[ RadSafe ] Special Session on Radiation in Flight

Mon Feb 2 14:54:28 CST 2015

Jerry,

The Unions would like dosimetry but the Airlines do not want to provide. Individual pilots and flight attendants acquire and pay for their own dosimeters. I do not expect any changes to the current policies.

Regards,

Sandy Perle
Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 2, 2015, at 3:50 PM, gelsg at aol.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Joe:
> 
> Thanks for a very informative response to Andy.  I learned a lot.
> It may be time to start badging air crew members, but I do not see that happening unless we (radiation safety professionals) make an effort to ease public fears that have been stoked over many years.  What do you think?
> 
> Jerry Gels
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jjshonka <jjshonka at shonka.com>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Mon, Feb 2, 2015 12:27 pm
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Special Session on Radiation in Flight
> 
> 
> 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 
> Joe:
> 
> Thanks for a very informative response to Andy.  I learned a lot.
> It may be time to start badging air crew members, but I do not see that happening unless we (radiation safety professionals) make an effort to ease public fears that have been stoked over many years.  What do you think?
> 
> Jerry Gels
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jjshonka <jjshonka at shonka.com>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Mon, Feb 2, 2015 12:27 pm
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Special Session on Radiation in Flight
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu