I know a few airline pilots and none of them have died of cancer yet,
but with all the news about airport scanners and the comments that the
radiation they put out is the same amount as a few minutes of
radiation while at cruise has me thinking.

Out here in Utah we often spend the day (4-5 hours) cruising between
14,000 and 18,000 ft. I'm not complaining at all but it has me
wondering what kind of radiation we are enjoying. If the aluminum of
an airliner isn't blocking the radiation then my guess is the canopy
of a glider isn't doing much either. I'm not talking about sunburns
but good old fashioned cancer causing energy. It would be interesting
to see if there have ever been studies done to see if airline pilots
or flight attendants get cancer at a higher rate than the general
public...Thanks in advance if anyone has anything to offer on this
subject.

Maybe there is a market for lead bucket hats for glider pilots... ;)

Take care and fly safe,
Bruno - B4

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/info/RadHaz.html

Bruno,

This site has a table identifying min and maximum exposure levels at
varying altitudes in 10,000 foot increments and for 35 and 70 degrees
latitude. It offers a sample calculation for increased cancer risk,
and they estimate about 1 additional death per 100,000 people for
aircrews which may have experienced a maximum solar event. It is my
interpretation that the additional exposure risk is quite low. They
also give a link to a site which tracks Radiation levels. If you're
really concerned, you might want to add that site to your pre-flight
list of resources, and then if a really good day corresponds with a
maximum solar event, try and stay low that day. :)

-Kevin

On Feb 9, 10:38*am, Bruno > wrote:
> I know a few airline pilots and none of them have died of cancer yet,
> but with all the news about airport scanners and the comments that the
> radiation they put out is the same amount as a few minutes of
> radiation while at cruise has me thinking.
>
> Out here in Utah we often spend the day (4-5 hours) cruising between
> 14,000 and 18,000 ft. *I'm not complaining at all but it has me
> wondering what kind of radiation we are enjoying. *If the aluminum of
> an airliner isn't blocking the radiation then my guess is the canopy
> of a glider isn't doing much either. *I'm not talking about sunburns
> but good old fashioned cancer causing energy. *It would be interesting
> to see if there have ever been studies done to see if airline pilots
> or flight attendants get cancer at a higher rate than the general
> public...Thanks in advance if anyone has anything to offer on this
> subject.
>
> Maybe there is a market for lead bucket hats for glider pilots... ;)
>
> Take care and fly safe,
> Bruno - B4

Bruno, I am an airline pilot also.There are a number of concerns
regarding radiation. Solar storms occur infrequently but that is your
biggest chance to get really fried while flying.Here is a good NASA
link to read about it.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/airline-radiation.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/sunearthsystem/main/spaceweather-forecaster.html

If you want to see everything about Space Weather Forcasting have a
look at this page.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/spaceweather/
I think you should include these briefings into your local weather
forcasts so you can make more of those great videos. D

Bruno wrote:
> I know a few airline pilots and none of them have died of cancer yet,
> but with all the news about airport scanners and the comments that the
> radiation they put out is the same amount as a few minutes of
> radiation while at cruise has me thinking.


My vertebrate physiology professor did radiation research for the (never
produced) Super Sonic Transport (SST) back in the day. The idea was
that, at the (much) higher altitudes, radiation might be a problem. When
he concluded the project, he said that he was way more concerned about
the increased levels of ozone than the radiation.

Tony

Thanks for the replies and info. Based on private messages I will be
coming out in the Spring with a full clothing line of lead-lined
soaring clothing - yes, including male athletic supporters for the
ridge runners like TT... ;)

Bruno - B4

;762280']Thanks for the replies and info. Based on private messages I will be
coming out in the Spring with a full clothing line of lead-lined
soaring clothing - yes, including male athletic supporters for the
ridge runners like TT... ;)

Bruno - B4

Bruno,

It might be interesting to consider the levels of allowable occupational exposure to radiation here in the U.S of A. I did Nuclear Medicine and Health Physics for some 20 years. We wore dosimeters and were allowed to be exposed to a maximum of 5000 millirem (mRem) per year not to exceed 3000 mRem in any one quarter. Your lifetime allowable exposure was calculated at 5 rem (5000mRem) x N (your age) -18. In short, you were allowed 5Rem of occupational exposure for each year after 18 years of age. It would be interesting to see the levels of cancer and cancer deaths among those who have been occupationally exposed. By now we should have some good statistics as at least one generation has retired from this industry.

The conversion to Sieverts would be as follows.

1uSv (1 micro Sievert) = .1 mRem (milli rem)
Therefore 10 uSv would = 1 mRem
50,000 uSv's would = 5000 mRem/ year, the allowable yearly exposure
level for those working in the industry.

Interestingly enough it has been measured that the exposure to an astronaut on the space station would be 1mSv (millsievert) per DAY, which is the equivalent to one year on the Earth's surface. They consider this an acceptable level of risk.

I believe Alan Shepherd died of Leukemia at 74, it would be interesting to research the cause of death among all astronauts/cosmonauts over the years.

Keep flying high, it beats the alternative of dying of boredom.

Walt

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:56:57 +0000, Walt Connelly wrote:

> I believe Alan Shepherd died of Leukemia at 74, it would be interesting
> to research the cause of death among all astronauts/cosmonauts over the
> years.
>
I vaguely remember hearing that SAC crews from the cold war era had
higher than normal cancer death rates. Is there any truth in this? If its
so, would that be related more to their scantily wrapped 'cargo' than to
their flying hours at altitude?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

The story I remember concerned picket aircraft before the DEW line
became operational. The radar operators were getting cancer much more
frequently than the other crew members. It was blamed on the radar,
though, not on cosmic radiation.

-John

On Feb 10, 3:20 pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:56:57 +0000, Walt Connelly wrote:
> I vaguely remember hearing that SAC crews from the cold war era had
> higher than normal cancer death rates. Is there any truth in this? If its
> so, would that be related more to their scantily wrapped 'cargo' than to
> their flying hours at altitude?

On Feb 9, 11:38*am, Bruno > wrote:
> I know a few airline pilots and none of them have died of cancer yet,
> but with all the news about airport scanners and the comments that the
> radiation they put out is the same amount as a few minutes of
> radiation while at cruise has me thinking.
>
> Out here in Utah we often spend the day (4-5 hours) cruising between
> 14,000 and 18,000 ft. *I'm not complaining at all but it has me
> wondering what kind of radiation we are enjoying. *If the aluminum of
> an airliner isn't blocking the radiation then my guess is the canopy
> of a glider isn't doing much either. *I'm not talking about sunburns
> but good old fashioned cancer causing energy. *It would be interesting
> to see if there have ever been studies done to see if airline pilots
> or flight attendants get cancer at a higher rate than the general
> public...Thanks in advance if anyone has anything to offer on this
> subject.
>
> Maybe there is a market for lead bucket hats for glider pilots... ;)
>
> Take care and fly safe,
> Bruno - B4


Or you could put leaded shields all around the cockpit, including
above your head. Talk about flying a "lead sled"!! Plus, with the
restricted vision of the pilot due to the shielding, I'd sure hate to
fly in a gaggle with that guy. With the added weight, that glider
would have a good high speed glide, but would need a long runway and
good brakes.

The "radiation" you appear to be concerned about is "ionizing"
radiation, which includes Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and X radiation, along
with neutrons. No problem with Alpha and Beta as they are not very
penetrating / don't go very far. You wouldn't encounter them unless
flying through a radioactive cloud produced by a nuclear explosion -
which used to happen a lot back in the mid-20th century. If you do
hear of some country setting off a nuclear test, the air can be
contaminated with radioactive particles for a few days. There is good
historical data supporting that. And, handily, with our satellites
today, the nuclear material can be followed as it swirls around the
earth in the atmosphere, and pilots can avoid those areas. Gamma, X,
and neutrons are very penetrating and could / do cause harm.
Regardless, there's not much a glider pilot can do about protecting
himself / herself from them. Its just another of the tradeoffs of
life.

On Feb 12, 7:52*am, Bob > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 11:38*am, Bruno > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I know a few airline pilots and none of them have died of cancer yet,
> > but with all the news about airport scanners and the comments that the
> > radiation they put out is the same amount as a few minutes of
> > radiation while at cruise has me thinking.
>
> > Out here in Utah we often spend the day (4-5 hours) cruising between
> > 14,000 and 18,000 ft. *I'm not complaining at all but it has me
> > wondering what kind of radiation we are enjoying. *If the aluminum of
> > an airliner isn't blocking the radiation then my guess is the canopy
> > of a glider isn't doing much either. *I'm not talking about sunburns
> > but good old fashioned cancer causing energy. *It would be interesting
> > to see if there have ever been studies done to see if airline pilots
> > or flight attendants get cancer at a higher rate than the general
> > public...Thanks in advance if anyone has anything to offer on this
> > subject.
>
> > Maybe there is a market for lead bucket hats for glider pilots... ;)
>
> > Take care and fly safe,
> > Bruno - B4
>
> Or you could put leaded shields all around the cockpit, including
> above your head. *Talk about flying a *"lead sled"!! *Plus, with the
> restricted vision of the pilot due to the shielding, I'd sure hate to
> fly in a gaggle with that guy. *With the added weight, that glider
> would have a good high speed glide, but would need a long runway and
> good brakes.
>
> The "radiation" you appear to be concerned about is "ionizing"
> radiation, which includes Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and X radiation, along
> with neutrons. *No problem with Alpha and Beta as they are not very
> penetrating / don't go very far. * You wouldn't encounter them unless
> flying through a radioactive cloud produced by a nuclear explosion -
> which used to happen a lot back in the mid-20th century. *If you do
> hear of some country setting off a nuclear test, the air can be
> contaminated with radioactive particles for a few days. *There is good
> historical data supporting that. *And, handily, with our satellites
> today, the nuclear material can be followed as it swirls around the
> earth in the atmosphere, and pilots can avoid those areas. *Gamma, X,
> and neutrons are very penetrating and could / do cause harm.
> Regardless, there's not much a glider pilot can do about protecting
> himself / herself from them. *Its just another of the tradeoffs of
> life.

Or fly around in the smoke and dusk of forest fires in the Great Basin
and get to "re-experience" radioactive fallout stirred back into the
atmosphere from decades of nuclear tests. Or fly around downstream
from a coal fired power station and experience the airborne
radioactivity generated from coal combustion.... Glider pilots don't
get to spend enough time at high altitudes for cosmic radiation risks
to be significant. I'd not worry about flying there but I'm happy I
don't live full time in either situation.

I suspect the largest "radiation" related cancer risk most of us are
exposed to is UV exposure and sun cancer risk while out and about
before our flight, rigging our, gliders etc. Hat, shirt and suncream
are cheap protection. Most modern canopies provide good UV protection.

Darryl