DA.C - View Single Post

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.