Re: In Flight Radiation

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

I just have to relate a story about air travel and risk assessment:  Early
in my acquaintance with my second husband -- when we started "dating" -- I
was seeing him off in the Seattle airport (SeaTac).  At that time, the rear
of the plane was the smoking section.  He and I got into an involved
conversation about whether the risk was greater if you sat in the smoking
section in the rear of the plane or in the non-smoking section in the front.
The tradeoff was: you are at greater risk of lung cancer in the smoking
section (rear) but at greater risk of death in a crash in the front part of
the plane (non-smoking).  So what is the probability of a plane crash v.
getting lung cancer?  As we got more and more into this, we noticed people
edging away from us and frowning, probably thinking "What kind of nut cases
are on this plane?"

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Stokes, James <StokesJ@ttnus.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 12:11 PM
Subject: RE: In Flight Radiation


> 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


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