zuka
freight doggy dog
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2004
- Posts
- 66
The Problems of Cosmic Aviation
To put cosmic radiation into perspective, the average person in the UK receives 2.6 millisieverts (mSv) of ionising radiation a year, nuclear workers receive 3.6 mSv and air crew receive 4.6 mSv, almost quarter as much again as a frequent flier.
The upper annual limit for a nuclear power plant worker in Europe, however, is 20 mSv, so even though cabin crew head the occupational ionizing radiation exposure league, they are well within European limits.
To equate these doses into actual fly-time, 1mSv is the result of 200 hrs on a subsonic aircraft. The same duration on Concorde would provide twice the exposure, as it flies at a far higher altitude, reducing the atmospheric protection further.
Tests for Cosmic Radiation
A British Airway study of 411 pilot deaths did reveal that incidence of malignant melamona, colon and brain cancers were above average.
Women, seem to be at greatest risk. An investigation by Finnair between 1940 and 1992 showed that air hostesses were at twice the risk of breast cancer compared to the average flier.
The Future - dealing with Cosmic Radiation
DVT has proven to be a thorn in the aviation's side over the last decade, with a raising awareness of the effects of cosmic radiation, the aviation industry as a whole needs to confront the problem.
Despite the apparent risks to the cabin crew, for the average traveller, cosmic radiation is not a real health concern. Like other forms of radiation, cosmic radiation can be impeded through the implementation of thick walls of steel and concrete. Of course, this solution is unfortunately impractical for an aircraft.
A more realistic solution currently being touted about the aviation industry is to incorporate lower flight paths which could significantly reduce the risk of cosmic radiation. The logistics of this on a large scale across the industry are, however, complex.
The natural solution for pilots and cabin crew is to spend less time in the air, again, though as this is an intrinsic component of the profession any real solutions seem to be few and far between.
Based on current tests, the average flier is at little risk to cosmic radiation, though pregnant mothers are recommended to only fly if absolutely necessary, as the undeveloped foetus is far more vulnerable to radiation than a healthy adult.
For now, the public's concern is primarily concerned with the risks of DVT, as awareness of this continues to grow so it may trigger a broader debate on all areas of flight health including cosmic radiation, which could help to kick start further research into the problem.
http://www.flighthealth.org/cosmic-radiation-the-problem.htm
To put cosmic radiation into perspective, the average person in the UK receives 2.6 millisieverts (mSv) of ionising radiation a year, nuclear workers receive 3.6 mSv and air crew receive 4.6 mSv, almost quarter as much again as a frequent flier.
The upper annual limit for a nuclear power plant worker in Europe, however, is 20 mSv, so even though cabin crew head the occupational ionizing radiation exposure league, they are well within European limits.
To equate these doses into actual fly-time, 1mSv is the result of 200 hrs on a subsonic aircraft. The same duration on Concorde would provide twice the exposure, as it flies at a far higher altitude, reducing the atmospheric protection further.
Tests for Cosmic Radiation
A British Airway study of 411 pilot deaths did reveal that incidence of malignant melamona, colon and brain cancers were above average.
Women, seem to be at greatest risk. An investigation by Finnair between 1940 and 1992 showed that air hostesses were at twice the risk of breast cancer compared to the average flier.
The Future - dealing with Cosmic Radiation
DVT has proven to be a thorn in the aviation's side over the last decade, with a raising awareness of the effects of cosmic radiation, the aviation industry as a whole needs to confront the problem.
Despite the apparent risks to the cabin crew, for the average traveller, cosmic radiation is not a real health concern. Like other forms of radiation, cosmic radiation can be impeded through the implementation of thick walls of steel and concrete. Of course, this solution is unfortunately impractical for an aircraft.
A more realistic solution currently being touted about the aviation industry is to incorporate lower flight paths which could significantly reduce the risk of cosmic radiation. The logistics of this on a large scale across the industry are, however, complex.
The natural solution for pilots and cabin crew is to spend less time in the air, again, though as this is an intrinsic component of the profession any real solutions seem to be few and far between.
Based on current tests, the average flier is at little risk to cosmic radiation, though pregnant mothers are recommended to only fly if absolutely necessary, as the undeveloped foetus is far more vulnerable to radiation than a healthy adult.
For now, the public's concern is primarily concerned with the risks of DVT, as awareness of this continues to grow so it may trigger a broader debate on all areas of flight health including cosmic radiation, which could help to kick start further research into the problem.
http://www.flighthealth.org/cosmic-radiation-the-problem.htm
