6 ms·

Does 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://ww

by abirch 4y ago

Does 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 ago
It'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 ago
  Ground 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 ago
    Do fighter planes use bleed air for cabin air the way that almost all commercial jets do?
    - stametseater 4y ago
      They 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 ago
        Where does the air in the masks come from? I assume it’s a mix of bottled oxygen and something else.
- lockhouse 4y ago
  The 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 ago
    My 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Yeah 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 ago
  Radar too for fighters. (Sidelobes)
  - rythmshifter 4y ago
    Radar is off or disabled while on the ground
    - the__alchemist 4y ago
      It's on and enabled while airborne.
      - exq 4y ago
        Radar is non-ionizing, no?
        the__alchemist 4y ago
        Correct, 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 ago
tl;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 ago
  Can 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 ago
    That'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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Heavies have radars too - and instead of O2 from a tank they breathe bleed air from the engines.
  - warner25 4y ago
    I'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 ago
    Microwave 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 ago
I bet it's more about the toxic chemicals than the radiation...

by abirch 4y ago

gonzo41 4y ago

It'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 ago
Ground 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 ago
  Do fighter planes use bleed air for cabin air the way that almost all commercial jets do?
  - stametseater 4y ago
    They 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 ago
      Where does the air in the masks come from? I assume it’s a mix of bottled oxygen and something else.
lockhouse 4y ago
The 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 ago
  My 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Yeah 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 ago
Radar too for fighters. (Sidelobes)
- rythmshifter 4y ago
  Radar is off or disabled while on the ground
  - the__alchemist 4y ago
    It's on and enabled while airborne.
    - exq 4y ago
      Radar is non-ionizing, no?
      - the__alchemist 4y ago
        Correct, 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 ago

tl;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 ago
Can 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 ago
  That'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 ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Heavies have radars too - and instead of O2 from a tank they breathe bleed air from the engines.
- warner25 4y ago
  I'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 ago
  Microwave 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 ago

I bet it's more about the toxic chemicals than the radiation...