In-Flight Radiation, again

[ROBBARISH@aol.com]

Greetings Radsafers

Since the thread on in-flight radiation was opened again yesterday, I'd like 
to add a comment. First, by coincidence, there is a story in today's (30 Jan. 
2000) New York Times on the subject. Several month's ago, when I announced 
1-877-SUNFLARE, I was advised in Radsafe postings to try and find a 
responsible journalist to present this story in a way that would not pander 
to popular fears about radiation. I think that Matt Wald has done an 
excellent job in that regard. The link is:

http://www.nytimes.com/00/01/29/travel/ta000130.html

With respect to the question about business frequent flyers, I have a clear 
position on this. It relates to the posting yesterday questioning possible 
legal implications for these employees. There are almost half a million US 
business frequent flyers who annually exceed the 1 mSv non-occupational 
annual permissible dose of radiation if that radiation were to originate at a 
medical or industrial facility rather than from cosmic sources. None of these 
frequent flyers will ever receive the 50 mSv US occupational limit or even 
the more restrictive 20 mSv European Union occupational limit. But it is very 
possible for a pregnant business traveler to exceed the 1 mSv fetal dose 
limit applied in the EU.  It is my contention that just as airline crew 
members were classified as radiation workers by the FAA because of these 
issues, so too will all of these frequent flyers require radiation training 
and dose assessment. For an employer to fail to do so is to risk damaging 
litigation for failure to warn the employee if they (or their embryo/fetus) 
should have a negative health consequence somewhere in the future.  You might 
want to refer to a BBC story reporting on a conference of lawyers held in 
London. I thought that the US led the world in this sort of litigation but 
apparently Britain has overtaken us in looking for ways to occupy the time of 
needy attorneys. Take a look at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_380000/380274.stm

There are some categories of employee, international couriers for example, 
who have more time in airplanes than the flight crewmembers they travel with. 
I think that it is difficult to justify a double standard in which employees 
of the airlines are officially recognized as being occupationally exposed and 
are provided with formal programs of education and dose assessment while 
business travelers who are also in the air as a requirement of their 
employment are not appropriately informed of the potential risk of exposure 
to the predominantly high-LET radiation environment which exists at aircraft 
altitudes.

Rob Barish
robbarish@aol.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html