-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- Radiation: a health risk to fliers? Experts warn of possible link between air travel and cancer REUTERS NEW YORK, Feb. 2 — For years, airline passengers have been calling ahead to check on weather delays. Soon they may also be calling to find out about radiation levels. “Radiation levels are significantly elevated and you should seriously consider postponing your trip” is one recording on the (877) SUNFLARE hotline established by Dr. Robert Barish, founder of In-Flight Radiation Protection Services Inc. THE HOTLINE informs callers about possible health risks and at what times solar storms cause radiation peaks. The call costs $3 and can be billed to your credit card. Radiation from sun exposure is a usually harmless fact of life for people on the ground, but it can be harmful for people who fly at high altitudes during solar storm peaks. The storms occur on an irregular basis, but their frequency is expected to reach a peak this year. They can cause radiation levels to reach the equivalent of 100-200 chest X-rays an hour at some times of the year and may pose a health risk even to occasional fliers, particularly pregnant women, Barish says. Dr. Donald Hudson, an aviation medicine adviser for the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), agrees that heightened radiation from solar storms can pose health risks. “Most airlines are aware of that, and many who fly polar routes rather than continental routes make flight adjustments,” he said. “But it is difficult to predict the peak times. The science is just not where we would like it to be.” HEALTH RISKS TO FREQUENT FLIERS For frequent business fliers or airline flight crews who fly more than 75,000 miles a year, regular radiation exposure may pose greater long-term health risks, Barish says. “If you fly a minimum of 75,000 miles a year, that brings you to a level where radiation exceeds the legal permissible radiation dose to a non-occupational person (a person who is not officially classified as a radiation worker).” Even under normal conditions, radiation levels on an airplane at high altitudes are higher than on the ground. The atmosphere absorbs cosmic radiation, but six or seven miles of protective air are below a plane, not above it. The FAA estimates that the risks of a birth defect in the fetus of a pregnant woman who flies range from 1 in 680 to 1 in 20,000, depending on frequency and routes flown. This is a 0.5 percent increase over the nonfliers’ rate of birth defects, a statement from ALPA associate aeromedical adviser Hudson says. “The risk for cancer from low-dose radiation is very low except for female crew members in childbearing age. But unfortunately that risk to the fetus is most severe in the first trimester, when women often don’t know yet that they are pregnant,” he said. This information has often not been communicated to airline crews, who fly far more than 75,000 miles a year and who are most frequently exposed to the harmful rays at high altitudes. “I was angry and frustrated,” said a flight attendant at a major U.S.-based airline who did not want to be named. She saw an informational pamphlet about in-flight radiation at a crew room in an airport last year. “I never knew about this issue. We were never informed about radiation and health risks,” she said, adding, “We need to be able to make informed decisions.” Occupational radiation exposure allowed by law, such as for nuclear power plant workers or employees in medical fields who work with X-ray machines, is 50 times greater than the normal exposure on the ground — 50 milisievert in the United States and 20 milisievert in Europe. Airline crew members and frequent-flier business travelers are usually not exposed to more than the occupational limit, but their bodies certainly have to handle more than the ground limit exposure for the general public, Barish said. Hudson says the risk of radiation-related illnesses, particularly cancer, is very low for airline crews, but he believes concerns about in-flight radiation-related illness will be a more publicized issue in 10 to 20 years when aircraft are expected to travel at much higher altitudes. “I think most pilots are aware of radiation exposure, but this is just not a front-burner-type topic for today’s commercial airlines. It is more of an issue for the Concorde and corporate Lear Jets who fly higher than today’s commercial airlines,” Hudson said. “But exposure to low-dose radiation will definitely become an issue when commercial aircraft will fly in higher altitudes in 10, 20 years.” RADIATION TRAINING But Barish has been fighting for more information flow among airlines and the business community so people can make an informed choice about their health and safety. “Even though the FAA has issued advisories to airline officials in which they requested airlines to educate all employees and to inform them about radiation, almost no airline has followed through on the FAA request, and the FAA never made it a regulation, only a recommendation,” he said. An FAA statement published in May 1994 reads: “...Air carrier crew members are occupationally exposed to low doses of ionizing radiation from cosmic radiation and from air shipments of radioactive material ... it is recommended that workers occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation ... receive exposure (to the issue) and appropriate radiation practices.” American Airlines has been the lone ranger when it comes to education about possible in-flight radiation health hazards. The airline has made available a publication on the issue. Barish has been fighting to make radiation education a law as the European Union has started to do rather than leaving it to the discretion of individual airlines. A law written in 1996 that will be fully in effect in the first half of 2000 will require all 27 EU carriers to educate flight crews about radiation issues including training and dose assessments. NO REAL PUSH FOR REGULATION “The European Union has more of a concern about this issue and there was more of a push to make it a law,” FAA radiation biologist Wally Friedberg said. “It seems here in the U.S. people have less of a concern. There is no real push to regulate this issue. The FAA is not inclined to make this a law if it isn’t urged to do so,” he added. Airplanes equipped with radiation monitors are among the options for airlines to act more responsibly toward their flight crews and frequent business fliers, Barish says. This concept is not new. The Concorde has been equipped for 25 years with radiation measurement instruments as the supersonic aircraft flies higher than regular airliners. Several studies have been published on low doses of radiation on flights and possibly related health risks including cancer. “Some studies indicate a relation between low-dose radiation, others don’t indicate any direct link,” Friedberg said. Barish believes airlines and companies whose employees fly on business should make it a rule to inform frequent fliers about health risks. Otherwise he says they may be faced with lawsuits if a direct link between low-dose radiation exposure, air travel and cancer is established. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- © 2000 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. --------------------- Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. -- He who sees the truth, let him proclaim it, without asking who is for it or who is against it. -Henry George <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Radiation: a health risk to fliers?
Shane A. Saylor, Eccentric Bard Sun, 6 Feb 2000 09:29:29 -0800
