[ RadSafe ] World's Pilots Reject Naked Body Scanners>Over Radiation Danger, Privacy Breach

Maury Siskel maurysis at peoplepc.com
Thu Nov 11 09:56:25 CST 2010

Hi Gary, I think they just don't know. Isn't that the same problem for 
the general public? Too many folks screaming the opposite -- screaming 
that all radiation is bad bad bad shut down all nuclear power plants 
--ad nauseum
Maury&Dog  [maurysis at peoplepc.com]

garyi at trinityphysics.com wrote:

>Hi Mike,
>Your post made me wonder if anyone had studied cancer mortality for pilots.  So I googled "pilots radiation mortality" and 
>got (suprise!) more evidence for hormesis:
>    Cosmic radiation and cancer mortality among airline     pilots: results from a European cohort study (ESCAPE), 
>    Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Volume 42, Number 4, 247-256, DOI: 10.1007/s00411-003-0214-7   
>    Abstract: 
>    Cosmic radiation is an occupational risk factor for 
>    commercial aircrews. In this large European cohort 
>    study (ESCAPE) its association with cancer mortality 
>    was investigated on the basis of individual effective dose 
>    estimates for 19,184 male pilots. Mean annual doses 
>    were in the range of 2-5 mSv and cumulative lifetime 
>    doses did not exceed 80 mSv. All-cause and all-cancer 
>    mortality was low for all exposure categories. A 
>    significant negative risk trend for all-cause mortality was 
>    seen with increasing dose. Neither external and internal 
>    comparisons nor nested case-control analyses showed 
>    any substantially increased risks for cancer mortality due 
>    to ionizing radiation. However, the number of deaths for 
>    specific types of cancer was low and the confidence 
>    intervals of the risk estimates were rather wide. 
>    Difficulties in interpreting mortality risk estimates for 
>    time-dependent exposures are discussed.   
>Another study of Canadian pilots found this:
>    Statistically significant decreased mortality was 
>    observed for all causes (SMR = 0.63, 90% confidence 
>    interval (CI) 0.56-0.70), for all cancers (SMR = 0.61, 
>    90% CI 0.48-0.76), and for all noncancer diseases 
>    (SMR = 0.53, 90% CI 0.45-0.62). 
>You have wonder, with data like that, what are the pilots 
>complaining about? 
>-Gary Isenhower
>On 9 Nov 2010 at 16:50, Brennan, Mike  (DOH) wrote:
>For a long time I have felt that as anyone who is on a 
>commercial flight crew should have the training necessary to 
>understand the radiation dose they receive as a (mostly) 
>unavoidable result of their occupation.  It really shouldn't be that 
>difficult or take that long, and it will reduce anxiety and 
>misunderstanding.  If it had already been done this issue would 
>be easier to deal with.   
>I also have long thought that there should be a separate line 
>with a much reduced screening regime for "prescreened" 
>people.  There are a number of criteria that could be used for 
>prescreening, including some sort of background check, and 
>flight crews would be an obvious group to go through such a 
>I am surprised that the scanners would take three minutes per 
>person. That clearly is too long.    

More information about the RadSafe mailing list