RE: In Flight Radiation

["Stokes, James" <StokesJ@ttnus.com>]

 Relative to the traveller, I do not feel that this is a matter for risk
communication.  Should we confuse them further by telling them that commuter
jets result in less radiation dose, since they fly at lower altitudes?  That
faster flying aircraft result in less total dose?

I do believe however, that this is all relavent to the assessment of cancer
risk to the occupationally exposed.  After all the epidemiology study
involving second-hand smoke and flight attendants, needs to consider all of
these factors. But that is my opinion.  By the way, I have logged
approximately 800,000 are miles

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Carstensen
To: Multiple recipients of list
Sent: 2/6/01 12:49 PM
Subject: RE: In Flight Radiation

Matt Williamson wrote
...how to address the consumers or if it necessary.  Frequent 
fliers get more exposure than the occasional flyer.  But so do the folks

living in Denver...

Peter.Vernig wrote
...Please feel free to stress or exaggerate the excess of "deadly
radiation" in
any presentations.  Our roads and other infrastructure, are not meeting
the
challenge of all the people moving in.

Mike adds -
Yeah, I understand the airlines are getting pretty crowded too.  
This must be killing us in droves.

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