Comments on Nuke Pro: Flight Crews Get Triple the Dose of Radiation From Being at Altitude

thanks for the comments. How true is your inter...

2015-05-26T14:41:14.982-07:00

thanks for the comments. How true is your internal versus external comment.

In Japan they want to re-"settle" people into areas with less than 50mSv external.

This IS A CRIME. Much of this will become internal. These poor people could be getting 500 mSv to 1000 mSv per year!

10 times more than the MAX allowed for a nuke plant worker under emergency conditions!

Raising the exposure rate is all the more reason w...

2015-05-26T14:07:33.616-07:00

Raising the exposure rate is all the more reason why nuclear should be banned, not 'normalized'.
Avoid medical xrays, especially for the young, as it is much more hazardous than we have come to believe. Herman J. Mueller showed xrays damage genes back in 1927 paper, Nobel awarded 1946.
Also about that time, Bulletin for Atomic Scientists, first many issues.. Solar was considered 'too expensive' and nuclear was promised to be 'safe' - when it is clearly note, that had already been proven as well. Nuclear medicine got it's start because the US govt awarded research grants to anyone who could find uses for nuclear to combat cancer --- which is sickly ironic -- radiation causes cancer!

And airplane flights do increase radiation exposure - external exposure. It is not nearly as serious as INTERNAL exposure from the radioisotopes that are increasingly in our water and food supply. Radiocesium, for instance, did not exist in our environment until the first atomic bomb test.

As for medical procedures, the excess use of Medical tests for heart patients is responsible for the 'average' exposure -- so much so, that a cardiologist has issued a voice of alarm
"Cardiologists ,,, are responsible for 45% of the entire cumulative effective dose of 3.0 mSv (similar to the radiological risk of 150 chest x-rays) per head per year to the US population from all medical sources,"

"The "radiation issue" is the need to consider possible deterministic effects (e.g., skin injuries) and long-term cancer risks due to ionizing radiation in the risk-benefit assessment of diagnostic or therapeutic testing. Although there are currently no data showing that high-dose medical studies have actually increased the incidence of cancer, the "linear-no threshold" model in radioprotection assumes that no safe dose exists; all doses add up in determining cancer risks; and the risk increases linearly with increasing radiation dose. ..."
http://www.cardiovascularultrasound.com/content/9/1/35

While it may not be commonly known, airline flight...

2015-05-15T03:45:35.135-07:00

While it may not be commonly known, airline flight crews are currently classified as "radiation workers," a federal designation that means they are consistently exposed to radiation. Flight crews on high-latitude routes, in fact, are exposed to more radiation on an annual basis than nuclear plant workers.
NOTE: Prior to Fukushima, airline flight crews were covered under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA).

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html

Cisco