[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: CNN article
Hi Russ,
How about cosmic radiation of extragalactic origin?
Examples are Type 1a supernovae, and gamma ray bursters
also called Hypernovae. We can be glad that they are so
far away and happened such a long time ago!
Best regards,
Fritz
*****************************************************
Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.
Sigma Five Consulting: Private:
P.O. Box 1709 P.O. Box 437
Los Lunas, NM 87031 Tome', NM 87060
Tel.: 505-866-5193 Tel. 505-866-6976
Fax: 505-866-5197 USA
*****************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu]On Behalf Of Russ Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 5:29 PM
To: Jim Hardeman; radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
Subject: Re: CNN article
Good ol' CNN.
The "N" in LANL does not stand for nuclear. Its irritating to see and hear
that repeatedly, not only on CNN but other outlets as well! LANL has a 2
rem safety dose limit while other federal agencies have a 5 rem safety dose
limit? Want to try that one again?
What is "galactic cosmic radiation"? Sounds a bit redundant.
I would be surprised in a clear association of melanoma with high energy
cosmic radiation, but I guess I can't rule it out. I was under the
impression skin melanoma is generally associated with much lower energies,
like UV-B (like the ozone hole issue) or even low energy x-ray or beta.
I'm curious now what the actual doses are to full-time international airline
crews. Does anyone know, per flight or per annum? I've been asked this
question before in the radiation safety class I teach, but I don't know. If
european agencies monitor crew doses, then they must fly with TLD or similar
badges.
-Russ
Jim Hardeman wrote:
> Colleagues -
>
> Article appeared on CNN.com today ...
>
> URL = http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/07/06/life.radiation.reut/index.html
>
> Jim Hardeman
> Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us
>
> ================
>
> Air crews look at radiation risk from flying
> Tuesday, July 6, 2004 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)
>
> DALLAS, Texas (Reuters) -- Airline crews already have their hands full
with concerns about stepped up security, congested airports and tipsy
travelers.
>
> One more item to add to that list may be radiation exposure.
>
> The union for pilots at American Airlines is trying to increase awareness
among air crews that they are being exposed to enough cosmic radiation to
fall into a U.S. government regulated category of radiation workers.
>
> The longer a person travels on a jet, the higher the jet travels and the
closer the jet flies to the north or south poles, increase exposure to
cosmic radiation, which comes from deep space and the sun. The Earth's
atmosphere largely shields us from cosmic radiation, but planes fly where
the atmosphere is thin.
>
> "It is clear that there are health risks associated with a career of
flying," Federal Aviation Administration researchers wrote in a 2002 report
on radiation exposure of air crews.
>
> Some of the routes that had the highest radiation exposure included
flights between Tokyo and New York, London and Los Angeles, as well as
between Athens and New York, it said.
>
> The exposure levels for air crews fall well within federal guidelines for
safe exposure for a healthy adult but the Allied Pilots Association said the
radiation exposure could present risks for the fetus of a pregnant woman. A
fetus has developing cells that are more likely to be damaged by exposure to
radiation than an adult.
>
> "For your average passenger, who flies occasionally, it is not an issue.
For air crew members who fly more than 75 hours or more a month, that
certainly adds up," said Capt. Joyce May, an American Airlines pilot who is
the deputy chairwoman of the APA's Aeromedical Committee.
>
> Higher altitudes, increased risk
> The problem has become more acute recently as jets are flying at higher
altitudes. The high-altitude flights help to cut down on jet fuel use, but
they also increase exposure to cosmic radiation.
>
> May said that total radiation exposure doubles with every 6,500 feet of
climate altitude.
>
> "For a jet cruising at 39,000 feet, the total radiation is about 64 times
higher than at sea level. If you drop down to 33,000 feet, it is only about
35 times greater than sea level," she said.
>
> May and the union are calling for more thorough training for air crews so
that they better understand their exposure risks to radiation. They are
asking for better tracking of the radiation exposure of crew members and
studies to see if the exposure presents any long-term health risks.
>
> A typical air crew member may experience about 200 millirems to 400
millirems more exposure to ionizing radiation than the general population
per year. The pilots and flight attendants working routes over the Pacific
or Atlantic Ocean will likely top 500 millirems of radiation exposure.
>
> Galactic cosmic radiation is high energy and penetrates all parts of an
aircraft equally, scientists said. It is also ionizing radiation, meaning it
can penetrate the human body and disrupt the healthy function of cells.
>
> Radiation workers
> The United States does not have any regulations for air crews pertaining
to radiation exposure, but several European countries classify air crews as
radiation workers and monitor their exposure levels.
>
> There are no definitive studies linking cosmic radiation exposure for air
crews with health risks, May said, but she did note one medical study showed
that pilots had three to four times the rate of malignant melanoma -- a type
of skin cancer -- than the general population.
>
> In order to give some perspective, workers at the Los Alamos Nuclear
Laboratory, the birthplace of the atomic bomb, have an annual safety limit
of 2,000 millirems of exposure, while the preeminent nuclear research lab
tries to limit radiation exposure for a pregnant woman to 500 millirems for
the term of her pregnancy.
>
> Other federal agencies have a safe, annual exposure level of 5,000
millirems.
>
> Tom Buhl, a top health physicist at Los Alamos said that while air crews
may meet the U.S. minimum standard of radiation workers, he does not think
they should be classified as such because they do not face the risk of a
large, unexpected dose of radiation. "On an airplane, the radiation field is
pretty well known. You have a pretty good understanding of what that
radiation is," Buhl said.
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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. You can view the Radsafe archives at
> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
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. You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
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. You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/