Radiation Exposure, Anyone?

tdh8192 · 03-29-2002, 06:54 PM

Concerns Mount Over Exposure
To Radiation on Airline Flights

By JESSE DRUCKER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Sandro Farina just got more nervous about stepping on an airplane -- and it's not because of security. The trading company executive recently learned from other fliers on the Web that his long-distance commute from Brazil to Hong Kong exposes him to something called cosmic radiation.

"I am really concerned," says Mr. Farina, who flies that route eight times a year.

Though not widely known, in-flight radiation is becoming a growing concern among researchers, crew members and the fliers who have to log thousands of miles a month. On any flight, radiation from stars penetrates the airplane, and experts say repeated exposure may be a health risk, similar to getting too many X-rays. The issue has not only led to changes at some foreign airlines, but prompted the FAA to set up a new radiation Web site http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-600/610/600radio.html And next year, the U.S. government plans to release findings on the long-term effects on crew members, covering everything from miscarriages to cancer.

But radiation's impact on frequent travelers has remained largely ignored. So with high-mileage fliers in mind, we conducted our own world-wide flight test, taking two high-tech radiation monitors along on trips as long as 15 hours and as brief as 34 minutes. In all, we logged 38,000 miles, crisscrossing the globe at various latitudes, longitudes and altitudes to get different readings.

The result: We found it takes a great deal of flying before exposure becomes much of a concern. Still, if you go to Asia a lot, take note of the Newark-Hong Kong route we took. It gave us our highest dose -- about three chest X-rays' worth. A once-a-month commute between Dallas and Chicago for a year works out to about eight chest X-rays. But East Coast shuttlers take heart: Flying a New York-Washington roundtrip every day for a week still wouldn't reach the level of one of those X-rays.

We also discovered that some shorter routes can actually expose fliers to more radiation than longer ones, and that doses rise quickly with altitude. (The higher you go, the less the atmosphere protects you.) Another issue: solar flares. During these rare occurrences, radiation levels can jump 20 to 100 times for as long as several hours.

To be sure, while our tests can be a guide for curious fliers, no one knows with certainty whether radiation is harmful at these levels. The federal government says the general public shouldn't be exposed to more than roughly 50 chest X-rays' worth a year from places like power plants and radiology offices (a level it estimates could cause cancer deaths in four out of 100,000 people). But workers in those industries can legally receive far more exposure. Based on our tests, you'd have to fly about 100,000 miles a year -- something about 72,000 Americans do -- to reach that 50 X-ray mark.

For decades, scientists have wondered about radiation's effects on aviators, but the issue has been gaining momentum due in part to growing concern from airline workers. Two years ago, regulators in Europe began requiring airlines there to track crewmembers' exposure levels and educate them about the possible risks. In the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration has recommended that airlines educate crews about radiation (although only a few, including American and United, have produced brochures for them). And next year, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health plans to present new findings on the subject.

'They're Radiation Workers'

Though they acknowledge that cosmic radiation occurs, airlines and the FAA say they don't believe it's anything to worry about. The reason? The vast majority of fliers never come close to significant exposure. "There's no evidence to show that taking a few flights a year makes any difference," says FAA radiobiology researcher Wallace Friedberg. (Only one carrier, United, disputed our findings, saying the readings were generally 10% to 15% high.)

Still, consumer advocates believe fliers need more information, particularly super road-warriors who are stuck in planes many times a week. "They're radiation workers," says Robert Barish, author of "The Invisible Passenger: Radiation Risks for People Who Fly" and a medical physicist. "They're not in the airplane for pleasure."

In fact, many people are checking into the issue themselves: The FAA says as many as 1,500 people a month are using its Web site that calculates exposures on various routes. Some fliers are even tracking solar flares. "I was torn," says Marjorie McClelland, who postponed a flight to Kansas City, Mo., due to one. "My dad thought I was being a sissy."

For our test, our machines took readings in microsieverts, a common unit of measuring radiation. Experts say 1,000 microsieverts is equal to about 50 chest X-rays. Below, our journey:

New York-London

Miles: 3,500

Exposure: 42.9 microsieverts

At 6:30 in the morning, we passed the security checkpoint at New York's John F. Kennedy airport. In our carry-on: One Thermo Eberline 41H-B, to measure gamma rays, plus a Rembrandt neutron survey monitor, from Apfel Enterprises, to measure neutrons. As our gamma meter rolled through the X-ray scanner, its readings jumped.

By the time we hit our cruising altitude of 37,000 feet, where we'd remain for more than four hours, the gamma level had more than doubled what we measured at the airport screening machine -- in other words, we were getting more gamma radiation per minute in the air than our luggage got in the X-ray machine back at Kennedy. When we totaled it all up, we'd received the equivalent of two chest X-rays during this flight. "It's a little bit frightening," said Adam Brownstein, a Tokyo-based executive who flies about 100,000 miles a year.

Paris-Buenos Aires

Miles: 6,910

Exposure: 36.2 microsieverts

Heading through the security checkpoint at Paris's Charles de Gaulle International, we were asked to explain the two electrical contraptions in our bag. "Oh, radiation," the guard nodded, waving us on. (While security personnel at New York's JFK examined our meters closely, we passed through security at most airports without question.)

On matters of radiation, this flight actually confirmed something scientists had told us: Airtime or distance isn't necessarily the biggest factor in determining exposure. Flights running closer to the equator, for instance, have extremely low doses. (The Earth's magnetic field pulls radiation toward the poles, making the extreme points of the globe the most radiation-intense.) So although this marathon flight was twice as long as our New York-London trip -- clocking in at 13 hours -- it actually exposed us to less radiation than the New York-London route, which had taken us much closer to the North Pole.

Dallas/Fort Worth-Chicago

Miles: 725

Exposure: 6.6 microsieverts

We wanted to know how much exposure travelers face on a run-of-the-mill domestic flight. The answer: Not much, equal to about one-third of a chest X-ray. But on this and other flights, we also ran into a number of crew members who knew as little about radiation as their passengers.

That's not how it's supposed to work. Even though the airline has produced brochures, several American flight attendants we met say they had never seen them. Emily Carter, health coordinator for the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, says flight attendants have to know to ask for them. American says it has posted the information on the Web.

Newark-Hong Kong

Miles: 8,092

Exposure: 63.4 microsieverts

This is the trip Continental flight attendant Jacqueline Jacquet-Williams tries to avoid. We didn't learn this, though, until we were aboard with the doors locked. "I don't know enough, but I worry," she says. "I try to get rid of at least one of these flights a month because of radiation."

Just about a year old, this flight was one of a handful that U.S. airlines started steering over the North Pole, taking advantage of newly opened airspace over Russia. But that put us almost directly in the path of the strongest field of radiation above the earth. We fully expected our biggest dose on this 15½-hour polar flight.

And that's just what happened: About eight hours into our flight, as our Boeing 777 jet nosed away from the Arctic Circle and passed over Siberia, our gamma reading reached its peak, about 3.1 microsieverts per hour. By the time we had touched down in Hong Kong, we had measured a dose of radiation equivalent to three chest X-rays. (According to Continental: "The scientific evidence that we've seen demonstrates that any increased health risk caused by cosmic radiation is statistically negligible.")

Boston-New York City

Miles: 189

Exposure: Negligible

This commuter flight was our shortest at 34 minutes, and with a low cruising altitude of 16,000 feet, it returned one of our lowest readings. But on one level, we were lucky: Had we flown this route five days later, we'd have been in the air during a solar flare that erupted for several hours and boosted radiation to 20 times or more the usual levels.

How often do the flares occur? The ones that impact passengers may come years apart, but there were several last year, the peak of the 11-year "solar cycle" that's just ending. Critics including Dr. Barish say the FAA should require airlines to inform crewmembers and passengers, especially pregnant women, when significant flares occur; the FAA says it's exploring a system to alert airlines.

But Carol Kaehler isn't waiting. When her son was planning a trip to Australia, Ms. Kaehler said she counseled him against taking his baby daughter along because solar flares were peaking then. "I think worries about radiation are stretched," says the Florida artist and writer. "But more caution should be taken."

DeltaFlot · 03-29-2002, 08:48 PM

PHHBT! Radiation schmadiation, I have been a Nuke reactor operator onboard two submarines, and pretty much do the same job now, now that I am working for Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, and all I have to say is. Radiation isn't dangerous till you get over the 1 rem mark, or at least thats what the navy tells me

Sentinel Chicken · 03-29-2002, 11:17 PM

Well that's all fine and dandy, but I get a kick out of how some of these so-called safety groups use scare tactics to forward their agendas. This article lacks any context in which to evaluate let alone understand the risks of radiation exposure in flying compared to everyday activities.

First of all there are three ways to measure radiation- activity (how much something radiates energy based on molecular decay), radiation exposure (how much the air is ionized by a given radiation), absorbed dose (how much radiation is absorbed by a given mass of an object) and dose equivalent (measure of the biological effect of radiation).

It's that last measurement that really matters medically, the dose equivalent, which is measured in rems (Roentgen equivalent man) or sieverts (SI units, more common now, abbreviated as Sv).

The current standards in radiology if I'm not mistaken is no more than 5 rems/yr, which equals 0.05 Sv/yr (and that comes from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). That comes out to 50000 microSv/yr to use the same units as this article does. The average medical x-ray ranges between 50-200 microSv. Most chest x-rays are only 80 microSv, so their assertion that 50 chest x-rays is the limit seems suspect based on what I've seen. I ain't so good at math, but that adds up to 625 chest x-rays per year.

The article talks about getting 63 microSv of exposure on the EWR-HKG flight over the North Pole. Now take a look at dose equivalents in everyday life for comparison:

*Chest x-ray: 80 microSv
*Extremity x-ray: 10 microSv
*Dental x-ray: 100 microSv
*Lumbar spine x-ray: 1300 microSv
*CT scan: 11000 microSv
*Drinking water: 50 microSv/yr
*Cosmic radiation at sea level: 260 microSv/yr
*Terrestrial background radiation (this is usually from radon and other rocks in the ground): 150-400 microSv/yr
*Your own body produces low levels of radiation as well that add up to about 390 microSv/yr
*Using natural gas at home: 90 microSv/yr
*Television sets: <5 microSv/hr
*Use of consumer products: 100 microSv/yr

Bottom line, you're going to get just as much, if not more radiation exposure just in daily life as you would flying on a long-haul commercial flight.

ROCK CHALK JAYHAWK!

Ozz · 03-29-2002, 11:40 PM

I think the biggest threat is the amount of time we are bombarded by cathode ray guns while on this inane forum.

DeltaFlot · 03-29-2002, 11:56 PM

Would someone please explain to me what a sievert is, and how it compares to rem. All I ever heard in the 8.5 years in the navy is Rem, never even once heard of sieverts.

Sentinel Chicken · 03-30-2002, 12:23 AM

Russ, sieverts is the SI unit of measurement that replaces the rem, kinda like centimeters is used instead of inches in technical fields. 100 rems = 1 Sv.

ROCK CHALK JAYHAWK!

tdh8192 · 03-30-2002, 02:05 AM

Thanks, SC, you input here is most welcome. It puts the exposure levels in perspective within the real world.

This article was in the weekend section of today's Journal. And as such, it would not be done to the scientific standards that Scientific American would, or to the business standards the Journal would in a business article. The reporters I know at the WSJ fully understand the different standards different sections of the paper operate under.

Yes, a more meaningful chart comparing radiation exposures in-flight versus everyday occurances would have been interesting. But you also must bear in mind the average reader of the Journal is a cut above your average USA Today reader. They are much more likely to read into the topic further from other sources.

BTW, I have a solution to this situation: lead shielding on the top half of the fuselage. That should cut the radiation exposure levels down to nil, right? And I'm sure the airlines won't mind strapping on a several thousand pounds of extra, non-revenue producing weight to each aircraft, would they?

Ever look at the cross-section of a 777? There's lots of space above the passenger compartment for this new shielding. There you go: problem solved!

DavidMich · 03-30-2002, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tdh8192
Thanks, SC, you input here is most welcome. It puts the exposure levels in perspective within the real world.

This article was in the weekend section of today's Journal. And as such, it would not be done to the scientific standards that Scientific American would, or to the business standards the Journal would in a business article. The reporters I know at the WSJ fully understand the different standards different sections of the paper operate under.

Yes, a more meaningful chart comparing radiation exposures in-flight versus everyday occurances would have been interesting. But you also must bear in mind the average reader of the Journal is a cut above your average USA Today reader. They are much more likely to read into the topic further from other sources.

BTW, I have a solution to this situation: lead shielding on the top half of the fuselage. That should cut the radiation exposure levels down to nil, right? And I'm sure the airlines won't mind strapping on a several thousand pounds of extra, non-revenue producing weight to each aircraft, would they? Ever look at the cross-section of a 777? There's lots of space above the passenger compartment for this new shielding. There you go: problem solved!

Not to mention the cost of strengthening the airframe, and undercarriage, plus beefing up the landing gear to deal with the added 1-3 tons of shielding material.

Stanman · 03-30-2002, 07:01 AM

Having just flown the polar route twice, EVA airways now forces all windows to have their shades closed even in the middle of the night. I suppose that might offer limited enhanced protection for the time being.

Regarding radiation. Unfortunately the long term effects of such radiation are difficult to ascertain. I think only time will tell with a study on the incidence and prevalence of radiation induced illnesses on pilots and flight attendants who have flown these routes whether there really is cause for concern.

Usually however, the levels set for such exposure to radiation have a very large safety factor built in. These levels set not by guesstimates but fortunately or unfortunately by the successes and failures of studying radiation exposure in the past and present. SC correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Madame Curie who "discovered" the phenomenon of x-rays eventually died of leukemia. There was also the time people used to use a portable x-ray machine to try on their shoes and see if the shoes fit. These people too had an increased incidence of leukemia.

Although these articles might be considered alarmist and sensationalizing in nature, on a positive note, at least the idea is being considered. If you don't consider the possibility of something and analyze its merits and weaknesses, you'll never be prepared to deal with it.

03-29-2002, 06:54 PM	#1
tdh8192 Mmmm... pep'roni pizza Join Date: Apr 2000 Posts: 3,241	Radiation Exposure, Anyone? Concerns Mount Over Exposure To Radiation on Airline Flights By JESSE DRUCKER Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Sandro Farina just got more nervous about stepping on an airplane -- and it's not because of security. The trading company executive recently learned from other fliers on the Web that his long-distance commute from Brazil to Hong Kong exposes him to something called cosmic radiation. "I am really concerned," says Mr. Farina, who flies that route eight times a year. Though not widely known, in-flight radiation is becoming a growing concern among researchers, crew members and the fliers who have to log thousands of miles a month. On any flight, radiation from stars penetrates the airplane, and experts say repeated exposure may be a health risk, similar to getting too many X-rays. The issue has not only led to changes at some foreign airlines, but prompted the FAA to set up a new radiation Web site http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-600/610/600radio.html And next year, the U.S. government plans to release findings on the long-term effects on crew members, covering everything from miscarriages to cancer. But radiation's impact on frequent travelers has remained largely ignored. So with high-mileage fliers in mind, we conducted our own world-wide flight test, taking two high-tech radiation monitors along on trips as long as 15 hours and as brief as 34 minutes. In all, we logged 38,000 miles, crisscrossing the globe at various latitudes, longitudes and altitudes to get different readings. The result: We found it takes a great deal of flying before exposure becomes much of a concern. Still, if you go to Asia a lot, take note of the Newark-Hong Kong route we took. It gave us our highest dose -- about three chest X-rays' worth. A once-a-month commute between Dallas and Chicago for a year works out to about eight chest X-rays. But East Coast shuttlers take heart: Flying a New York-Washington roundtrip every day for a week still wouldn't reach the level of one of those X-rays. We also discovered that some shorter routes can actually expose fliers to more radiation than longer ones, and that doses rise quickly with altitude. (The higher you go, the less the atmosphere protects you.) Another issue: solar flares. During these rare occurrences, radiation levels can jump 20 to 100 times for as long as several hours. To be sure, while our tests can be a guide for curious fliers, no one knows with certainty whether radiation is harmful at these levels. The federal government says the general public shouldn't be exposed to more than roughly 50 chest X-rays' worth a year from places like power plants and radiology offices (a level it estimates could cause cancer deaths in four out of 100,000 people). But workers in those industries can legally receive far more exposure. Based on our tests, you'd have to fly about 100,000 miles a year -- something about 72,000 Americans do -- to reach that 50 X-ray mark. For decades, scientists have wondered about radiation's effects on aviators, but the issue has been gaining momentum due in part to growing concern from airline workers. Two years ago, regulators in Europe began requiring airlines there to track crewmembers' exposure levels and educate them about the possible risks. In the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration has recommended that airlines educate crews about radiation (although only a few, including American and United, have produced brochures for them). And next year, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health plans to present new findings on the subject. 'They're Radiation Workers' Though they acknowledge that cosmic radiation occurs, airlines and the FAA say they don't believe it's anything to worry about. The reason? The vast majority of fliers never come close to significant exposure. "There's no evidence to show that taking a few flights a year makes any difference," says FAA radiobiology researcher Wallace Friedberg. (Only one carrier, United, disputed our findings, saying the readings were generally 10% to 15% high.) Still, consumer advocates believe fliers need more information, particularly super road-warriors who are stuck in planes many times a week. "They're radiation workers," says Robert Barish, author of "The Invisible Passenger: Radiation Risks for People Who Fly" and a medical physicist. "They're not in the airplane for pleasure." In fact, many people are checking into the issue themselves: The FAA says as many as 1,500 people a month are using its Web site that calculates exposures on various routes. Some fliers are even tracking solar flares. "I was torn," says Marjorie McClelland, who postponed a flight to Kansas City, Mo., due to one. "My dad thought I was being a sissy." For our test, our machines took readings in microsieverts, a common unit of measuring radiation. Experts say 1,000 microsieverts is equal to about 50 chest X-rays. Below, our journey: New York-London Miles: 3,500 Exposure: 42.9 microsieverts At 6:30 in the morning, we passed the security checkpoint at New York's John F. Kennedy airport. In our carry-on: One Thermo Eberline 41H-B, to measure gamma rays, plus a Rembrandt neutron survey monitor, from Apfel Enterprises, to measure neutrons. As our gamma meter rolled through the X-ray scanner, its readings jumped. By the time we hit our cruising altitude of 37,000 feet, where we'd remain for more than four hours, the gamma level had more than doubled what we measured at the airport screening machine -- in other words, we were getting more gamma radiation per minute in the air than our luggage got in the X-ray machine back at Kennedy. When we totaled it all up, we'd received the equivalent of two chest X-rays during this flight. "It's a little bit frightening," said Adam Brownstein, a Tokyo-based executive who flies about 100,000 miles a year. Paris-Buenos Aires Miles: 6,910 Exposure: 36.2 microsieverts Heading through the security checkpoint at Paris's Charles de Gaulle International, we were asked to explain the two electrical contraptions in our bag. "Oh, radiation," the guard nodded, waving us on. (While security personnel at New York's JFK examined our meters closely, we passed through security at most airports without question.) On matters of radiation, this flight actually confirmed something scientists had told us: Airtime or distance isn't necessarily the biggest factor in determining exposure. Flights running closer to the equator, for instance, have extremely low doses. (The Earth's magnetic field pulls radiation toward the poles, making the extreme points of the globe the most radiation-intense.) So although this marathon flight was twice as long as our New York-London trip -- clocking in at 13 hours -- it actually exposed us to less radiation than the New York-London route, which had taken us much closer to the North Pole. Dallas/Fort Worth-Chicago Miles: 725 Exposure: 6.6 microsieverts We wanted to know how much exposure travelers face on a run-of-the-mill domestic flight. The answer: Not much, equal to about one-third of a chest X-ray. But on this and other flights, we also ran into a number of crew members who knew as little about radiation as their passengers. That's not how it's supposed to work. Even though the airline has produced brochures, several American flight attendants we met say they had never seen them. Emily Carter, health coordinator for the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, says flight attendants have to know to ask for them. American says it has posted the information on the Web. Newark-Hong Kong Miles: 8,092 Exposure: 63.4 microsieverts This is the trip Continental flight attendant Jacqueline Jacquet-Williams tries to avoid. We didn't learn this, though, until we were aboard with the doors locked. "I don't know enough, but I worry," she says. "I try to get rid of at least one of these flights a month because of radiation." Just about a year old, this flight was one of a handful that U.S. airlines started steering over the North Pole, taking advantage of newly opened airspace over Russia. But that put us almost directly in the path of the strongest field of radiation above the earth. We fully expected our biggest dose on this 15½-hour polar flight. And that's just what happened: About eight hours into our flight, as our Boeing 777 jet nosed away from the Arctic Circle and passed over Siberia, our gamma reading reached its peak, about 3.1 microsieverts per hour. By the time we had touched down in Hong Kong, we had measured a dose of radiation equivalent to three chest X-rays. (According to Continental: "The scientific evidence that we've seen demonstrates that any increased health risk caused by cosmic radiation is statistically negligible.") Boston-New York City Miles: 189 Exposure: Negligible This commuter flight was our shortest at 34 minutes, and with a low cruising altitude of 16,000 feet, it returned one of our lowest readings. But on one level, we were lucky: Had we flown this route five days later, we'd have been in the air during a solar flare that erupted for several hours and boosted radiation to 20 times or more the usual levels. How often do the flares occur? The ones that impact passengers may come years apart, but there were several last year, the peak of the 11-year "solar cycle" that's just ending. Critics including Dr. Barish say the FAA should require airlines to inform crewmembers and passengers, especially pregnant women, when significant flares occur; the FAA says it's exploring a system to alert airlines. But Carol Kaehler isn't waiting. When her son was planning a trip to Australia, Ms. Kaehler said she counseled him against taking his baby daughter along because solar flares were peaking then. "I think worries about radiation are stretched," says the Florida artist and writer. "But more caution should be taken." __________________ - Tom

03-29-2002, 08:48 PM	#2
DeltaFlot The Patriot Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Laurel, MD Age: 36 Posts: 3,228	PHHBT! Radiation schmadiation, I have been a Nuke reactor operator onboard two submarines, and pretty much do the same job now, now that I am working for Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, and all I have to say is. Radiation isn't dangerous till you get over the 1 rem mark, or at least thats what the navy tells me __________________ Febuary 15, 1898 December 7, 1941 June 8, 1967 September 11, 2001 Never Forget, Never Forgive If you kick the Tiger in the arse, you better be able to deal with the Tiger's teeth. Last edited by DeltaFlot; 03-29-2002 at 11:54 PM.

03-29-2002, 11:17 PM	#3
Sentinel Chicken Go-Getters Go Ozark Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: DFW/THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS Posts: 4,167	Well that's all fine and dandy, but I get a kick out of how some of these so-called safety groups use scare tactics to forward their agendas. This article lacks any context in which to evaluate let alone understand the risks of radiation exposure in flying compared to everyday activities. First of all there are three ways to measure radiation- activity (how much something radiates energy based on molecular decay), radiation exposure (how much the air is ionized by a given radiation), absorbed dose (how much radiation is absorbed by a given mass of an object) and dose equivalent (measure of the biological effect of radiation). It's that last measurement that really matters medically, the dose equivalent, which is measured in rems (Roentgen equivalent man) or sieverts (SI units, more common now, abbreviated as Sv). The current standards in radiology if I'm not mistaken is no more than 5 rems/yr, which equals 0.05 Sv/yr (and that comes from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). That comes out to 50000 microSv/yr to use the same units as this article does. The average medical x-ray ranges between 50-200 microSv. Most chest x-rays are only 80 microSv, so their assertion that 50 chest x-rays is the limit seems suspect based on what I've seen. I ain't so good at math, but that adds up to 625 chest x-rays per year. The article talks about getting 63 microSv of exposure on the EWR-HKG flight over the North Pole. Now take a look at dose equivalents in everyday life for comparison: Chest x-ray: 80 microSv Extremity x-ray: 10 microSv Dental x-ray: 100 microSv Lumbar spine x-ray: 1300 microSv CT scan: 11000 microSv Drinking water: 50 microSv/yr Cosmic radiation at sea level: 260 microSv/yr Terrestrial background radiation (this is usually from radon and other rocks in the ground): 150-400 microSv/yr Your own body* produces low levels of radiation as well that add up to about 390 microSv/yr Using natural gas at home: 90 microSv/yr Television sets: <5 microSv/hr Use of consumer products: 100 microSv/yr Bottom line, you're going to get just as much, if not more radiation exposure just in daily life as you would flying on a long-haul commercial flight. ROCK CHALK JAYHAWK!* __________________ *Piss on noise abatement!* Last edited by Sentinel Chicken; 03-30-2002 at 12:29 AM.

03-29-2002, 11:40 PM	#4
Ozz Insane Collector Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada (CYVR) Age: 51 Posts: 2,763	I think the biggest threat is the amount of time we are bombarded by cathode ray guns while on this inane forum. __________________ Ozz ORANGE IS BEAUTIFUL *GO WESTJET!!!* We need more CPAir/CDN and don't forget PWA and BA Landor!

03-29-2002, 11:56 PM	#5
DeltaFlot The Patriot Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Laurel, MD Age: 36 Posts: 3,228	Would someone please explain to me what a sievert is, and how it compares to rem. All I ever heard in the 8.5 years in the navy is Rem, never even once heard of sieverts. __________________ Febuary 15, 1898 December 7, 1941 June 8, 1967 September 11, 2001 Never Forget, Never Forgive If you kick the Tiger in the arse, you better be able to deal with the Tiger's teeth.

03-30-2002, 12:23 AM	#6
Sentinel Chicken Go-Getters Go Ozark Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: DFW/THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS Posts: 4,167	Russ, sieverts is the SI unit of measurement that replaces the rem, kinda like centimeters is used instead of inches in technical fields. 100 rems = 1 Sv. ROCK CHALK JAYHAWK! __________________ *Piss on noise abatement!*

03-30-2002, 02:05 AM	#7
tdh8192 Mmmm... pep'roni pizza Join Date: Apr 2000 Posts: 3,241	Thanks, SC, you input here is most welcome. It puts the exposure levels in perspective within the real world. This article was in the weekend section of today's Journal. And as such, it would not be done to the scientific standards that Scientific American would, or to the business standards the Journal would in a business article. The reporters I know at the WSJ fully understand the different standards different sections of the paper operate under. Yes, a more meaningful chart comparing radiation exposures in-flight versus everyday occurances would have been interesting. But you also must bear in mind the average reader of the Journal is a cut above your average USA Today reader. They are much more likely to read into the topic further from other sources. BTW, I have a solution to this situation: lead shielding on the top half of the fuselage. That should cut the radiation exposure levels down to nil, right? And I'm sure the airlines won't mind strapping on a several thousand pounds of extra, non-revenue producing weight to each aircraft, would they? Ever look at the cross-section of a 777? There's lots of space above the passenger compartment for this new shielding. There you go: problem solved! __________________ - Tom

03-30-2002, 07:01 AM	#9
Stanman Senior Collector Join Date: Oct 1999 Location: Waxahachie, Texas, USA Posts: 426	Having just flown the polar route twice, EVA airways now forces all windows to have their shades closed even in the middle of the night. I suppose that might offer limited enhanced protection for the time being. Regarding radiation. Unfortunately the long term effects of such radiation are difficult to ascertain. I think only time will tell with a study on the incidence and prevalence of radiation induced illnesses on pilots and flight attendants who have flown these routes whether there really is cause for concern. Usually however, the levels set for such exposure to radiation have a very large safety factor built in. These levels set not by guesstimates but fortunately or unfortunately by the successes and failures of studying radiation exposure in the past and present. SC correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Madame Curie who "discovered" the phenomenon of x-rays eventually died of leukemia. There was also the time people used to use a portable x-ray machine to try on their shoes and see if the shoes fit. These people too had an increased incidence of leukemia. Although these articles might be considered alarmist and sensationalizing in nature, on a positive note, at least the idea is being considered. If you don't consider the possibility of something and analyze its merits and weaknesses, you'll never be prepared to deal with it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: