[ RadSafe ] Special Session on Radiation in Flight

Mon Feb 2 10:59:35 CST 2015

Dear Phillip:

In Europe, following ICRP recommendations in 1990, the EU has declared aircrew are radiation workers and dictates requirements (including tracking dose and changing flight assignments for highly exposed aircrew) that each member state implements.  For both aircrew and frequent flyers, companies track and control their employee’s exposure using the Sievert code for GCR.  No other radiation sources are considered.  

In the US, the FAA regulates airline companies, including regulations on radiation safety.  The FAA denied Ed Bramlitt’s 1984 petition to declare aircrew as radiation workers and provide dosimetry, but reversed part of that position in 1994 following the ICRP guidance that aircrew were, indeed, radiation workers.  The FAA provides guidance to airmen about radiation exposure, and has developed a code (CARI) that calculates GCR dose similar to Sievert.  No estimate is made for other sources such as solar proton events, etc.  The FAA asserts that they follow the guidance on radiation safety as published by ACGIH, and that no aircrew member exceeds 100 mSv from GCR alone when averaged over 5 years.  According to UNSCEAR 2008, aircrew have 3 times the average dose of nuclear workers, including mining, milling, fuel fabrication, power, waste disposal, etc.  Although they are only 3% of radiation workers, they receive 16% of the total collective dose to all radiation workers (medical, research, military, etc.), excluding large numbers of (non-uranium) miners and other workers exposed to enhanced natural radiation.   (I exclude those workers because of the large numbers.) 

There are no requirements on US airlines.  Individuals can track their own dose (on their own time and expense) on a flight segment by flight segment basis, entering data such as airports, altitudes, changes in altitudes, times at various altitudes, etc.  Since the FAA or USs air carriers do not provide this information, a flight attendant, for example, must ask the pilot for the data and enter it into the CARI program on her own time (perhaps at the hotel at night for each flight segment she worked) and somehow log the data.  There is no database for keeping track, and no QA or method to find and correct erroneous input data.  It is the aircrew member’s individual responsibility to do this.  I have been unable to find ONE US aircrew member who has EVER done this except for a once or twice look at CARI out of curiosity.   CARI is not user friendly.

In publications, flight attendants have asserted that this US practice is because the airline companies are concerned that the flying public would be alarmed if flight attendants wore dosimetry badges.

Joe Shonka

Sent from Windows Mail

From: KARAM, PHILIP
Sent: ‎Monday‎, ‎February‎ ‎2‎, ‎2015 ‎11‎:‎52‎ ‎AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List

Are they required to be regulated by anyone? My guess is that, unless a company receives a letter that requires them to have a license (or registration) the companies are unlikely to monitor employees' dose out of the goodness of their hearts.

To the best of my knowledge, in the US this would be outside the NRC's jurisdiction and not likely regulated by EPA or any other federal agency. I'm not aware of any states who have this on their radar screens.

P. Andrew Karam, PhD, CHP
NYPD Counterterrorism
One Police Plaza, Room 1109
New York, NY 10038
(718) 615-7055 (desk)
(646) 879-5268 (mobile)

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of jjshonka at shonka.com
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:42 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Special Session on Radiation in Flight

Dear Jeffrey

The EU does require airlines to monitor aircrew.  There is a paper by Frasch et al. in the December issue of HPJ that addresses German aircrew exposures to galactic cosmic rays alone as estimated by the Sievert computer program.  This program is similar to the CARI in the US, but a lot easier to use.   Benchmark measurements compared to Sievert show that it can predict GCR to within +/- 30%, 90% of the time.

In response to Phillip Karam, employers of frequent flyers (who are considered radiation workers in Europe) are required to monitor their doses in the same way as aircrew.  Some occupations, such as couriers, have been estimated to receive 10 mSv annually.  

Joe Shonka

Sent from Windows Mail

From: Kulp, Jeffrey (DOH)
Sent: ‎Monday‎, ‎February‎ ‎2‎, ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎39‎ ‎AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List

I was under the impression that flight crews in European Union countries are considered radiation workers and are monitored for occupational radiation exposure. Do any of our European colleagues have information to verify or refute my understanding?

If the flight crews are occupational radiation workers are there any statistics regarding the questions below?

Jeffrey Kulp
Radiation Health Physicist
Washington State Department of Health - ORP
16201 E. Indiana Ave. Suite 1500
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
(509) 329-2138 (Office)
(509) 329-2154 (Fax)
“Public Health – Always Working for a Safer and Healthier Washington”

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of KARAM, PHILIP
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 7:12 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Special Session on Radiation in Flight

Thanks for the info! This brings up an interesting question, too, about whether or not in-flight radiation exposure should be considered "occupational." You can make a strong argument that pilots and flight crew are occupationally exposed since their occupations bring them into elevated radiation fields. After all, to our cells, radiation is radiation and it doesn't matter to them that it's elevated levels of natural radiation. 

But then what about business travelers who, were it not for their occupation, would fly far less? I know a lot of people who routinely fly 100,000 miles (160,000 km) annually and almost certainly rack up more than 100 mrem (1 mSv) annually - should they also be considered to be occupational radiation workers since it's their work that gets them on the plane? Or is occupational exposure only what happens when we're on the clock (but then, what about folks who bill their travel time, or who pull out their computer and work on the plane)?

Anyhow - sounds like a good session!

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of jjshonka at shonka.com
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 5:44 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Special Session on Radiation in Flight

The US Health Physics Society (HPS) is planning a Special Session on “Ionizing Radiation in Flight” at its 60th Annual Meeting, 12-16 July 2015, in Indianapolis, Indiana.  The goal is to cover advances in the subject area since 1998 when it was reviewed at the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements annual meeting and published thereafter in the Health Physics Journal (HPJ). The radiation source highlighted by that review was galactic cosmic rays (GCR). 

In the January 2015 HPJ, Ed Bramlitt and I discuss other in-flight radiation sources: terrestrial gamma ray flashes (TGF), solar neutron events (SNE), solar gamma ray events (SGE), and solar proton events (SPE) whose frequency is much greater than was believed in 1998. Also, dose from SPE is greater at the North pole, and transpolar flight frequency has grown exponentially since 2001.  Terrestrial neutron flashes (TNF) and thundercloud gamma ray events (TGE) or “glows” were unknown sources in 1998.

There is a need to know the doses aircraft crewmembers and passengers might receive from any of the in-flight sources. We are aware of published estimates that aircraft occupants can get up to 100 mSv from a TGF and 0.54 mSv from a TNF, and for significance, the monthly limit for a pregnant woman is 0.5 mSv. Dosimetry is needed, but it is not required with commercial aircraft in the US. 

This letter is distributed to persons with relevant publications and persons working in agencies or businesses involved with radiation at flight levels and low Earth orbit. A notice of the Special Session will be published in the March HPS newsletter asking for abstracts of 15-minute presentations.  If you feel that you need 30 minutes, your request can be granted for significant work.  Suitable topics include the various radiation sources and their exposure to aircraft occupants, detection of SNE, SGE, or TGF in flight or on the ground, dose measurements or estimates, dosimetry methods, radiation safety, legal and regulatory issues with aircrew and passenger exposures, and aircrew union concerns.

The HPS Annual Meeting due date for abstracts is February 7. However, if you notify me of a tentative title by February 7, I will arrange for you to have more time.  (The ultimate deadline is when the Annual Meeting program is finalized, but that date has not yet been set.)  If you can prepare an abstract by February 7, then submit it online at: http://hpschapters.org/2015AM/abstracts/index.php. 

You are welcome to forward this letter to persons you know who might be interested in presenting a paper or just attending the Special Session. For an incentive to present, we hope to have presentations published in a special issue of the HPJ as was done in 1998.

I look forward to your participation in the Special Session.

Sincerely, 

Joe Shonka, PhD

 jjshonka at shonka.com

(707) 509-7606

Sent from Windows Mail
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list