8 ms·
Pentagon study reveals higher cancer rates for military pilots, ground crews
- abirch 4y agoDoes anyone know how many annual hours Military pilots log and at what altitude? A regular flight from NYC to LA is similar to getting a chest x-ray: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/air_travel.html https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/air_travel.html
- gonzo41 4y agoIt's not cosmic rays. It's fuel and oils. Benzene is the OG carcinogen. Military machines are like working with farm equipment, heavy dangerous and with ok-ish ppe which is usually not enough. Just look at the burn pits fiasco.
- icegreentea2 4y agoGround crew increased risk is probably coming almost completely from exposure to carcinogens in the materials they're working with. However, the gap between ground crew rates and air crew rates, plus known similar effects in civilian airliner crew (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aircrew/cancer.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aircrew/cancer.html) indicates that it's likely that a significant component of increased risk for pilots and aircrew may be related to high altitude. This doesn't rule out something like... increased exposure to flame-retardants (or something) (fabrics, other materials, or maybe off-gasing into air supply) that may be carcinogenic.
- amluto 4y agoDo fighter planes use bleed air for cabin air the way that almost all commercial jets do?
- stametseater 4y agoThey do pressurize the cockpits, but the pilots breath through their masks. At high altitudes, the cockpit air isn't pressurized enough to prevent hypoxia so they need masks.
- amluto 4y agoWhere does the air in the masks come from? I assume it’s a mix of bottled oxygen and something else.
- lockhouse 4y agoThe problem is, cancer frankly isn't the Pentagon's problem, because it usually develops after service members leave active duty. They kick this problem down the road to the Department of Veteran's Affairs instead.
- mgarfias 4y agoMy dad got the VA to kick him down some cash for his diabeetus 40 years later. Something bout agent orange exposure. I do wonder if there’s a link between that agent Orange and the stupid adrenal tumor I had.
- paulpauper 4y agoThe study found that aircrews had 87% higher rates of melanoma and 39% higher rates of thyroid cancer. Men saw 16% higher rates of prostate cancer. I don't think Benzene is the main risk factor for those type of cancers . Benzene causes blood cancers, lymphomas.
- gonzo41 4y agoYeah sun exposure is, and ground crew spend a lot of time on the runway, where if it's concrete, uv hits you from the ground like when you're at the snow. So people are working in the blazing sun, with stack of thermally reflective surfaces around. My point was more that there's more common risk factors. And for the flight crew, maybe they should ease off on volleyball :P
- the__alchemist 4y agoRadar too for fighters. (Sidelobes)
- rythmshifter 4y agoRadar is off or disabled while on the ground
- the__alchemist 4y agoIt's on and enabled while airborne.
- exq 4y agoRadar is non-ionizing, no?
- the__alchemist 4y agoCorrect, and AFAIK there is no evidence for a link to any specific negative effects. I think it would surprise no one if ones were found from long-term exposure.
- pinkmuffinere 4y agotl;dr: yes, it is similar, but it's also about the same amount of radiation as you're normally exposed to in 4 days. For most people I'd guess that isn't a concern, but the parent's question is apt -- how much time do military pilots spend actually flying? looking here (https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-flying-aces-need-more-time-air-airforce-marines-pilots-training-exercises-expenses-military-budget-china-taiwan-11645117426 https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-flying-aces-need-more-time-a...), it seems the average is 10-60 hours, depending on whether deployed or not. I don't know about altitude, but if that's not a significant factor, then deployed pilots are getting ~10 NYC-LA flights per year, or 40 days of extra radiation per year. Honestly this doesn't seem too bad to me. I was surprised by the claim, so I looked into the linked source: "You would be exposed to about 0.035 mSv (3.5 mrem) of cosmic radiation if you were to fly within the United States from the east coast to the west coast. This amount of radiation is less than the amount of radiation we receive from one chest x-ray." I note that it says _less than_ in the source, so let's compare the actual numbers -- it's 0.035 mSv for the flight (from the first source) and 0.1 mSv for the chest x-ray (from https://www.cancer.org/treatment/understanding-your-diagnosis/tests/understanding-radiation-risk-from-imaging-tests.html https://www.cancer.org/treatment/understanding-your-diagnosi...). It does seem fair to say they are similar. The cancer.org source also notes that you'd normally be exposed to about 0.1 mSv naturally over the course of about 10 days. So we can say the flight from NYC to LA is ~4 days of natural radiation exposure.
- dataflow 4y agoCan you really just look at the cumulative amount of radiation? Does the intensity not matter? If you compressed those 4 days' worth of exposure into, say, 1 second, would that not have any different effect?
- pinkmuffinere 4y agoThat's a great point. I have no idea, and now I'm also curious. Not quite curious enough to google it though haha
- gwillen 4y ago
- thrill 4y agoI flew about 14 years out of my career and I had 2800 hours flying fighters, and was anywhere from surface to 50,000+ feet. This is low-time compared to the people who flew heavies (tankers and transport). My cancer was not diagnosed until shortly after I left the service by the first doctor I visited, but I'd began getting increasingly unpleasant symptoms 5 years prior (about the time I quit flying and went to a non-flying duty "for career progression").
- the__alchemist 4y agoI wonder how the rates compare with heavies v fighters. The heavies fly a lot longer, but aren't sitting 6-9 ft behind a radar, or breathing MSOGS.
- docandrew 4y agoHeavies have radars too - and instead of O2 from a tank they breathe bleed air from the engines.
- warner25 4y agoI'm wondering about helicopters too. I was a helicopter pilot for a few years. We rarely flew much higher than 1,000 feet AGL, but we crawled all over the aircraft during pre-flight, drew fuel samples, etc. While deployed in a flying position, we'd log 50-100 hours per month. It would be a quarter of that when not deployed. Over a 20-year career, 5,000 hours seemed typical for Army warrant officers; commissioned officers (who spend a lot of time on "non-flying duty 'for career progression'") would get more like 1,000-2,000 hours. I'm pretty sure that civilian commercial pilots fly a lot more than that.
- XorNot 4y agoMicrowave band radar isn't ionizing radiation. It's not causing cancer (whereas the boatload of combustion products you're likely regularly exposed to is a much bigger worry).
- zarzavat 4y ago
- iancmceachern 4y agoI bet it's more about the toxic chemicals than the radiation...
- the__alchemist 4y agoRe melanoma: USAF loves the dessert. Vegas and the Mid East are v popular destinations to go for certain airframes like the one pictured in the article.
- dboreham 4y agoI was thinking there's no way that picture was taken in the UK. Way too sunny.
- metaphor 4y agoDefinitely the UK, more specifically, RAF Lakenheath, a well-known F-15 OCONUS base. From the pic[1], "LN" tailflash is telltale, but if your confidence is still waivering, this is the precise location[2] that the pic was taken from: you can see spot "03" painted on the flightline and tower in the background. [1] https://images.axios.com/7Kz2FLdbEv-I_Pr-GjkRXdriQSM=/0x254:4000x2504/1920x1080/2023/03/19/1679246990037.jpg?w=1920 https://images.axios.com/7Kz2FLdbEv-I_Pr-GjkRXdriQSM=/0x254:... [2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/52%C2%B024'02.2%22N+0%C2%B033'28.6%22E/@52.4006119,0.5573972,198m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d52.4006111!4d0.5579444 https://www.google.com/maps/place/52%C2%B024'02.2%22N+0%C2%B...
- cpncrunch 4y agoI'm sure they love their desserts, while hanging out in the desert.
- bastard_op 4y agoWell, where else do you think they get their guinea pigs from?
- mgarfias 4y agoMy brother (c17 maintainer) currently has melanoma.
- Havoc 4y agoI seem to recall people working on aircraft catapults in particular getting all sorts of skin issues. Not cancer specifically but rashes etc
- lapama 4y agoBrainstorming hypothesis: time spent in landing g strips and airport areas leads to contact with fuels. Smelling them for long is not advisable.
- jesusofnazarath 4y ago[dead]
- atleastoptimal 4y agoNot surprising. I recall the story about the Miles Teller being taken to the hospital due to getting rashes while filming Top Gun Maverick, they found tons of chemicals including jet fuel in his blood.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sacnoradhq 4y agoToxic chemicals abound in the US military. There are many civilian regulations that were/are flagrantly ignored because USMIL is largely a law unto itself. This includes: - unproven, risky, and experimental medications, vaccines, and medical procedures - direct exposure to toxic chemicals - toxic pollution of air, water, and soil (numerous superfund sites are former military land) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites - environmental damage There are also some well-known historical incidents: Gulf War-era (1st GW) - GW syndrome likely from pyridostigmine bromide nerve agent prophylaxis pills ("WMDs" was a Cheney hoax.) - exposure to partial combustion of hazardous oil well fires Vietnam-era Agent Orange exposure led to in in-theatre troops years to decades later: - AL Amyloidosis - Chronic B-cell Leukemias - Chloracne - Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 (and also adult-onset Type 1 where insulin production essentially stops) - Hodgkin’s Disease - Ischemic Heart Disease - Multiple Myeloma - Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma - Parkinson’s Disease - Peripheral Neuropathy, Early- Onset - Porphyria Cutanea Tarda - Prostate Cancer - Respiratory Cancers - Soft Tissue Sarcomas https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/publications/agent-orange/agent-orange-2020/presumptive.asp https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/publications/agent... In the Vietnamese population, it lead to: - ~ 400k injuries and deaths - ~ 500k birth defects - ~ 2M cancers - (presumed 100k's) still births and fetal abnormalities
- TaylorAlexander 4y agoI wonder if or when the USA will ever reckon with what we did to Vietnam.
- iancmceachern 4y agoNext headline - Pentagon study reveals US government does not properly care for its veterans, the VA is a joke
- iancmceachern 4y agoInstead of downvoting perhaps provide evidence the VA is anything but terrible
- irrational 4y agoCould it because pilots spend more time in the upper atmosphere than the general population, so they aren't as protected from cancer causing radiation as people at sea level? As for ground crews, they probably spend more time in the sun - again, potential cancer causing radiation. I wonder how the ground crews would compare to outdoor construction workers.
- atdt 4y agoThis is phase 1 of a multi-phase study. Analyzing the role played by ionizing radiation exposure due to high-altitude flight is planned as part of phase 2.
- wkat4242 4y agoI doubt it. Commercial pilots and air crew spend a lot more time in the upper atmosphere.
- irrational 4y agoWhat are their rates of cancer compared to the general population? Does the metal fuselage of a jetliner protect better than the canopy of fighter?
- wkat4242 4y agoCommercial pilots spend much more time in the air, that would offset any additional protection. Which is minimal anyway. A thin layer of aluminium compared to plexiglass or glass. For Alpha particles either would give perfect protection, beta would be about the same. Neither hardly make it through our magnetic field anyway. For gamma rays I wonder if Aluminium wouldn't trigger more bremsstrahlung, I remember reading somewhere that that is more prevalent in metal, but I'm not sure now. I'm not sure what their cancer rates are though. The reason for the higher time in the air is that fighters really need a ton of maintenance. Every flight hour means 10-15 hours of maintenance. For commercial jets it's like the opposite.
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y agoThey don't care https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/area-51-burning-revealed/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/area-51-burning-revealed/
- atdt 4y agoFrom the study: > This study found that compared to the U.S. population after adjusting for age, sex, and race, aircrew had an 87 percent higher rate of melanoma, 39 percent higher rate of thyroid crew had an 87 percent higher rate of melanoma, 39 percent higher rate of thyroid cancer, 16 percent higher rate of prostate cancer, and a 24 percent higher rate of cancer for all sites. Ground crew members had higher incidence of cancers of brain and nervous system (by 19 percent), thyroid (by 15 percent), melanoma(by 9 percent), kidney and renal pelvis (by 9 percent), and of all sites (by 3 percent). However, aircrew and ground crew both had lower or similar cancer mortality rates for all cancer types when compared to the U.S. population. That last bit is presumably related to the VA providing free health care for any service-connected condition.
- aaomidi 4y agoHopefully this is gonna make it easier for veterans to prove that their cancer is because of their service.
- docandrew 4y agoI personally know three AF aviators who were diagnosed with brain cancer. The story I heard was that C-130 aircrew had raised the alarm, the Air Force did a study, and determined that statistically AF aviators were no more likely to get these cancers than the general population. Many were suspicious of the findings. After that, two more aviators, close friends of mine, were diagnosed with brain cancer, one of whom has since passed away. My thoughts are that it probably has to do with the airborne radars in use.
- docandrew 4y agoThis was the study: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA522424.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA522424.pdf
- picture 4y agoRadar does not cause cancer because radar do not emit ionizing radiation. Afaik ionizing radiation (gamma rays) are in the exahertz range and would have very high absorption by atmosphere. Modern radar systems are millimeter wave or microwave at most. I think that spending a lot of time at very high altitude means they will absorb more radiation over time than someone who spends their life on the ground.
- docandrew 4y agoThat’s what they tell me, but could RF heating contribute? I found this too which was interesting: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E....
- midoridensha 4y agoHow much time do USAF pilots actually spend at altitude? Commercial pilots I've talked to say it's generally well-known that military pilots don't have many flight hours. If you want to study pilots with the most high-altitude flight hours, just look at the pilots for big commercial airlines. Military aircraft are expensive per flight-hour so they don't fly them more than they really need to; commercial aircraft are losing money when they're not in the air, by contrast.
- ddod 4y agoSince I don't think anybody's linked it yet, there was a lot of press about the anti-fire foam the airforce uses in drills (and actual fires) being toxic and leaking into the water systems in every base.[0] They said they'll phase it out by 2024,[1] so if you're planning on enlisting, you should wait to enlist until then so you can be part of the next cohort for this study. Also, if you live near an airbase, you might want to wait to have any future children until then too, as it affects people around all the bases, as well. [0] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/26/residents-near-8-military-bases-be-tested-chemical-tied-cancer.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/26/residents-nea... [1] https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/03/16/pentagon-to-halt-use-of-firefighting-foam-that-contains-pfas-as-cleanup-costs-mount/ https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/03/16/pentagon-to-halt-use-...
- aaomidi 4y agoYou probably shouldn’t enlist if that’s your concern. You’re effectively the property of the state and they don’t really give a shit about your health.
- wkat4242 4y agoIn the Netherlands there's also been a big scandal about Chrome-6-based paint used on F-16s. Apparently the Dutch DoD knew this could cause serious health issues but they just continued to use it with inadequate PPE. I wonder if this applies to the US as well, after all these are American fighters (though the ones in Holland were built locally at Schiphol airport) And there's of course the high use of depleted uranium in the US, for bullets and armor.
- shadowgovt 4y agoPilots aren't surprising, but ground crews I didn't expect. Exposure to fuels and volatiles?
- aaron695 4y ago[dead]