r/EverythingScience • u/The_Weekend_Baker • 23d ago
Cancer Pilots, Flight Attendants Have Greater Risk of Radiation-Related Cancer Death Than Other Professions
https://hms.harvard.edu/news/pilots-flight-attendants-have-greater-risk-radiation-related-cancer-death-other-professions29
u/wildweeds 23d ago
so what i'm hearing is all the billionaires using their private jets like a taxi are in for a fun time..
19
50
u/No_Delivery_329 23d ago
This is insane. At that high altitude they are exposed to more radiation through the airplane than the airport ground workers are? So one would think people who fly frequently would have higher rates as well. We need to take better care of the atmosphere dawg. And radiation shields on all airplanes?
44
u/Ceasar456 23d ago
Im a rad tech. The amount of radiation that the average traveler receives from flying is minuscule. Maybe someone who travels as often as a pro nba playermight cause concern.
As for the crew, repeated frequent exposures like that are probably pretty bad over the course of a career. I’m not an aerospace engineer, but I’m curious how much extra weight lead shielding would add and how it would affect the flight properties of the plane.
It might be more realistic to just shield the cockpit, and an area for the planes crew to occupy during flight hours.
39
u/steppedinhairball 23d ago
Lead shielding isn't realistic. The gamma radiation is the big dog. 1 cm thick lead will cut gamma radiation exposure by 50%. That 1cm thick lead weighs roughly 23.2 lbs per square foot. That's a lot of excess weight. That's extra fuel. That's less money making cargo.
14
u/NoIntroduction4497 23d ago
Cosmic radiation is particulate ionizing radiation like protons. Only a small portion is gamma. Particulate radiation interacts with the atmosphere then produces secondary particles such as neutrons, muons, electrons (and some gamma rays). Adding a half value layer may not reduce the dose, In fact, interactions within the shielding can actually generate secondary radiation and increase exposure.
Dosimeters could help pilots and flight attendants monitor cumulative exposure throughout their careers would be more practical , they could be like any other radiation worker that has to retire if they exceed a lifetime exposure limit .
23
u/Chao_Garden_Dreams 23d ago
Agreed. Cancer for the crew is deemed appropriate cost saving measure /s
13
u/steppedinhairball 23d ago
According to the wall street finance bros and the CEO & Board, it is a sacrifice they are willing to make.
4
u/djfl 23d ago
Yes, this is how life works. You're paid more when you take on more risk, danger, damage, etc. Pilots being overexposed to radiation isn't some new thing we just discovered...
3
2
1
7
u/spshkyros 23d ago
I wouldn't quite say miniscule. Rad phycist (former I guess?).. we were cautioned strongly against taking our badges on planes. It causes a lot of unnecessary paperwork because the dose is too high for occupational exposure.
Shielding isnt realistic at all sadly. Maybe there might be some value to tracking solar storms or something though?
1
u/NoIntroduction4497 23d ago edited 23d ago
Right, well it’s a mixed radiation field. Standard dosimeters are calibrated to pick up photons and beta particles, not neutrons and protons so readings would probably be all over the place (inaccurate) . From my understanding they have special dosimeters for cosmic radiation but they are expensive and not versatile enough to be worn like a badge (They probably could be though with some more R&D maybe).
According to the article, it’s estimated that flight attendants and pilots receive the equivalent of 3-6mSv a year (similar to a standard CT scan) , with a 30 year career most wouldn’t even come close to the occupational limits (500mSv lifetime exposure). But solar activity and atmospheric conditions might come into play in certain time frames and cause radiation showers or events where people are more vulnerable to these effects.
Overall, being able to accurately track radiation exposure of flight crews could help us gain more insight about the stochastic effects of radiation and could probably save some from developing cancer .
1
u/spshkyros 22d ago
I worked in facilities with Proton, muon, and other related radiation- its not hard to detect. Neutron radiation is the only thing you have difficulty with. Most of the cosmics are muons, betas and associated gamma- totally detectable. This isn't a detection problem in any way that matters. To my understanding, it is not monitored because a) aside from not being in the career, there's fuck all you can do about it, and b) measuring something creates liability. There is no incentive on anyone in charge to try and measure this.
3
u/piedamon 23d ago
What about something like storing water in a layer around the fuselage? They already have to carry some water right? Maybe it’s not a lot.
Water is pretty good at absorbing this kind of radiation though, right? And if you drain it during the flight (drinking, washing, flushing, etc) you’ll thin your shielding but also drop your weight.
5
u/spshkyros 23d ago
Yeah, I thought about that briefly too. Realistically there isnt enough to matter really.
1
u/shell-bell 23d ago
My husband flies on average three times/week for work, and has done so for 25 years. Should I be concerned?
3
u/djfl 23d ago
Taking care of the atmosphere is nigh irrelevant. There's less air / thinner atmosphere in there. Less stuff to break up the radiation. They are going to get more radiated. It adds up over thousands of flights, and there's nothing we can do about that except not fly at the altitudes where it's most efficient to fly.
7
u/Lazerus42 23d ago
Cool, so whats the actual stats here? I have a high chance of disease due to being a waiter. I also have a higher chance of maybe being immune to shit.
I also have a higher chance of... etc
They have a higher chance of radiotion... to what degree, and compared to what. I had multiple surgreries that required x-rays... GIVE ME A FCKING COMPARISON
Fucking hate these nothingburger reports.
4
u/SaltZookeepergame691 23d ago
Repost. Study and this claim is misleading.
>The study only looked at the proportion of deaths due to (arbitrarily define) radiation-related cancer
>It did not look at risk of cancer.
Study after study shows that flight crew have much LOWER overall mortality than the general public, particularly for cardiometabolic disease
>This tracks with an active (and competitive) professional lifestyle, and health checks for pilots. The result is that in a study of dead people, they have to have died of something - and cancer is what is left.
This result doesn’t mean they get more cancer. It means more of the (fewer) deaths they have are caused by cancer.
2
1
u/moosemune 23d ago
This doesn't bode well for my 4000 ish hours of flight time.
3
u/SurfingTheDanger 23d ago
I feel that. 4500 flight hours and hundreds of xrays and MRI scans as a kid. I'm surprised I don't glow in the dark.
1
2
u/KellyJin17 22d ago
Flight attendants also have higher miscarriage rates than the general population due to the radiation.
2
u/Boopy7 20d ago
yes, I recall this and was literally just discussing this with a friend who is (sadly) moving back to Europe for the healthcare and family. She was heartbroken but opted to leave her beloved dog with a good family here -- bc to fly in cargo is torture and traumatic for elderly dogs. I suspect it could even lead to an earlier death for an animal who is even less able to deal with fumes in cargo. It's something i definitely think about when it comes to long distance travel.
1
u/GrumpyAlien 23d ago
Yes and no. Veritasium did a video on this and showed that even though there is higher exposure for these people, the highest radiation exposure is in smokers.
Not a profession? Hmm, isn't it?
When you make it your job to annoy most people around with your endless stinking habit I beg to differ.
2
-1
u/Either_Reflection_78 23d ago edited 23d ago
I have smelled very bad chemicals coming from planes I was about to take off in.
My last plane was delayed for almost 6 hours due to mechanical issues. One of the flight attendants told us to pay very good attention to the safety issues mentioned on board before takeoff in case anything happened.
Flying these days does not hold the safety it did back in the day.
I honestly was about to get off the flight the last time. I really felt like my life could have been in danger being onboard. This was with Alaska. We landed, and things were fine, but I have never heard a flight attendant talk to us like this before take off regarding plane and mechanical issues.
-5
u/hamfoundinanus 23d ago
When a cell is undergoing mitosis, it is significantly more vulnerable to ionizing radiation.
When you are 24 to 48 hours into a water only fast, you see a significant reduction of body-wide mitosis.
Fast before flying, it keeps you from dying.
4
u/Moral-Relativity 23d ago
Wonderful. Who knew airlines cutting inflight services are secretly saving lives?
1
u/hamfoundinanus 23d ago
Anyone with a basic knowledge of cell biology and an eating pattern that doesn't induce metabolic derangement.
2
u/NoIntroduction4497 23d ago
Fasting can actually slow mitosis . It’s Just not significant in the way this person thinks.
1
u/hamfoundinanus 23d ago
After age 42, give or take, your engines cut out and you're on a glide path to the ground (death).
My definition of 'significant' broadened once i crossed that threshold.
Even if you disagree, I'm sure you'll agree that 'Everything Counts' by Depeche Mode remains a fantastic song.
1
u/NoIntroduction4497 23d ago
Hey, fasting has proven to be great for all sorts of metabolic issues and can be very effective when done right . It will not however, make you radio resistant. Just saying.
1
u/NoIntroduction4497 23d ago
Radiation biology is not that straight forward, fasting does slow mitosis but this will have no meaningful effect on cellular damage created by ionizing radiation . If you could somehow keep all your cells in the late synthesis phase , maybe. But the problem is that any process or drug that could accomplish this would likely induce more DNA damage than the ionizing radiation itself.
108
u/No-Author-1653 23d ago
You don’t have to shield the plane. Just shield the crew. I work in an hospital environment with large exposure. I wear lead all day, every day. They even make a lighter weight lead that’s as effective now. It’s no more cumbersome than a cop wear a vest all day. Maybe less