The Big C
09-10-2009, 06:11 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 3,717
The Big C
Today I had lunch with one of our Jurassic Jet Captains, a once-a-month affair we've been doing since I had my heart issue. Anyway, while catching up on each others lives, he told me that another of our brethren had passed away from cancer, and it got me wondering about how many of us are getting this disease, year in and year out. Initially my thoughts were only about the expanded family here at FedEx, but then shortly I started to wonder if the guys at UPS are experiencing this issue as well.
I understand that: 1) there are many forms of cancer (over 150 distinct varieties); & 2) FedEx carries a lot of HazMat, some of which might possibly cause, either directly or indirectly, cancer. So I'm wondering if anyone here knows how many crewmembers for each airline have been diagnosed with cancer over the past (say) 3 years? Because both UPS and FedEx fly basically the same route structure, during the same times of day, you would expect that there wouldn't be a large difference is occurrences (as a percentage of total crewmembers.) If that's the case, than it would appear to me that these occurrences are basically random, i.e. not work related. However, if one airline has a much larger percentage of occurrences, then it would seem appropriate to investigate.
JJ
I understand that: 1) there are many forms of cancer (over 150 distinct varieties); & 2) FedEx carries a lot of HazMat, some of which might possibly cause, either directly or indirectly, cancer. So I'm wondering if anyone here knows how many crewmembers for each airline have been diagnosed with cancer over the past (say) 3 years? Because both UPS and FedEx fly basically the same route structure, during the same times of day, you would expect that there wouldn't be a large difference is occurrences (as a percentage of total crewmembers.) If that's the case, than it would appear to me that these occurrences are basically random, i.e. not work related. However, if one airline has a much larger percentage of occurrences, then it would seem appropriate to investigate.
JJ
09-10-2009, 06:33 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
A few years ago I had a DC-10 Capt.Ground School instructor that was really spun up about this subject. She asked the class, "Did you realize when you were hired that you were being hired as a radiation worker?" I think it might have been Kathy M (and several other last name initials if the rumors are true). Didn't her FedEx pilot brother (I believe I once flew with him) die from brain cancer?
Anyway ... she seemed to be collecting stats on the subject. If you are truly interested in the subject, she might be a really good starting point.
Regards ... Mark
Anyway ... she seemed to be collecting stats on the subject. If you are truly interested in the subject, she might be a really good starting point.
Regards ... Mark
09-10-2009, 06:46 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 112
I don't have a lot of facts relating to radiation exposure for flight crews on long haul flights, but I do remember reading a report, about 6 or 7 years ago, when I was flying the MD11, about that subject. The one fact that remains with me, is that for every 4000 feet increase in altitude, your exposure to cosmic radiation doubles. So that always stayed in the back of my mind when flying for 4 or 5 hours at FL390, as opposed to staying down at 350. In fact, after that report came out, one of my buddies would state, "You can just call me Mr. 310 from now on, cause that was as high as he was going to go on the long flights, especially at the high latitudes, where you had very little atmospheric protection. Of course, we are supposed to be fuel sensitive, and fly high to save that precious liquid, and, I suppose help protect somebody's MBO points. But when you hear numbers like this, you have to just say, hmmmmm. But I will say, that I rarely flew above FL350 for extended periods after that. Something for you 777 guys to think about when you are sitting up there for 16 hours at a time, month in, and month out.
09-10-2009, 06:55 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: in the groove
Posts: 202
If I remember correctly, the radiation level increases geometrically above a certain altitude. Something like 36,000 or so. Above that and you start to crystalize.
09-10-2009, 06:59 PM
#5
APC co-founder
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
Originally Posted by Knots2you
Something for you 777 guys to think about when you are sitting up there for 16 hours at a time, month in, and month out.
http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/
Scroll down a bit and look on the left side of the page for "Radiation Profiles"
Here's the direct link: http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/f...n_profile.html
09-10-2009, 07:48 PM
#6
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 21
The one fact that remains with me, is that for every 4000 feet increase in altitude, your exposure to cosmic radiation doubles.
No, the correct number is roughly double for every 6000 feet. Above FL 360 the curve gets very very vertical...especially important at high Lats and during sun spot activity!
But to answer JJ's question...
ALPA commissioned a study about 5 years ago in conjunction with the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) in which we attempted to answer this very question. Some of you may remember the surveys that we made available to every pilot in the association. We also combined a study on pilot mortality with a study that was begun under the FPA by Dr. Glenda G., wife of a former block rep, that dealt with mortality in cargo pilots. This study used the governments National Death Index (NDI) and included ALPA pilots back to the late 60's and early 70's. This is in addition to a study we sponsored dealing with female pilots related issues.
These studies are all availiable upon request from ALPA Aeromedical and have also been published in numerous journals...all easily googleable...(is that a word, not sure).
The bottom line with all of our studies is that pilots have a better overall health profile than just about any work group in the US. Studies in the EU and Japan echo this data.
This may be hard to believe for some of us, but not really when you factor in the basic demographic of most current airline pilots and our lifestyles. We have the smallest percentage of smoking of any work group, we have better than average health insurance, we use our health benefits more than just about anybody else and probably most importantly we are about the only work group in the country that is medically tested twice a year. No matter how easy your AME goes on you, it is still much more than most people get. Along with that is that we need to be healthy to maintain our medical certificate to earn a living. We just take better care of ourselves...yeah I know hard to believe when you look at some of us in the crew rooms. But go to Wal-Mart, Costco etc. and take a good look at the general public...then think about the average pilot....things that make you go hmmm!
In statistical jargon this is known as the healthy worker effect. And overall we are very healthy!
This forum is too limiting to discuss this subject, however as a co author of 3 of these studies I would be happy to share the data with anyone. Just contact me with a PM.
I would also direct you to ALPA's Aeromedical page on the ALPA website. It has some useful data on radiation and some useful links. For a very good inflight radiation counter / predictor I would recommend the CARI model that CAMI (Civil Aeromedical Institute) has developed. Dr. Wally Frieberg is a bit of a mad scientist, but also a bit of a genius who has dedicated many years of work studying inflight radiation exposure. He is the creator of the CARI model. There are also a number of models available from the EU...all are easily found with google. Another good source of info is Captain Joyce M. of American Airlines. Joyce has championed inflight radiation research for many years and is a great source of info, espcially for female pilots. Bottom line here is DON"T FLY in the FIRST TRIMESTER if you can at all avoid it! You may also look for Dr. Rob Barrish's book "The Silent Passenger". A bit scary read for us, but again a good source of info.
Lastly, because no one seems to trust this kind of info, I would recommend that if you are really concerned that you contact Dr. Don Hudson or Dr. Quay Snyder at ALPA's Aeromedical Advisory Service (AMAS). They obviously will not discuss individual cases, but they will share the data that they have collected from over 25 years. This data again echos what the studies have shown.
Now, the disclaimer...I had melanoma as many of us have. The one cancer that we consistently have a higher rate of than the general public...3 times higher to be exact...is melanoma. This has also been shown in studies done in the EU, Scandanavia and Japan. It is the same percentage for cargo and pax pilots. Day, night, non-sked, sked...it does not seem to matter. No one is quite sure why, however the current theory is circadian disruptions causing chemical imbalances in the body. Not laying by the pool on a layover or inflight sun exposure as is often suggested. This is a subject that hopefully will be studied in the near future.
If you've read this far, thank you...now a quick word about your medical. Please be progressive and aggressive in protecting it! Don't try to hide problems...BP, diabetes or especially cardiac issues. Seek early intervention and treatment. The FAA is becoming much more progressive in their approach to these issues and they are not a death sentence to you career! My pet peeve is BP issues...there is simply no reason to try and hide these. The FAA approves almost every medicne in use today for treatment of BP problems...and you don't even loose your medical while your getting started on a treatment. Please call AMAS, your associations docs or even your AME...don't try and get by with this stuff!
Cheers,
AKG
No, the correct number is roughly double for every 6000 feet. Above FL 360 the curve gets very very vertical...especially important at high Lats and during sun spot activity!
But to answer JJ's question...
ALPA commissioned a study about 5 years ago in conjunction with the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) in which we attempted to answer this very question. Some of you may remember the surveys that we made available to every pilot in the association. We also combined a study on pilot mortality with a study that was begun under the FPA by Dr. Glenda G., wife of a former block rep, that dealt with mortality in cargo pilots. This study used the governments National Death Index (NDI) and included ALPA pilots back to the late 60's and early 70's. This is in addition to a study we sponsored dealing with female pilots related issues.
These studies are all availiable upon request from ALPA Aeromedical and have also been published in numerous journals...all easily googleable...(is that a word, not sure).
The bottom line with all of our studies is that pilots have a better overall health profile than just about any work group in the US. Studies in the EU and Japan echo this data.
This may be hard to believe for some of us, but not really when you factor in the basic demographic of most current airline pilots and our lifestyles. We have the smallest percentage of smoking of any work group, we have better than average health insurance, we use our health benefits more than just about anybody else and probably most importantly we are about the only work group in the country that is medically tested twice a year. No matter how easy your AME goes on you, it is still much more than most people get. Along with that is that we need to be healthy to maintain our medical certificate to earn a living. We just take better care of ourselves...yeah I know hard to believe when you look at some of us in the crew rooms. But go to Wal-Mart, Costco etc. and take a good look at the general public...then think about the average pilot....things that make you go hmmm!
In statistical jargon this is known as the healthy worker effect. And overall we are very healthy!
This forum is too limiting to discuss this subject, however as a co author of 3 of these studies I would be happy to share the data with anyone. Just contact me with a PM.
I would also direct you to ALPA's Aeromedical page on the ALPA website. It has some useful data on radiation and some useful links. For a very good inflight radiation counter / predictor I would recommend the CARI model that CAMI (Civil Aeromedical Institute) has developed. Dr. Wally Frieberg is a bit of a mad scientist, but also a bit of a genius who has dedicated many years of work studying inflight radiation exposure. He is the creator of the CARI model. There are also a number of models available from the EU...all are easily found with google. Another good source of info is Captain Joyce M. of American Airlines. Joyce has championed inflight radiation research for many years and is a great source of info, espcially for female pilots. Bottom line here is DON"T FLY in the FIRST TRIMESTER if you can at all avoid it! You may also look for Dr. Rob Barrish's book "The Silent Passenger". A bit scary read for us, but again a good source of info.
Lastly, because no one seems to trust this kind of info, I would recommend that if you are really concerned that you contact Dr. Don Hudson or Dr. Quay Snyder at ALPA's Aeromedical Advisory Service (AMAS). They obviously will not discuss individual cases, but they will share the data that they have collected from over 25 years. This data again echos what the studies have shown.
Now, the disclaimer...I had melanoma as many of us have. The one cancer that we consistently have a higher rate of than the general public...3 times higher to be exact...is melanoma. This has also been shown in studies done in the EU, Scandanavia and Japan. It is the same percentage for cargo and pax pilots. Day, night, non-sked, sked...it does not seem to matter. No one is quite sure why, however the current theory is circadian disruptions causing chemical imbalances in the body. Not laying by the pool on a layover or inflight sun exposure as is often suggested. This is a subject that hopefully will be studied in the near future.
If you've read this far, thank you...now a quick word about your medical. Please be progressive and aggressive in protecting it! Don't try to hide problems...BP, diabetes or especially cardiac issues. Seek early intervention and treatment. The FAA is becoming much more progressive in their approach to these issues and they are not a death sentence to you career! My pet peeve is BP issues...there is simply no reason to try and hide these. The FAA approves almost every medicne in use today for treatment of BP problems...and you don't even loose your medical while your getting started on a treatment. Please call AMAS, your associations docs or even your AME...don't try and get by with this stuff!
Cheers,
AKG
09-10-2009, 07:57 PM
#7
Libertarian Resistance
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
Originally Posted by Alaska Gator
The one fact that remains with me, is that for every 4000 feet increase in altitude, your exposure to cosmic radiation doubles.
No, the correct number is roughly double for every 6000 feet. Above FL 360 the curve gets very very vertical...especially important at high Lats and during sun spot activity!
But to answer JJ's question...
ALPA commissioned a study about 5 years ago in conjunction with the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) in which we attempted to answer this very question. Some of you may remember the surveys that we made available to every pilot in the association. We also combined a study on pilot mortality with a study that was begun under the FPA by Dr. Glenda G., wife of a former block rep, that dealt with mortality in cargo pilots. This study used the governments National Death Index (NDI) and included ALPA pilots back to the late 60's and early 70's. This is in addition to a study we sponsored dealing with female pilots related issues.
These studies are all availiable upon request from ALPA Aeromedical and have also been published in numerous journals...all easily googleable...(is that a word, not sure).
The bottom line with all of our studies is that pilots have a better overall health profile than just about any work group in the US. Studies in the EU and Japan echo this data.
This may be hard to believe for some of us, but not really when you factor in the basic demographic of most current airline pilots and our lifestyles. We have the smallest percentage of smoking of any work group, we have better than average health insurance, we use our health benefits more than just about anybody else and probably most importantly we are about the only work group in the country that is medically tested twice a year. No matter how easy your AME goes on you, it is still much more than most people get. Along with that is that we need to be healthy to maintain our medical certificate to earn a living. We just take better care of ourselves...yeah I know hard to believe when you look at some of us in the crew rooms. But go to Wal-Mart, Costco etc. and take a good look at the general public...then think about the average pilot....things that make you go hmmm!
In statistical jargon this is known as the healthy worker effect. And overall we are very healthy!
This forum is too limiting to discuss this subject, however as a co author of 3 of these studies I would be happy to share the data with anyone. Just contact me with a PM.
I would also direct you to ALPA's Aeromedical page on the ALPA website. It has some useful data on radiation and some useful links. For a very good inflight radiation counter / predictor I would recommend the CARI model that CAMI (Civil Aeromedical Institute) has developed. Dr. Wally Frieberg is a bit of a mad scientist, but also a bit of a genius who has dedicated many years of work studying inflight radiation exposure. He is the creator of the CARI model. There are also a number of models available from the EU...all are easily found with google. Another good source of info is Captain Joyce M. of American Airlines. Joyce has championed inflight radiation research for many years and is a great source of info, espcially for female pilots. Bottom line here is DON"T FLY in the FIRST TRIMESTER if you can at all avoid it! You may also look for Dr. Rob Barrish's book "The Silent Passenger". A bit scary read for us, but again a good source of info.
Lastly, because no one seems to trust this kind of info, I would recommend that if you are really concerned that you contact Dr. Don Hudson or Dr. Quay Snyder at ALPA's Aeromedical Advisory Service (AMAS). They obviously will not discuss individual cases, but they will share the data that they have collected from over 25 years. This data again echos what the studies have shown.
Now, the disclaimer...I had melanoma as many of us have. The one cancer that we consistently have a higher rate of than the general public...3 times higher to be exact...is melanoma. This has also been shown in studies done in the EU, Scandanavia and Japan. It is the same percentage for cargo and pax pilots. Day, night, non-sked, sked...it does not seem to matter. No one is quite sure why, however the current theory is circadian disruptions causing chemical imbalances in the body. Not laying by the pool on a layover or inflight sun exposure as is often suggested. This is a subject that hopefully will be studied in the near future.
If you've read this far, thank you...now a quick word about your medical. Please be progressive and aggressive in protecting it! Don't try to hide problems...BP, diabetes or especially cardiac issues. Seek early intervention and treatment. The FAA is becoming much more progressive in their approach to these issues and they are not a death sentence to you career! My pet peeve is BP issues...there is simply no reason to try and hide these. The FAA approves almost every medicne in use today for treatment of BP problems...and you don't even loose your medical while your getting started on a treatment. Please call AMAS, your associations docs or even your AME...don't try and get by with this stuff!
Cheers,
AKG
No, the correct number is roughly double for every 6000 feet. Above FL 360 the curve gets very very vertical...especially important at high Lats and during sun spot activity!
But to answer JJ's question...
ALPA commissioned a study about 5 years ago in conjunction with the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) in which we attempted to answer this very question. Some of you may remember the surveys that we made available to every pilot in the association. We also combined a study on pilot mortality with a study that was begun under the FPA by Dr. Glenda G., wife of a former block rep, that dealt with mortality in cargo pilots. This study used the governments National Death Index (NDI) and included ALPA pilots back to the late 60's and early 70's. This is in addition to a study we sponsored dealing with female pilots related issues.
These studies are all availiable upon request from ALPA Aeromedical and have also been published in numerous journals...all easily googleable...(is that a word, not sure).
The bottom line with all of our studies is that pilots have a better overall health profile than just about any work group in the US. Studies in the EU and Japan echo this data.
This may be hard to believe for some of us, but not really when you factor in the basic demographic of most current airline pilots and our lifestyles. We have the smallest percentage of smoking of any work group, we have better than average health insurance, we use our health benefits more than just about anybody else and probably most importantly we are about the only work group in the country that is medically tested twice a year. No matter how easy your AME goes on you, it is still much more than most people get. Along with that is that we need to be healthy to maintain our medical certificate to earn a living. We just take better care of ourselves...yeah I know hard to believe when you look at some of us in the crew rooms. But go to Wal-Mart, Costco etc. and take a good look at the general public...then think about the average pilot....things that make you go hmmm!
In statistical jargon this is known as the healthy worker effect. And overall we are very healthy!
This forum is too limiting to discuss this subject, however as a co author of 3 of these studies I would be happy to share the data with anyone. Just contact me with a PM.
I would also direct you to ALPA's Aeromedical page on the ALPA website. It has some useful data on radiation and some useful links. For a very good inflight radiation counter / predictor I would recommend the CARI model that CAMI (Civil Aeromedical Institute) has developed. Dr. Wally Frieberg is a bit of a mad scientist, but also a bit of a genius who has dedicated many years of work studying inflight radiation exposure. He is the creator of the CARI model. There are also a number of models available from the EU...all are easily found with google. Another good source of info is Captain Joyce M. of American Airlines. Joyce has championed inflight radiation research for many years and is a great source of info, espcially for female pilots. Bottom line here is DON"T FLY in the FIRST TRIMESTER if you can at all avoid it! You may also look for Dr. Rob Barrish's book "The Silent Passenger". A bit scary read for us, but again a good source of info.
Lastly, because no one seems to trust this kind of info, I would recommend that if you are really concerned that you contact Dr. Don Hudson or Dr. Quay Snyder at ALPA's Aeromedical Advisory Service (AMAS). They obviously will not discuss individual cases, but they will share the data that they have collected from over 25 years. This data again echos what the studies have shown.
Now, the disclaimer...I had melanoma as many of us have. The one cancer that we consistently have a higher rate of than the general public...3 times higher to be exact...is melanoma. This has also been shown in studies done in the EU, Scandanavia and Japan. It is the same percentage for cargo and pax pilots. Day, night, non-sked, sked...it does not seem to matter. No one is quite sure why, however the current theory is circadian disruptions causing chemical imbalances in the body. Not laying by the pool on a layover or inflight sun exposure as is often suggested. This is a subject that hopefully will be studied in the near future.
If you've read this far, thank you...now a quick word about your medical. Please be progressive and aggressive in protecting it! Don't try to hide problems...BP, diabetes or especially cardiac issues. Seek early intervention and treatment. The FAA is becoming much more progressive in their approach to these issues and they are not a death sentence to you career! My pet peeve is BP issues...there is simply no reason to try and hide these. The FAA approves almost every medicne in use today for treatment of BP problems...and you don't even loose your medical while your getting started on a treatment. Please call AMAS, your associations docs or even your AME...don't try and get by with this stuff!
Cheers,
AKG
An informative and well written post. One item I would correct: when the sun is active (sunspots, etc.) cosmic radiation is minimized. During periods of a quiet sun (like now) cosmic radiation is higher.
WW
09-10-2009, 08:11 PM
#8
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 21
What are sunspots and how do they relate to space weather?
Sunspots are not well understood, but scientist have some idea of what they are. Strong magnetic/electromagnetic activity is associated with sun spots. They are the coldest part of the sun, and usually develop in pairs. Sunspot activity is in an 11 year cycle. Currently, we are coming out of a low activity point, and more sunspots are beginning to appear.
The magnetic field in sunspots stores energy that is released in solar flares. As a result, flares usually occur in a cycle that mimics the eleven-year sunspot cycle. Other forms of space weather such as geomagnetic storms and proton radiation showers follow a similar cycle. Sunspots usually occur in groups-usually as simple pairs-but at times in complicated arrangements with many spots and complex shapes. These unusual regions most often produce solar flares. Space weather forecasters use the complexity and shapes of sunspots to make flare forecasts-the more complex the groups of spots, the more likely a flare will occur. -GH
How do solar flares reach Earth?
The magnetic field in sunspots stores energy that is released in solar flares. As a result, flares usually occur in a cycle that mimics the eleven-year sunspot cycle. Other forms of space weather such as geomagnetic storms and proton radiation showers follow a similar cycle. Sunspots usually occur in groups-usually as simple pairs-but at times in complicated arrangements with many spots and complex shapes. These unusual regions most often produce solar flares. Space weather forecasters use the complexity and shapes of sunspots to make flare forecasts-the more complex the groups of spots, the more likely a flare will occur. -GH
How do solar flares reach Earth?
A solar flare happens when a large amount of plasma from the sun's surface is ejected outwards. When the plasma returns to the suns surface, it collides with denser material found in the chromosphere. This collision releases large amounts of energy in the form of x-rays and other wavelengths which travel toward the earth at the speed of light. Sometimes the plasma does not return to the sun, but instead travels towards the planet where it is deflected by the planets' magnetic fields.
Big ejections from the Sun can be 1-10 billion tonnes, moving at 400-1000 km/sec (approximately 1-2 million mph) and take more than a day to pass Earth, after the sudden onset (often a leading-edge shock wave)
Not to get to picky with our science here...but sun spots lead to solar flares. Sloar flares in turn release large amounts of solar radiation which then bombards the earth. During periods of increased solar activity we will experience increased levels of solar radiation. Sometimes these increases can be on the order of up to 50 millisieverts or more in a single flight. A good source for solar weather is the NOAA website. Interestingly...some airlines use the NOAA solar forcast in their flight planning. Not to avoid large radiation exposures, but to better maintain sat comms. I believe CAL uses this data on their EWR-HKG flights. There is one fractional jet service that does use this as a selling point in their busines model..."we keep you safe from radiation while flying".
AKG
Big ejections from the Sun can be 1-10 billion tonnes, moving at 400-1000 km/sec (approximately 1-2 million mph) and take more than a day to pass Earth, after the sudden onset (often a leading-edge shock wave)
Not to get to picky with our science here...but sun spots lead to solar flares. Sloar flares in turn release large amounts of solar radiation which then bombards the earth. During periods of increased solar activity we will experience increased levels of solar radiation. Sometimes these increases can be on the order of up to 50 millisieverts or more in a single flight. A good source for solar weather is the NOAA website. Interestingly...some airlines use the NOAA solar forcast in their flight planning. Not to avoid large radiation exposures, but to better maintain sat comms. I believe CAL uses this data on their EWR-HKG flights. There is one fractional jet service that does use this as a selling point in their busines model..."we keep you safe from radiation while flying".
AKG
09-10-2009, 08:27 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 223
I'm just a regional guy so I don't spend hours at a time above 360 but I do get up there and I have put some thought into the cosmic radiation thing, but a few weeks ago I was waiting out a ground stop and me and the other guy got talking about radiation. We were talking about how many times a day we get hit by radar (gnd wx, airborne wx, atc, etc) and how many more radio waves (tv, music radio, all kinds of comm, wifi, etc) are flying thru the air compared to just 100 years ago. We got to thinking and were wondering if all of this could cause an increase in the cancer rate. Haven't done any research or anything, just saw this thread and it reminded me of the conversation from a few weeks ago and thought I'd throw the topic out there.
Oh yeah another thing I heard that I didn't think I saw in here is that I heard that if we had to wear a dissimeter (I think thats what a radiation monitor is called) like the things guys in nuke places work we would only be able to work 2 to 3 factory type shifts a week before we hit our "OHSA" radiation limit. And that on a typical work week/month pilots are more than twice over the nuke factory worker limit for exposure to radiation.
Oh yeah another thing I heard that I didn't think I saw in here is that I heard that if we had to wear a dissimeter (I think thats what a radiation monitor is called) like the things guys in nuke places work we would only be able to work 2 to 3 factory type shifts a week before we hit our "OHSA" radiation limit. And that on a typical work week/month pilots are more than twice over the nuke factory worker limit for exposure to radiation.
09-10-2009, 08:49 PM
#10
Libertarian Resistance
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
Originally Posted by Alaska Gator
What are sunspots and how do they relate to space weather?
Sunspots are not well understood, but scientist have some idea of what they are. Strong magnetic/electromagnetic activity is associated with sun spots. They are the coldest part of the sun, and usually develop in pairs. Sunspot activity is in an 11 year cycle. Currently, we are coming out of a low activity point, and more sunspots are beginning to appear.
The magnetic field in sunspots stores energy that is released in solar flares. As a result, flares usually occur in a cycle that mimics the eleven-year sunspot cycle. Other forms of space weather such as geomagnetic storms and proton radiation showers follow a similar cycle. Sunspots usually occur in groups-usually as simple pairs-but at times in complicated arrangements with many spots and complex shapes. These unusual regions most often produce solar flares. Space weather forecasters use the complexity and shapes of sunspots to make flare forecasts-the more complex the groups of spots, the more likely a flare will occur. -GH
How do solar flares reach Earth?
The magnetic field in sunspots stores energy that is released in solar flares. As a result, flares usually occur in a cycle that mimics the eleven-year sunspot cycle. Other forms of space weather such as geomagnetic storms and proton radiation showers follow a similar cycle. Sunspots usually occur in groups-usually as simple pairs-but at times in complicated arrangements with many spots and complex shapes. These unusual regions most often produce solar flares. Space weather forecasters use the complexity and shapes of sunspots to make flare forecasts-the more complex the groups of spots, the more likely a flare will occur. -GH
How do solar flares reach Earth?
A solar flare happens when a large amount of plasma from the sun's surface is ejected outwards. When the plasma returns to the suns surface, it collides with denser material found in the chromosphere. This collision releases large amounts of energy in the form of x-rays and other wavelengths which travel toward the earth at the speed of light. Sometimes the plasma does not return to the sun, but instead travels towards the planet where it is deflected by the planets' magnetic fields.
Big ejections from the Sun can be 1-10 billion tonnes, moving at 400-1000 km/sec (approximately 1-2 million mph) and take more than a day to pass Earth, after the sudden onset (often a leading-edge shock wave)
Not to get to picky with our science here...but sun spots lead to solar flares. Sloar flares in turn release large amounts of solar radiation which then bombards the earth. During periods of increased solar activity we will experience increased levels of solar radiation. Sometimes these increases can be on the order of up to 50 millisieverts or more in a single flight. A good source for solar weather is the NOAA website. Interestingly...some airlines use the NOAA solar forcast in their flight planning. Not to avoid large radiation exposures, but to better maintain sat comms. I believe CAL uses this data on their EWR-HKG flights. There is one fractional jet service that does use this as a selling point in their busines model..."we keep you safe from radiation while flying".
AKG
Big ejections from the Sun can be 1-10 billion tonnes, moving at 400-1000 km/sec (approximately 1-2 million mph) and take more than a day to pass Earth, after the sudden onset (often a leading-edge shock wave)
Not to get to picky with our science here...but sun spots lead to solar flares. Sloar flares in turn release large amounts of solar radiation which then bombards the earth. During periods of increased solar activity we will experience increased levels of solar radiation. Sometimes these increases can be on the order of up to 50 millisieverts or more in a single flight. A good source for solar weather is the NOAA website. Interestingly...some airlines use the NOAA solar forcast in their flight planning. Not to avoid large radiation exposures, but to better maintain sat comms. I believe CAL uses this data on their EWR-HKG flights. There is one fractional jet service that does use this as a selling point in their busines model..."we keep you safe from radiation while flying".
AKG
WW
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
