"Flying on Top of the World: A Radiation Risk"
 

Article in today's International Herald Tribune on possibiliteis of radiation hazards when flying a North Pole route:
http://www.iht.com/articles/20826.html

Please also see:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum94/HTML/000972.html

I sincerely hope that the airlines will reduce radiation for F and C class passengers. After all we pay a multiple of the backpack crowd.

However, I have not much hope since the incidence of fatal crashes for F and C crashes is not significantly below that for Y

Actually, the incidence of crashes for Y is higher due to all of those commuter aircraft without F or C sections having a higher per mile incidence of crash. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

these newspapers tend to post the biggest bull**** as news, and the reporters know nothing.
(see other discussion about an article by ignorant AWSJ on 5th freedom in CX forum as well)

yes, you are more exposed to radiation if you are high up. but you probably get more if you go to the beach unprotected.

their comment on polar magnetic field is totally unfounded. if the radiation particle has electromagnetic charge (therefore affected by magnetic field), there is a higher chance that it decays (i.e. dies away) on the surface of the plane (before hitting anyone inside).
in fact, a strong magnetic field cause these sub-class of radiation decay a lot faster than others, before hitting you. so the radiation is weaker when it reaches you.

the reason for higher radiation in sky is before there is less air/cloud above you to shield you, and even less shielding in near the poles (probably due to small difference in gravity) however, most of these cosmic rays cannot penetrate the airplane's surface, so you are as safe as lying on the beach under a sun-umbrella

[This message has been edited by pegasus8228 (edited 05-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by pegasus8228 (edited 05-24-2001).]

pegasus8228:

Did you major in Physics? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

There are three 'types' of radioactive decay radiation. These are alpha particles (helium nucli with the 2 electrons stripped off), beta particles (electrons), and gamma ‘particles’ (very high-frequency electromagnetic radiation). Of these, the first two are charged, and would be affected by a magnetic field. The general rule is, the heavier the particle, the less its penetrating power. Note that it often takes a foot of lead, or the equivalent mass of something else, to stop gamma.

There are two types of ‘space’ radiation: solar wind and cosmic rays. Solar wind is usually nuclei ejected from the sun: protons (H nuclei), alpha radiation, or some much less common heavier particles (lithium, carbon, oxygen). Solar wind strength goes up dramatically during solar flares. There is also an electromagnetic (EM) component to solar wind (peaks in the visible spectrum, though a broad spectrum is present). Cosmic rays are VERY energetic charged particles, along with some EM in the gamma spectrum.
The Van Allen Bands (which are NOT PRESENT OVER THE POLES) otherwise known as the earth’s magnetic field, protects us from the charged particles, while the atmosphere acts as a shield for the EM radiation.

Thus, flying high is bad since the plane sees more EM, and the hull of the plane has little stopping power compared to a mile of atmosphere. Flying over the poles is doubly bad, since there is no magnetic field to protect against the charged particles.

so -- is pegasus8228 correct? or is Petey correct?

or perhaps the better question: just how many times would a person have to fly the polar route to be negatively effected (if indeed, there was a negative effect to be had?!?) I don't know.

------------------

I, for one, favor night time flights over day light flights.

One of the real problems of the polar routes is the airlines' thinking that an endless day westbound flight timing is better than an endless night.

maybe they should line the plane with lead.. then it won't affect us.. or better just.. just line the C and F class cabin.. haha..

I took the Concorde a couple of times and the crew told me they have strict limitations on how often they fly it due to radiation exposure. Of course..we were at 68,000 feet so I'm sure that makes a difference.

Just got off CO99/98 for the third time in as many weeks...

Is that tingling in my forehead from the new eyeball that has genetically mutated...

Or is it from my cell phone that I use without a headset....

Or living too close to high-voltage eletrical wires...

Or not drinking enough green tea...

Or standing too close to the microwave oven when it's running...

Or having drunk too much Kool-Aid when I was kid....

Or eating too much tuna and swordfish...

Or drinking wine before it was time...

Or reading all this bull-hockey from misinformed/underinformed/uninformed journalists who'll do anything, say anything, and promise anything for getting a by-line???

[This message has been edited by ETOPS01 (edited 05-26-2001).]

The origin of the difference between polar and equatorial latitudes has to do with the magnetic field deflecting charged particles moving perpendicular to the field but leaving them unaffected if they move parallel to the field. The Earth's magnetic field is close to vertical at polar latitudes and thus will allow charged particles to reach aviation altitudes more easily.

One thing to note is that when talking about being close to the pole, the relevant pole is the magnetic pole, located in the vicinity of northwestern Greenland, rather than the geographic pole. Great circles for flights from northern Europe to the US west coast and from almost anywhere in Europe to Anchorage come just as close to the magnetic pole as flights from the US east coast to Japan. So, whether or not this is a serious health risk it's certainly not a new one that has appeared just because of the recently opened polar flights.