5 ms·

I have to take long haul flights about once a quarter. Yes, they can be enjoyable, especially if you can swing upgrades, but keep in mind a 16 hour flight with

I have to take long haul flights about once a quarter. Yes, they can be enjoyable, especially if you can swing upgrades, but keep in mind a 16 hour flight with the 787 at a higher altitude than normal and usually at somewhat higher latitudes (still sub arctic), is the equivalent of something like at least a dozen chest x-rays. It's goes up exponentially if you do fly over the arctic to save fuel costs. If you didn't know, flight attendants are classified as radiation workers. I have trouble getting too excited about them even if in business class.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
You could take a dozen of flights daily for the rest of your life with little to no implications to your health (with respect to radiation dosing) [0]. The occupational limit for nuclear workers is 50 mSv. A single flight is 0.001 hourly. You spend 100% of a calendar year on plans, and only get 8.76 mSv exposure. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(radiation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(radiation...
- not_a_moth 7y ago
  It seems like you're claiming 1,000 chest x-rays/ year is fine. An x-ray still damages your dna, guaranteed, and your cells then have to repair it. The older you are, the harder that is to do, and the more times your cells have to repair dna, the more you age [David Sinclair's theory of aging anyways] I don't think you will find a health practitioner who would think that's safe for 1 year, let alone decades of doing it.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    If you look at the chart, you are ordinarily exposed to "natural background radiation", which is 0.01 mSv. 1,000 chest X-rays per year would be 60 mSv -- which is over the 50 limit for nuclear employees. A chest x-ray isn't really comparable to an hour spent on a commercial flight: it's sixty times as much radiation.
    - not_a_moth 7y ago
      LA - NY is multiple chest x-rays (see the chart from the poster below you, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/media/File%3AExposure_chart-XKCD.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/medi...). There is no such thing as a standard hour either - altitude and latitude are the biggest factors - long haul flights have it worst. Let's drop the nuclear worker max as if it should bear on normal folks: Well known doctors like Peter Attia, Rhonda Patricks, and others I've heard on podcasts recommend max 5 mSv per year as limit that risks health and accelerating aging. Another ref, look at the FAA's data where they measure exposure on different flights: https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201413.pdf https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oam... e.g. NYC to Tokyo averages 22 microSV per hour. A chest x-ray is 20 miscroSV.
      - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
        If you want to go with the 5 mSv limit, and a chest x-ray is 20 μSv, that's still 833 chest x-rays per year before hitting your annual quota.
        not_a_moth 7y ago
        Sorry your math adds up to 250 not 833 x-rays. Importantly - each year simple, normal living exposes you to 3.5 mSv (see the same chart), so you only get 1.5 mSv to "allocate" to other exposures. In other words you only get 75 chest x-rays per year. By FAA rates of exposure on trans-pacific flights, you should take max 5-6 of those legs per year.
kmlx 7y ago
one London to NYC flight is around 400 bananas worth of radiation. which is still very low, especially compared to x-rays: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/media/File%3AExposure_chart-XKCD.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/medi...
- not_a_moth 7y ago
  That chart you linked states in the middle that 1 flight from NY to LA equals 3 chest x-rays. Don't know how you did your math. If NY to LA is 3 chest x-rays, imagine 3x as long at a higher altitude and higher latitude.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

You could take a dozen of flights daily for the rest of your life with little to no implications to your health (with respect to radiation dosing) [0]. The occupational limit for nuclear workers is 50 mSv. A single flight is 0.001 hourly. You spend 100% of a calendar year on plans, and only get 8.76 mSv exposure. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(radiation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(radiation...

not_a_moth 7y ago
It seems like you're claiming 1,000 chest x-rays/ year is fine. An x-ray still damages your dna, guaranteed, and your cells then have to repair it. The older you are, the harder that is to do, and the more times your cells have to repair dna, the more you age [David Sinclair's theory of aging anyways] I don't think you will find a health practitioner who would think that's safe for 1 year, let alone decades of doing it.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  If you look at the chart, you are ordinarily exposed to "natural background radiation", which is 0.01 mSv. 1,000 chest X-rays per year would be 60 mSv -- which is over the 50 limit for nuclear employees. A chest x-ray isn't really comparable to an hour spent on a commercial flight: it's sixty times as much radiation.
  - not_a_moth 7y ago
    LA - NY is multiple chest x-rays (see the chart from the poster below you, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/media/File%3AExposure_chart-XKCD.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/medi...). There is no such thing as a standard hour either - altitude and latitude are the biggest factors - long haul flights have it worst. Let's drop the nuclear worker max as if it should bear on normal folks: Well known doctors like Peter Attia, Rhonda Patricks, and others I've heard on podcasts recommend max 5 mSv per year as limit that risks health and accelerating aging. Another ref, look at the FAA's data where they measure exposure on different flights: https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201413.pdf https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oam... e.g. NYC to Tokyo averages 22 microSV per hour. A chest x-ray is 20 miscroSV.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
      If you want to go with the 5 mSv limit, and a chest x-ray is 20 μSv, that's still 833 chest x-rays per year before hitting your annual quota.
      - not_a_moth 7y ago
        Sorry your math adds up to 250 not 833 x-rays. Importantly - each year simple, normal living exposes you to 3.5 mSv (see the same chart), so you only get 1.5 mSv to "allocate" to other exposures. In other words you only get 75 chest x-rays per year. By FAA rates of exposure on trans-pacific flights, you should take max 5-6 of those legs per year.

kmlx 7y ago

one London to NYC flight is around 400 bananas worth of radiation. which is still very low, especially compared to x-rays: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/media/File%3AExposure_chart-XKCD.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/medi...

not_a_moth 7y ago
That chart you linked states in the middle that 1 flight from NY to LA equals 3 chest x-rays. Don't know how you did your math. If NY to LA is 3 chest x-rays, imagine 3x as long at a higher altitude and higher latitude.