[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FAA Radiation Workers
- To: SMTP PMDFADDR <MAILGATE@ADDRMELON.CA.BOEING.COM>
- Subject: Re: FAA Radiation Workers
- From: Bruce Pickett <SHEA136@KGV2.bems.boeing.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 15:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
- Alternate-Recipient: prohibited
- Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
- Hop-Count: 0
- Importance: normal
- Mr-Received: by mta MELON; Relayed; Thu, 09 May 1996 15:44:06 -0700
- Priority: normal
- Resent-Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 21:52:45 -0700
- Resent-From: SHEA136@KGV2.bems.boeing.com
- Resent-Message-Id: <9605100451.AA15506@atc.boeing.com>
- Resent-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
- Ua-Content-Id: Re: FAA Radiation Workers
- X400-Mts-Identifier: [;MRP$9MAY199615352573]
Sandy Perle wrote:
>How can they be classified as radiation workers if they are only
>exposed to natural background? If they are exposed around sources
>being shipped, maybe..
>I'll wait for a more knowledgeable reply to see if natural background
>is such that a worker is considered as a rad worker...
Aircraft flight crews are exposed to "technologically enhanced radiation" (If
they weren't working in an aluminum can flying at 40,000 ft (12,000 m), they
wouldn't be exposed, right?). For crews on certain long distance routes,
especially transpolar, their annual doses are definitely greater than those
allowed for members of the public, even exceeding the doses that would require
dosimetry for "radiation workers". For flight crews of future aircraft
operating at over 60,000 ft (18,000 m) doses may be even greater.
Bruce Pickett
The Boeing Company, Seattle, WA
shea136@kgv2.bems.boeing.com
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|"Changes in latitude, changes in attitude, nothing remains |
| quite the same" - Jimmy Buffett |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+