Op-Ed in International Herald Tribune

[ROBBARISH@AOL.COM]

Greetings All:



Following the recent publication of two pieces on in-flight radiation in the 

International Herald Tribune, I was invited to write an opinion piece for the 

newspaper. Although my comments were edited, what appeared was a reasonable 

version of what I actually wrote.



The articles can be seen at:

http://www.iht.com/articles/20826.html 

and

http://www.iht.com/articles/20829.html 



The opinion piece is reproduced below, but if you want to see it on the web, 

the address is:



http://www.iht.com/articles/21832.html



NEW YORK: Although airlines have consistently attempted to avoid the issue of 

in-flight radiation, the recent introduction of polar routes between North 

America and the Far East has created flights which receive previously 

unmatched levels of cosmic and solar radiation exposure. Many of them don't 

know it, but for more than 10 years flight crew members in Europe and the 

United States have been considered radiation workers. This classification 

allows the application of exposure limits which, when compared with those 

used for members of the public, are greater by a factor of 50 in the United 

States and 20 in the European Union. Many flight attendants and pilots 

receive a higher annual dose of radiation than workers at nuclear power 

plants. Frequent fliers are also affected. Business travelers flying more 

than 80,000 miles (128,000 kilometers) per year are also exposed to in-flight 

radiation at levels that exceed the regulatory limit established for members 

of the general public. Anyone flying faces increased cosmic radiation, but 

periodic and unpredictable solar storms can raise levels very much higher. 

These "charged particle events" may increase exposure rates to 50 times their 

usual values. In other words, a single trip could give as much radiation 

exposure to passengers or crew members as they would ordinarily receive in 50 

trips. This circumstance has profound implications for pregnant crew members 

and passengers. It is a U.S. legal requirement that people who are 

occupationally exposed to radiation knowingly and willingly accept their 

increased level of risk. This fundamental principle has been ignored in the 

case of crew and frequent fliers. Following intense political lobbying, much 

of it orchestrated by pilots' unions, the education of crew members about 

in-flight radiation became the law in Europe, effective May 2000. By 

contrast, the U.S. government has only made weak efforts on the issue. The 

Federal Aviation Administration issued an advisory in 1994 to all air 

carriers requesting that they educate their crew members about the health 

risks of cosmic radiation. In the seven years since that advisory was 

distributed no airline has put such training into place as a routine matter. 

A few simple and responsible actions are needed. All crew members and 

frequent fliers should be educated about in-flight radiation and the 

associated health risks. These risks are small and are readily accepted by 

thousands of traditional radiation workers throughout the world, but it is 

only right that the affected individuals be provided with sound scientific 

information to allow them to make their own decisions. I am most concerned 

about pregnant fliers. Crew members and business travelers may exceed 

recommended fetal dose limits. These limits are significantly lower than the 

levels accepted for adult radiation workers. Although most experts believe 

that the risks of in-flight radiation are small for pregnant women taking an 

occasional pleasure trip, the significance of the vastly increased dose rate 

caused by some solar flares cannot be overemphasized. During the handful of 

times that solar flares occur in each 11-year solar cycle, the airlines 

should inform all passengers. This would allow any concerned person to 

postpone travel for a few hours. Such a decision could be of great importance 

during a woman's first few weeks of pregnancy, a time when a human embryo is 

particularly sensitive. Also, the news media need to report radiation issues 

more responsibly and intelligently. The spill of a teaspoonful of radioactive 

water, confined to the premises of a nuclear power plant, captivates media 

attention even when there is no potential public health risk. By contrast, a 

solar flare is ignored even if it will give 3 million airline passengers 

whole-body radiation doses that are many times greater than normal. 

Information about significant solar storms is readily available to all 

weather forecasters and they should provide this information when warranted. 

The writer, a medical and health physicist, is author of "The Invisible 

Passenger: Radiation Risks for People Who Fly." He contributed this comment 

to the International Herald Tribune



Rob Barish

robbarish@aol.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.