A new medical study has confirmed the grimly accepted belief that pilots and flight attendants are more likely to die of ionizing radiation-related cancers than any other occupation. Cabin crew edged out the pilots for the highest rate and the combined totals are enough to warrant investigating some kind of protection against the cosmic rays that do the damage, according to the study led by Anupam Jena at the Joseph P. Newhouse Professor of Health Care Policy in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School.
The study found that radiation-related cancers, which cover a broad range of common cancers including breast, prostate, central nervous system, leukemia (certain types) and melanoma, accounted for 6.9% of all deaths in flight attendants and 6.7% of pilots. That put them No. 1 and No. 2 on the list of occupations compared in the comprehensive study, which sifted data for 13 million people across 503 occupations and included 14,000 pilots and 7,000 flight attendants. For context, nuclear technologists, who routinely handle radioactive material, placed 12th.
The study also found that pilots and flight attendants have rates of non-radiation cancer types similar to the general population. The cancers are related to the astronomical doses of cosmic radiation absorbed by the aviation workers over their careers. It’s estimated that they take up about 10 times as much radiation per year as even well-traveled people who fly up to 10 times a year. The FAA does recognize the hazard but does not regulate exposure limits, which some other countries do, according to the study.
It seems easy to recognize how FAs and pilots could be exposed to high doses of cosmic radiation, of course. Can someone knowledgeable also offer any insight about the possibility of radio-based radiation being harmful to these people? I’m wondering if being in such close and regular proximity to such powerful radio transmissions from aircraft antennas might also play a part.
If that were an issue, I’d imagine all the millions or billions of smart phone ‘zombies’ would be dropping like flies ??
Radio waves are non-ionizing radiation. They don’t cause cellular damage like cosmic rays.
The difference lies in the nature of the radiation. Ionizing radiation, generally of a frequency higher than light, can cause cellular and DNA damage, while non-ionizing radiation like radio transmissions for the most part either travels through the body without being absorbed (lower frequencies) or is absorbed as simple heat (higher frequencies such as Wifi/microwave oven). A lot of studies have been performed and the bottom line is that it takes an awful lot of non-ionizing radiation to cause long term damage and the field strength airplane crews are exposed to is very, very low. A radio system would perform very poorly if much energy were “wasted” getting absorbed by crew rather than sent off to the distant receiver. The FCC does have RF radiation exposure limits and aircrews are exposed to well under any of those limits under normal operation.
Like Kirk W and Larry S said. Numerous studies by BCBS and others in the ’70s and ’80s looked at RF, computer terminals and cell phones and found no correlation. There is one study from Norway for a different purpose using RF to increase effectiveness of traditional radiation for certain brain cancers (Glioblastoma multeforme) which I haven’t seen convincing data makes any difference in outcomes, but it is now accepted as a reasonable standard of care after. So, I think that the cell phone zombie theory of Larry is probably correct.
“ I’m wondering if being in such close and regular proximity to such powerful radio transmissions from aircraft antennas might also play a part.”
You’re going to have to go a little further than that. Just how powerful do you think these radios are? And how far away from the antennas do you think the crew are?
Clearly “pilot” and “flight attendant” have elevated risk of radiation cancer death. However, it needs a context: what are the rad cancer death percentages of the next 5 or 10 occupations? If they’re 6.5%, 6.3%, etc, then it wouldn’t seem to make much difference. I couldn’t find out without getting an account on JAMA Internal Medicine.
It is not clear that this is from radiation. The AMA is a political organization which is mainly comprised of a few doctors and mostly medical students and residents who are given free memberships which they frequently drop as soon as they complete training.
The better data can be found at the CDC and at OSHA and NIOSH in their publications. One of their cute little graph charts show lawyers have a higher malignancy rate than transportation workers.
Interestingly, one trade pub, Radiology Business used the Harvard report as a basis to sugges increased frequency of mammograms in flight attendants, thus increasing radiation exposure to air crew breast, and presumably further increasing the hypothetical risk.
Despite the dig at the AMA, it had nothing to do with this Harvard Medical School study. And since the data analysis is new, one wouldn’t expect it to be reflected yet in CDC et al. information.
The information is not new. It is old. From the abstract of the study and the data floating around the internet, it is not clear that study tells us anything.
It attempts to correlate death certificate data with cancer incidence. It does not reference SEER data, nor does it have a strong control of confounding factors, which the authors do admit. A similar study would be I got stopped by every red light on my way to work, therefore redlight frequency is high. Correlation does not imply causation and the available relevant data says strongly otherwise.
The first report on increased radiation exposure and excess death dates back to Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Bikini Atoll events. The original report entitled BEIR – Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. There are now 7 versions of this. Rather than have the press sensationalize a study that really tells us little, then make decisions based this one study, look at the plethora of data that says otherwise.
Articles that state, “… federal regulators have not set any dose limits or processes for monitoring radiation.” That reporter’s statement is categorically false, and I am paid to insure that institutions who use radiation meet those standards and follow those processes.
The numbers cited in the Jena abstract are well below the regulatory limit of 20 mSv/year and far below the available well studied data which I cited above. The CDC data is the result of now over a century of well measured radiation exposure data with direct population and case control studies. Otherwise, we all better move to Boston or Nantucket and stay off the western ski slopes. When I presented a review of a controversial position a noted US cancer center took at a cancer meeting in the 1990s, one of the attendees from that institution took great offense and made it public. One of the other attendees from a competing institution, not my own, took the floor and replied, “well, your institution has a very peculiar history of not particularly reproducible results…and Dr Greentips has demonstrated why.”
We have to look at how the study was done, what the investigator’s rationale was for doing it, and how they analyzed the data. Before it creates widespread concern.
Like Charles Brown, I couldn’t find the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. occupations without paying for the study. I did find this graph from the study (see below).
The study separated cancer deaths into two types – those generally caused by exposure to cosmic rays, such breast or prostate cancer, or leukemia, from those not considered caused by radiation exposure, such as colon cancer.
Generally, it found that the overall population was at a ~5% risk of all cancers. For the non-ionizing-radiation type cancers, aircrew were no more or less at risk. But for the ionizing-radiation type cancers, aircrew were at the top, and the curve was pretty steep. They also compared airline employees that did not fly regularly, such as mechanics, and found they were in the “general population” level of risk.
Now, the study does point out that correlation is not causation, there may be other risk factors such as UV light coming through windows in the cockpit (though that data could likely be teased out by comparing specific types of cancers’ prevalence between flight attendants and pilots).
But it did suggest that aircrew and their doctors may want to be more aware of cancer risk, and consider more additional tests and screening they wouldn’t otherwise, such as skin checks.
https://www.space.com/technology/thinner-than-a-hair-and-stretchy-like-rubber-new-material-could-shield-against-radiation-in-next-gen-space-tech
I have not found the original study. I would like to read that paper before commenting definitively. What I have gleaned doesn’t give me confidence in the methodology.
First, according to published reviews of the study, not the study itself, the methodology was to look at death certificate reported cause of death. Without reading the study itself, it’s unclear what, if any, controls were used to further screen for risk factors. It is interesting that they elected to exclude lung cancers, one article says, because they did not want to confound their study. Yet, they included breast cancers. Women in their 40s and older get mammograms, which add about 1.46 mSv/year to each breast. Confounding factor? Sure.
They also said they estimated the absorbed, accumulated radiation dose at 6 mSv per year. A Sievert is a measure of radiation dose absorbed.
The ICRP (International Commission on Radiation Protection) established an occupational dose limit of 20 mSv/year with no single event exceeding 50 mSv. The non-occupational dose (general public) is 1 mSv/year from all non-natural exposures. In other words, they do not include normal background radiation.
There are a number of reports originally based on Hiroshima/Nagasaki radiation data and later Chernobyl data called the BEIR reports, now at BEIR VII which have found no significant increase in radiation related cancer events at doses below a threshold of 100 mSv. A Mayo clinic review had this to say:
Hruska & O’Conner; J Am Coll Radiol. 2015 Oct;12(10):1103–1105. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2015.07.001
The reported subset of cancer deaths they used are common cancers in the general population. However, past epidemiologic cancer studies have not demonstrated similar risks differences in populations living at high altitude vs. those living at sea level where normal background due to atmospheric shielding reduces the radiation background. If this were the case we would also expect to see higher incidence of these cancers for those who live at high altitude such as the mountains of Colorado, the Andes, Himalayas, etc, or in areas where there is a higher natural radiation level at ground level, but we do not.
My conclusion is this Harvard study is handwaving, does not demonstrate anything other than at altitudes above sea level we are more exposed to radiation and correlation does not imply causation. So, no reason to not continue to add to my multithousands of hours at altitude for many years to come. But I would have to read the study to see what, exactly they did outside reports of the popular press panics.
[I am a qualified and board certified expert on radiation and health physics within the meaning of 10 CFR 35, who doesn’t fly airplanes as much as I want to]
Thanks, greentips. I figured this was bs.
I don’t know about flight attendants but pilots are medically monitored more than is the general population. Maybe they find cancers earlier?
I am a senior AME and and for sure ATPs are monitored more than the general pop. Over 35 they get a baseline ekg, and over 40 once a year and six month FAA medicals. For those who do get diagnosed and treated, there are many cancers we can directly issue after appropriate treatment under the FAA’s CACI program. You can find out more about this by searching the AME Guide for CACI if it applies to you. For many conditions, not just cancers. In the course of my career as a radiation oncologist, I have written many status letters for airmen to give to their own AME when they are up for renewal. Flight attendants, as far as I know are not required to carry an FAA medical certificate, unless they are pilots themselves.
The article says the data examined was of people who died of cancer, not those who were diagnosed. So this should minimize the effects of more frequent screening.
First of all, God put the sun right up there in the sky where it hits us in the face almost every time we walk out the door. I really don’t believe that He had ill intentions in doing that. It is the absolute best source of vitamin D, and even medical doctors who have zero nutritional training will admit that. Granted, it is possible to get too much of a good thing if you strip down and lay in the sun too many hours. But it probably takes a lot more exposure than the Southwest Airlines pilot in this article was exposed to.
https://viewfromthewing.com/southwest-captain-exposed-himself-on-orlando-flight-now-the-union-wants-to-punish-the-pilot-who-reported-it/
Lots of inconsistencies from the medical establishment. First of all, they tell us that the sun causes cancer because of radiation. So what do they do when you go to the hospital? They bombard the cancer with radiation. And pilots are getting far more direct sunlight in the cockpit, but they are telling us that it’s the flight attendants getting cancer more often than pilots. I’m pretty sure that they are both flying at approximately the same altitude.
And the length of time it takes for new medical research to emerge is often even longer than the time it took for the Southwest court case to be exposed to the public.
Flight attendants are in the body of the plane being exposed to much more radiation from wi-fi and other wireless devices. I have measured this and it is off the charts. http://www.ehtrust.org
That sounds right to me David. Not sure how much backscatter pilots are getting off of the radar, but they could turn that off. I think pilots are still getting much of the same WiFi as flight attendants though. The sunshine coming into the cockpit is probably prolonging their life instead of shortening it.
perhaps pilots are shielded from the wi-fi from all the devices being used in the plane. would be interesting and maybe revealing to test that area separately. thanks for feedback. most people are skeptical as there has been so much pushback by industry that has labeled this as “conspiracy theory” goddess bless us all.
You’re welcome David. He has indeed blessed all of us, undeserving as we might be and we all have much to be thankful for.
Radiation from wi-fi and other wireless devices cause cancer and other health effects. Over 10,000 studies from all branches of the military and NASA confirm this fact but it is never considered. Too controversial and our regulatory agencies and organizations are compromised by industry money, advertising revenue so the telecom industry controls the narrative. http://www.ehtrust.org