RE: European Communities and Radiation Exposure of Flight Crews

["Lantz, Michael W(Z59078)" <MLANTZ@apsc.com>]

I was going to drop this because it is minor to myself also; at least in
terms of personnel dose.  However, as quoted in an earlier note: The
unions of flight attendents and other flight personnel have already put
the subject on their agenda a few years ago.  

Some crews have an interest and their Union has for years.  This issue
certainly has a chance of being resolved through education, but hasn't
to-date.  I'm simply open to the use of dosimetry if it were to help in
the educational process.  

And as I stated before, since the public is now limited to 100 mrem, the
older generic flight crew studies seem dated.  

In any case, we should probably just agree to disagree on this.  


Thanks,

Mike Lantz
Sr. Health Physicist
Radiological Engineering Section
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
  (602) 393-5200
  e-mail: mlantz@apsc.com
  Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.

>----------
>From: 	Al Tschaeche[SMTP:antatnsu@pacbell.net]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, August 26, 1997 2:53 PM
>To: 	Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: 	Re: European Communities and Radiation Exposure of Flight Crews
>
>Lantz, Michael W(Z59078) wrote:
>> 
>> It seems to be a simple case of attempting to satisfy a Worker's need
>> to know about their individual doses during their occupational hours:
>> i.e., dosimetry.   Whether it is low dose or high dose, it is dose
>> that flight crews would like to be aware on an individual basis.  No
>> one has suggested any incredible cost issues such as ALARA for flight
>> crews; like flying at lower altitudes, or shorter schedules and/or
>> limits to flight time, or shielding cockpits!!
>> 
>> So why the attack on people who would simply be interested in
>> measuring doses cheaply, especially in the light of old studies that
>> showed that they were incurring positive exposure but "less than 500
>> mrem per year"?
>
>Usually when one gets data one does something with it.  I am not
>interested in the dose I get from a chest X-ray because, once the X-ray
>is over, there is nothing I can do with the dose information.  I
>received it.   So what?  True, I know that the small dose is meaningless
>to my health and safety.  So I don't need to know it.  
>
>The flight attendants and pilots should be educated so that they know
>the small doses they get are meaningless to their health and safety and,
>therefore, they shouldn't be interested in them.  I have never had a
>pilot or flight attendant, when we were discussing radiation doses to
>flight crews express any concern about the doses they get.
>
>I do not mean to attack anyone.  Only ideas that create needless fear
>and expenditure of resources.
>
>If each member of flight crews is willing to spend their own money to
>determine their own doses, who am I to say they shouln't, even if the
>expenditure is needless?  People spend a lot of money on needless
>things, myself included.
>
>Maybe someone should do a contemporary study so we can say the doses to
>flight crews are now less than 1 rem per year and be done with it. 
>Seems to me there was an article in JHPS a few years ago that did just
>that.  I can't believe that the doses have gone up since then.
>
>My main concern is that people are frightened of something they
>shouldn't be.  Low doses do not hurt people and may even be good for
>them.  Anyone who tries to scare people into believing that low doses
>are harmful is immoral, unethical and probably has an ulterior motive. 
>Bottom line.  Al Tschaeche
>