My dad and I worked the numbers on this for a "typical" domestic pilot (this is Dad's field). Bottom line it came out to a measurable but statistically very small increase in cancer risk over a career. It's a little higher for someone who does a lot of long-haul.
Turboprop career: low risk.
Small Jets: low but measurable, better than transcons
Domestic: low but measurable
International: still low but not as low.
For comparison, the annual limit for industrial workers is .05 Sieverts, although most workers do not reach this limit. Some do, there are even jobs where you do high-exposure work and quickly reach your limit thus "timing out" for the year (these folks are called "sponges"). Pay attention to the units...the aviation exposure charts are in micro or milli Sieverts...many orders of magnitude less than the occupational limit.
But you can offset the effects of ionizing radiation with lifestyle choices, plus pilots are generally healthier overall which helps to offset cancer risk as well other health risks.
A lot safer than cigarettes and hard liqueur. A whole let safer than meth and crack hos.
Could the industry do anything to protect us? Well, that depends on what how you define "us". At the expense of some extra weight the cockpits could get enough shielding to make a big dent in exposure (lead is not required, anything with hydrogen in it works well too...water, oil, and plastics for example. But it would be weight prohibitive to shield the cabin, so there's not much you could do for the girls. Possibly shield the galley areas and require that they hang out there when not performing cabin duties (what they usually do anyway).
At the very least they should provide lifetime, no co-pay, no questions asked, full medical coverage for all of the cancers which are primarily associated with ionizing radiation. Some cancers such as prostate statistically have other root causes.
11-25-2016
AIRLINE
