[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CNN article
Thanks William, found it. That's what I was looking for. I've only looked at the
abstract, but I'll bring up the whole paper. Looks like most of the world
classifies long-distance airline crews as occupational radiation workers, but
the U.S. just won't do it. At a potential for 5 mSv per year depending on
altitude and latitude (and flight time of course), I would think so.
-Russ
"Morris, William GS (RASO)" wrote:
> The NCRP had this as a topic at their annual meeting in 1998 which was
> published in Health Physics in November of 2000. These should provide most
> of the information you seek from the article.
>
> William Morris
> CHP
> NAVSEADET RASO
> C 757-887-4692
> Fax 757-887-3235 Commercial Only
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Johnson [mailto:rujohnso@nmsu.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:31 PM
> To: Fritz A. Seiler
> Cc: radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
> Subject: Re: CNN article
>
> Hi Fritz;
> I just read a response that galactic radiation is different from cosmic
> radiation, and that the FAA monitors airline crews in terms of "galactic
> radiation". OK then, so I've left them a query about what doses they are
> getting
> on their crews.
>
> Even more galactic than just regular galactic? Far out. I had in mind
> pulsars,
> x-ray binaries, neutron and radio stars, etc. I should be thinking along
> lines
> like white and black holes, and perhaps the leading edge of two colliding
> galaxies (very bright gamma bursters). But you know all that stuff from way
> out
> there has got to really be doppler-shifted by the time it gets here. The
> ionizing potential as well as proportion relative to local/solar radiation
> has
> got to be tiny. I still think the more local form of cosmic radiation from
> our
> own sun is more of a dose risk..Remember the last big solar flare a while
> back
> that knocked down automated bank tellers and messed up cell phone due to
> heavy
> satellite ionization? I don't think I'd want to be flying at 40K plus when
> that
> happened!
> -Russ
>
> "Fritz A. Seiler" wrote:
>
> > 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/
************************************************************************
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/