed to more radiation on a TATL than you will be at Chernobyl.
See how safe it is.
The information posted there states that you are exposed to more radiation on a TATL than you will be at Chernobyl.
See how safe it is.
Apr 6, 2009, 8:40 am
#27
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: UA Gold-MM, AA Gold-MM, F9-Silver, Hyatt Something, Marriott Gold, IHG Plat, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 6,404
Apr 6, 2009, 9:00 am
#29
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: EWR
Programs: AA, Delta, NWA,HHonors, Hyatt BF
Posts: 1,762