Re: Occupational Risks to Air Crews

[John Goldsmith <gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>]

	As with a number of other radsafe "problems" or threads
there is relevant experience with other agents than  radiation.
In this case the agent is ozone.  In the late 1970s when I was with the
California Department of Health in Berkeley we were approached by 
unions representing cabin aircraft attendants who reported that with some 
new aircraft and routes, nosebleeds, ey irritation and fatigue were
pronounced.  We recognized that the symptoms resembled those associated
with ozone and the aircraft were flying a greater part of their routes
at times and altitudes for which ozone was likely to be increased.
Boeing, the manufacturer refused to supply any information on 
measured ozone levels. OHSA said that FAA had jurisdiction; FAA said
it was well informed about ozone toxicity. While the Health Deparment had
no responsibility, we did advise the union to conduct a survey of 
symptoms in relationship to specific flights, which it did. (Publication 
in Vol 1 No 1 of American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Dwayne Reed 
first author). The interpretation we were able to make was that the
environmental exposures to ozone in these flights was such as to lead to a 
health alert for persons with respiratory disease if it had occurred in Los 
Angeles. 
	Boeing wasted no time in redesigning the air inake for these aircraft
to correct the problem, and FAA documented the expected elevations in ozone.
After all, who wants to fly on a trip, airline, or aircraft, which exposes
cabin attendants to preventable risks ?  If the same conditions prevail now,
the occupational health risks are the responsibility of FAA.
  gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il   John Goldsmith, Ben Gurion University, BeerSheva

On Sun, 12 May 1996, Charleen Raddatz 
wrote:

> There is almost a bit of logic in Regis' arguments. 
> Unfortunately, the sarcasm gets in the way.
> 
> As to who, if anyone, would regulate doses to air crews,
> there is really only one possibility.  As Regis points out,
> NRC only regulated licensed material users.  This is certainly
> not within NRC jurisdictions.  To suggest that it should be
> DOE is a bit naive as they are not regulators.  EPA regulates
> hazards in the environment.  Since an airplane takes its own
> environment with it, this would not be in EPA jurisdiction. 
> OSHA regulates workplace hazards.  IF a regulatory body
> were to choose to monitor and limit exposure to air crews, it
> would likely be OSHA.  Since they enter into MOUs for
> enforcement in areas typically under the jurisdiction of other
> agencies (NRC for nuclear plants, NASA for space travel,
> etc.) they would probably defer to FAA for enforcement.
> 
> Clearly this is a workplace hazard.  Most cabin crew
> members, to whom I have spoken in the course of air travel,
> are unaware of the dose.  Those that do know there is
> radiation exposure associated with their jobs are grossly
> misinformed as to the potential doses or risks.  That would
> argue that at least some training and monitoring for litigation
> protection would be prudent.  (The majority of damage suits
> against nuclear power plants are brought by the people with
> such small doses that they are not trained and often not
> monitored.)
> 
> As far as regulating doses to passengers, an even sloppy
> risk assessment would reveal that the risks of alternate
> modes of travel far outweigh even the most exagerated
> radiation risks.
> 
> These are my opinions only.......and on a Sunday at that.
> 
> Char Raddatz
> ctr@nrc.gov
>