Is Radiation A Problem Above 40,000 Ft. ?

[billt460]

I was reading that radiation increases dramatically above 40,000 feet. Many of today's modern business jets can cruise at 51,000 ft. As can many fighters. I once read the B-52 has a 50,000 ft. service ceiling as well.

I'm not sure, but I think I remember that the Concorde had special tinted glass windows to block radiation at the super high altitudes it flew at. (Above 60,000 ft).

What effect does this have on people? Can you just get "sunburn", or is there more to it, like cancer over a lifetime of piloting at high altitudes?

 

[Nukeman7]

This publication by the International Atomic Energy Agency does a good job of explaining the relative radiation exposure risk for air and space travel. By the way, the general public's perception of radiation induced erythema "sunburn" (mostly from theatrical dramatization) is so way off-base that it is laughable.

IAEA Publication on Radiation Risk from Air Travel

 

[slo town]

I think this is, at least in part, why Boeing built the 747SPs.

Scott

 

[Analog-1]

I remember reading that a high altitude flight was like getting 2 or 3 chest xrays worth of radiation.

 

[oil pan 4]

Ask Carrie Fisher....

 

[bbhero]

This publication by the International Atomic Energy Agency does a good job of explaining the relative radiation exposure risk for air and space travel. By the way, the general public's perception of radiation induced erythema "sunburn" (mostly from theatrical dramatization) is so way off-base that it is laughable.

IAEA Publication on Radiation Risk from Air Travel

Yeah I agree.

Though my coworker came in the other night and her eyes were blood shot… From her treatment that day.

Tell you the truth… That lady really is something for coming in to a hard job and dealing with all that. Very, very inspiring.

 

[bbhero]

Hard to comprehend how many sieverts those guys who first responded to Chernobyl right after that explosion…

That was an extraordinarily dangerous circumstance for those firefighters and engineers who were first on scene there.

Guarantee those people had burns from that right away.

 

[spasm3]

I wear a dosimeter for work. I think pilots should too. I bet there is a lot of gamma at that altitude that would easily go through the skin of the cockpit.

 

[JimPghPA]

While even the smallest dose does have the ability to cause a cancer, there are many factors at work regarding effect of exposure. Most times when a high energy particle interacts with a cell it hits a water molecule resulting in creation of a peroxide molecule that destroys the cell. Very rarely (because the nucleus of the cell is very very small compared to the cell) if a high energy particle hits an aminoacid in a DNA chain inside the nucleus, it can result in a change. Sometimes that gets corrected, sometimes not. If not, sometimes it causes a problem, sometimes not. And even if it causes a cancer, sometimes the immune system destroys that cell, sometimes not. In general very low doses have very low risks. Not zero, but darn near zero.

One analogy I once heard is comparing radiation dose exposure to exposure of consumed alcohol. A drink or two once in a while usually won't hurt you. A huge amount at once can do serious damage or even kill you. While alcohol does not interact the same as high energy particles the layman's statistical understanding of risk with alcohol is close enough to use this parity as a decent way of conveying the risk.

Also, and this is something to keep in mind, the rate that cancer propagateds varies drastically with respect to the age of the person. The cells of very young people multiply much faster than older people. In general, because of this the same damage in a 40 year old person will propagate about half as fast as it would in a 20 year old. And children and younger are much more at risk from the same dose.

The health of a person's immune system also enters into what happens.


The risk of exposure is actually a very complicated science and people well educated in radiology can provide more accurate determination of an indivuals risk.

 

[MolaKule]

I was reading that radiation increases dramatically above 40,000 feet. Many of today's modern business jets can cruise at 51,000 ft. As can many fighters. I once read the B-52 has a 50,000 ft. service ceiling as well.

I'm not sure, but I think I remember that the Concorde had special tinted glass windows to block radiation at the super high altitudes it flew at. (Above 60,000 ft).

What effect does this have on people? Can you just get "sunburn", or is there more to it, like cancer over a lifetime of piloting at high altitudes?

Here is one rather comprhensive study from 2022 of all types of cancer:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9723364/

 

[fdcg27]

There does appear to be a link between those who fly all the time (FAs and cockpit crew) and increased risk of certain cancers.
Yeah, there is a lot less protection from potentially damaging radiation when higher in the atmosphere.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I remember reading that a high altitude flight was like getting 2 or 3 chest xrays worth of radiation.

Only 1 chest X-ray if flying on the B747SP.

I was unaware SP stood for superior protection.

 

[Cujet]

Gulfstream jets are sometimes lined with (mass loaded vinyl) lead-vinyl for this reason. The cockpit when equipped this way, while not fully shielded, provides more protection than if conventional materials were used. Dual benefit stuff, noise reduction and a bit of radiation protection. If I remember correctly, there are micro particles of lead suspended in vinyl sheet, and the equivalent "lead sheet" protection is about 1/10th the thickness of the lead vinyl. In other words, a product that is labeled xyz125 would be 1/8th of an inch thick, and provide the equiv protection of a lead sheet 1/80th of an inch thick.

I don't think any of the older crewmembers from WR Grace that I flew with are still alive. It does seem that cancer was common among that crowd. The lifestyle does not lend itself to a long lifespan. And certainly the radiation must play a role.

As always, the view from FL510:

 

[sloinker]

Hard to comprehend how many sieverts those guys who first responded to Chernobyl right after that explosion…

That was an extraordinarily dangerous circumstance for those firefighters and engineers who were first on scene there.

Guarantee those people had burns from that right away.

All those Chernobyl folks from the first week or so are now dead, died fast!

 

[Dave Hess]

Did you see any USAF F-22 Raptors in that airspace ?

Nice photos.

 

[oil pan 4]

All those Chernobyl folks from the first week or so are now dead, died fast!

I believe it was less than 30.
Easy solution to that is don't build graphite moderated reactors.

 

[sloinker]

I believe it was less than 30.
Easy solution to that is don't build graphite moderated reactors.

I saw a documentary fairly recently about this calamity. For the survivors there have been many health issues and shortened life spans. It seems to also affect the offspring with higher cancer rates.

 

[Cujet]

Did you see any USAF F-22 Raptors in that airspace ?

Nice photos.

We never see anybody up there. Not on TCAS or visually. I generally see fighters much lower, like when I'm flying my Cessna Cardinal. I'm sure the fighters can go way up to insane altitudes. But (I think) they don't tend to linger there, whereas we spend hours above FL470. I recall the F22 kill (spy balloon) shot was from 58,000 feet.