4 ms·

The dose limits for radiation workers (which includes airline flight crews) is 20 mSv/yr. This is supported by the ICRP [1] and the EU [3]. British Airways ca

The dose limits for radiation workers (which includes airline flight crews) is 20 mSv/yr. This is supported by the ICRP [1] and the EU [3]. British Airways carried out and published data from radiation monitoring of Concorde crews: "Supersonic transport (SST) flights The Concorde SST... was designed to fly at the... operating altitude of around 18 km (about 59 000 ft). Concern for potential hazards... led to monitoring equipment... being installed in all Concorde aircraft. Many data have been derived from this, including more than 20 years experience of the radiological environment. ...these flights indicate that the radiation exposure of Concorde flying crew is unlikely to exceed 6 mSv/y." [2] I will also suggest the interested reader look into "radiation hormesis" and what data really exists to support the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model, or the idea that any amount of radiation raises risk, below certain dose rates. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889502/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889502/ [1] http://www.icrp.org/icrpaedia/limits.asp http://www.icrp.org/icrpaedia/limits.asp [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1128520/pdf/oenvmed00079-0063.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1128520/pdf/oen... [3] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2014:013:FULL&from=EN http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:...

godelski 9y ago
Thanks for that. I didn't see that paper when I was quick googling for Concord levels. That's not bad, 7.8hrs/day is the max (given the 7uSv/hr dosage they are estimating). So no flight crew is going to undergo that. Though it still begs the question, is Boom going to get that. As I understand it, Concord had nickel-aluminum throughout its body, which has better shielding properties than CF. They are also introducing more flights. Transpolar flights means more dosages. But given that paper I'm less concerned with the radiation dosages now. I'll still be interested to see what the data says when they start gathering it. We've also learned a lot more about radiation exposure, especially in flight since '96 [1][2]. And note that these values vary quite a lot. The real interest here will be in solar storms. I also wouldn't be surprised if NASA straps detectors to those planes, if Boom becomes commercial. I'd be very interested to see that. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html [2] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/airline-radiation.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/airline-rad...

godelski 9y ago

Thanks for that. I didn't see that paper when I was quick googling for Concord levels. That's not bad, 7.8hrs/day is the max (given the 7uSv/hr dosage they are estimating). So no flight crew is going to undergo that. Though it still begs the question, is Boom going to get that. As I understand it, Concord had nickel-aluminum throughout its body, which has better shielding properties than CF. They are also introducing more flights. Transpolar flights means more dosages. But given that paper I'm less concerned with the radiation dosages now. I'll still be interested to see what the data says when they start gathering it. We've also learned a lot more about radiation exposure, especially in flight since '96 [1][2]. And note that these values vary quite a lot. The real interest here will be in solar storms. I also wouldn't be surprised if NASA straps detectors to those planes, if Boom becomes commercial. I'd be very interested to see that. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html [2] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/airline-radiation.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/airline-rad...