As a nuclear professional, I do a lot of consideration of the effects of radiation. I think this was a pretty good, nuanced view. What may be interesting would be to separate the skin cancers from the rest. One very well may see that internal cancers actually were lower (this is actually a very common result in radiated populations). Given the window area in the cockpit, I would not be surprised to see skin cancer from UV (not entirely blocked by windows) vs. Ionizing radiation from the Cosmos. I believe the same is seen in truckers, even if they don't keep their arm out the window.
"One very well may see that internal cancers actually were lower (this is actually a very common result in radiated populations)" Can confirm that as a biologist. As I stated in my other post, the most popular hypothesis is that the increased DNA damage actually triggers DNA repair mechanisms and makes them work. The DNA damage is a signal for DNA repair mechanisms and more damage means those systems become more active and more transcribed (produced) by the cell and there will be more of them. Up to a certain point, when they get saturated and cannot keep up with the new damage. You can often see slight decrease of cancer in people exposed to slightly above normal radiation levels. (does not work much for Japanese). At a higher doses the cancer count suddenly jumps up.
Cory Stansbury that's true about truckers, from what I've read. They tend to get cancer on the left arm, and left side of the face and neck from exposure to sunlight through the side window. UK truckers get more on the right side of the body.
The rules are different in the United States. Pregnant flight crew are not taken off line immediately. And they never modify our schedules for radiation risks.
To me, your most informative video is the one about tail strike. Cosmic radiation is the second best. Can you please do a video on aircraft stall and what are the safeguard mechansims in place in commercial airliners to prevent stall. I have seen empty aircrafts go at near vertical trajectory right after take off. What is the mechansims to prevent stall if the pilot becomes too showy and aims too fast lift upon take off?
Very nice overview of the subject, well done! Two remarks worth mentioning: A lot of the high energy cosmic radiation is protons, and this kind of radiation doesn't occur naturally, little is known about long term health effects. Protons tend to go deep into the body and decay in a number of secondary radioactive particles there. Second remark is Solar Flares (Coronal mass ejections from the Sun). The particle flow from these is astronomical and very dangerous.They can be predicted with a couple of days warming, and you should avoid to fly near them if at all possible. They can even knock out power lines on ground.
I worked in a lab and someone spilled a dose of plutonium. Did not tell us so my radiation badge showed high so i had to stay away for 1month. Finally I was out of the woods. Still no cancer 40 years latèr.
Great video! Occasionally I travel with a small Geiger counter inside the cabin. I always make sure the alarm is mute. Otherwise, it will startle my seatmate when the readings get above 300 counts per minute (and higher) of radioactive decay. Normal background radiation at my location is ~38 CPM at 250 meters above sea level.
To be honest that's just a little concerning. :-) There's a TH-cam channel called "The Flight Channel" and in several of his videos it's apparent the captain is under pressure to complete as soon as possible and this is where the serious mistakes start happening. In one the captain effectively overruled his first officer even though the situation had progressed to the point that a go-around was more than just an _extremely_ good idea... I do wonder though if airlines do what my company does and have their pilots' performance (and attitude) anonymously reviewed by other pilots that have flown with them?
You quote studies that were done, but also recognize that the studies don’t represent statistically significant differences. I really appreciate this in an age where studies are often quoted as being hard and fast. Thanks for the nice work in this and your other videos!
Good information captain and being myself as an NDT professional we use to carry a pocket dosimeter to check the recorded dosage of radiation within the stipulated time
I am also an experienced radiation person. The only way to know actual exposure is to wear a radiation detector. Levels that pilots are exposed to are barely detectable unless they fly regularly over the earths magnet poles. BTW I like that globe is that real or virtual?
Hi, John! Hey, this is TH-cam, don't forget, so Petter's globe or 'sphere' (ha!) must be either virtual or completely fake because everybody knows the world is FLAT. [Please note: Of course I'm kidding. In his brief time on this so-called planet of ours, the late Terry Pratchett proved conclusively that the world is a Disc supported by four elephants balancing on the back of a gigantic turtle...] Oh dear. Now the poop is REALLY going to hit the turbofan! ;-)
I am glad to see you in a T-shirt and blue-jeans instead of your pilot uniform while you are on vacation. Now you are a real person. Especially, since you are on vacation now!
Good one! Here's a topic I'd be interested in hearing about. The business side of airlines, specifically, I've heard that airlines don't buy engines for planes any more, instead they buy "thrusts". Not sure what that means. In addition, I'd be interested in hearing how airlines pay for those very expensive planes, is it a one time payment or is it a payment plan? Things along these lines. Thanks for your great channel!
RR lease engines to some airlines complete with maintenance. That's one of the reasons MH370 could be monitored a little after it went off radar - the engine telemetry was still being monitored by Rolls Royce in Derby England. Unfortunately the data can only tell you throttle setting, fuel flow, temperatures of various sections, vibration and noise levels and such like. I could be wrong but the thrust thing is for example buying 10 billion pound seconds. For a Trent 1000 that would be 200,000 seconds at cruise throttle (if I remember correctly 50,000 pounds thrust). On a four engine aircraft that would be only 50,000 seconds, or about 14 hours flight. Then you have all the malarkey of take-off thrust (which is on some engines rated as more than maximum thrust) and landing thrust (the engines can be almost at idle at points). It can be calculated but would be a pain in the neck without a computer monitoring second by second.
I am not really sure why I really like these videos! I mean I fly relatively a lot, maybe around 20-30 times a year, and I was relatively smart at school with maths / physics / chem, but nothing too geeky or to much in love with airplanes. Still, I thoroughly enjoy most of your videos Mentour, keep it up!
Interesting video. I recently flew in an old 737 in Thailand and it was remarkably comfortable compared to the tiny economy seats in 777's. I don't think the 777's seats would even pass occupational health and safety rules for long haul travel without a lot of industry lobbying. I'm not to worried about radiation but those seats really worry me.
Thanks for this. I've been curious since meeting a retired LH flight attendant who seemed a bit alarmist about this topic. This brings it back to reality.
Recent shifts in magnetic patterns on the Earth could potentially change the amount of cosmic radiation received from space in a given area significantly. The magnetic weather patterns have recently been shown to be more complex and active than previously observed. I am not confident that the safety modeling has adequately accounted for these deviations from historical norms. I think that all commercial airlines should detect the actual exposure in each aircraft. Furthermore, given the known risks of long term exposure to sunlight for skin cancers in particular and the apparent higher than average incidence in flight crews, some mitigating measures could be warranted. Perhaps adjusting procedures, uniforms, window coatings, or shades might be worthwhile. Even just supplying UV protecting skin cream to crews might help.
Very interesting Video, especialy because my father has flown 35 years 727, DC10, A320, A340 and unfortunately was only one of several pilots out of his Flight Class who maybe (to make sure - MAYBE)) haven affected by this issue.
Lovely video! I was wondering about that topic for a bit so thanks for clearing it up :D I would also love to see you collaborate with Aviator Inspirations or Captain Joe some time in the future :)
Great video on interesting topic but lifestyle diseases are number one killer... ahem. That t shirt shows you’ve been indulging a little and maybe not getting enough exercise. Take care of yourself - you’re a great asset to aviation enthusiasts. I love your tone and appreciate the level of sophistication in your presentations!
With the increase in transpolar flights in recent years, did you come across anything about increased radiation when flying over the poles? Also thought it was humorous that you compared pilots vs “normal men”.
I work in the nuclear industry. We have thermoluminescent dosimeters, TLDs. Not to offer any protection (as if!!) but to record the dose you are exposed to. 20mSv per annum is our limit and no one gets anywhere near it. To be honest a chronic exposure of maybe even 1Sv/yr is far less harmful than an acute exposure. Also, it depends on which flavour. Alpha is generally regarded as an internal hazard only, so you’d have to ingest the radioisotope, and then it’s damn dangerous if it has a long half-life. I guess cosmic radiation is gamma and maybe some beta?
I have been waiting for this video for so long as most pilots I spoke to never gave much details on the info. One interesting fact I dicovered though was that male pilots were more likely to have daughters as kids
I took my Soeks dosimeter on a flight. Normal reading on the ground is around 0.04-0.12 µSv/h. On the plane at 40000 ft it reached 3.12 µSv/h, which read as "dangerous." Petter, I think you mean µSv (microSieverts), not millisieverts. Thanks for making this video. I am the one who suggested it.
What about a video debunking those flat-earth theories that are based on strange flight-paths and times. I'm guessing it's about headwinds and the like but it would be nice to see an actual pilot debunking a bunch of them
"Normal" background radiation levels vary from less than 1mSv/a to over 200mSv/a ... European Alps have 8 to about 12mSv/a ... Much of that is Radon outgassing from granites, etc. See also "radiation hormesis"... Low levels of radiation exposure can be protective against cancers.
True enough and those levels can be even worse in subsurface structures like cellars since Radon is heavier than air it tends to collect in cellars and such. In some areas mostly those that have higher levels of Uranium in the ground planning policies recommend radon testing prior to cellar conversions if they are to used for living space for this reason. Thorium deposits are not as bad as Radon-220 has such a short half life (under a minute) but the several day half life of the Radon-222 from Uranium decay is enough for it to peculate up from shallow deposits in areas with permeable soils.
Very informative topic... If frequent flyer found to be at less risk even if he has clocked more hours than a pilot what could be the reason? Is it that the body was able to perfectly repair!
I'm surprised the cockpit does not have about 500 kg of lead shielding in the cockpit ceiling to lessen the radiation above the pilots. It would be worth the 7 passenger weight penalty to reduce the risk of cancer.
Interesting video. However, some points. The CAA site cites the Directive Euratom 96/29 Euratom which has been repealed by Directive 2013/59 Euratom. As those are directives they have to be incorporated into local state law in each of the european member states (and probably those in the EEA/EFTA), there is no european legislation about the specifics of how to work with those rather general rules. The incorporation should have been done by 6th February this year, but the UK probably had other things concerning the EU which are more important right now for them to worry about. Air crew expected to exceed 6mS a year, which does happen in long haul flying, especially flying polar routes, does not have to carry dosimeters or other measurement devices. They have to be monitored individually, however, that can be done, and indeed is routinely done, by the normal computer programs that actually do take into account the actual space weather situation, for example Epcard, which allows normal aviation users to do a free calculation of their exposure on their website. (search for Epcard Neu) for single flight, but of course there are others out there as well, for example CARI, SIEVERT and PCAIRE. Those usually calculate an individual dose for each air crew member based on their roster, depending on program taking into account planned or actual cruising levels, routing and actual space weather. There are some projects on the way for live update and traffic warning about sudden space weather phenomena so that flightcrew can adjust their exposure levels by flying lower. Which is quite important over the north atlantic for example, even more so flying polar routes. As you noted in the subtitle it is actually 49.000ft, not 39.000ft which would include pretty much all more modern commercial aircraft types that fly higher, for example the whole 737 NG series and pretty much much every longhaul aircraft (not the Airbus A320 family, that is limited to FL390). However, some business jets are now effectively limited to 49.000ft under european rules as there is simply no effective and lightweight measurement equipment available, even less so with aviation approval. And some of them are able to fly higher. Which is actually a slight commercial disadvantage for european operators. The flight deck windows of commercial airliners are glass laminated windows, which do not block the whole UV spectrum and therefore aircrew on the flight deck is constantly exposed to high levels of UV. wearing long sleeved shirts and high grade sunblockers is advised, at the least crew should wear wrap around UV blocking glasses in cruise. And yes, i usually turn up for work in short sleeved shirts for work in summer as well, in that case, yearly skin cancer screenings are a must.
Hello Captain. Hope you are fine and that you are enjoying your vacation with your family. Great work again Captain. By the way Captain, are those your Four Stripes near the globe?
Since 1988 know wait “knew” many old school commercial pilots and flight attendants that have died of all sorts of cancer. Ex Pan Am, Eastern, Northwest etc. and the common thing all had 20 years plus of flying.
Could be an issue for pregnant women or people with bad DNA repair systems. Otherwise slightly increased radiation is "healthy" as it makes DNA repair mechanisms work more than they usually do. There is a point when they cannot keep up with the new damage and that is different for different people but usually it is higher doses than you face in aviation. This effect is magnified for people who live in places with higher natural background radiation as they have more robust DNA repair systems usually. Does not work well for people from areas with low natural background radiation, I think that especially Japanese are very susceptible to low doses of radiation. PS: I would be more worried about cancer caused by all those flame retardants used all over the planes, those are nasty chemicals.
You can get in contact with them from the wear and tear of the material. Now I am not saying that the probability of getting cancer from them is high, especially not when there is no fire/destruction when they release into air in mass. Anyway some of them unlike radiation are effective on the cellular level from any exposure. Most mutations are harmless as they happen in the non-coding DNA and then most cells commit suicide when seriously damaged so the risk of cancer is still pretty low, they are just more dangerous than cosmic radiation for pilots when it comes to cancer.
That makes sense after all remember that sunburn is a radiation burn which at least on the surface of the Earth is caused by non-ionising UVA and UVB (Only extreme UV and above is ionising UVA and UVB are not). Being lower energy though you would mostly be looking at thermal burns to the skin and the associated increased risk of skin cancer as a result of potential mutations caused by the thermal breakdown of DNA even contact burns can actually cause this not something most people think about but there is a small but statistically significant increase in the risk of skin cancer after receiving skin burns from any cause.
Fantastic information from our Mentour Pilot. I guess, this calculation of radiation doesn't include any heavy bursts of cosmic radiation that is occuring in space at different intervals of time not necessarily due to sun. We don't know whether we are there at the point of time in space or not. It is a matter of fact that some radiation does penetrate our atmosphere in sky at different points. I am afraid there is no radiation map of the sky like weather map or turbulence map. There is no historic information/data pertaining this subject. I have no idea about the satellites of different countries tracking this radiation in sky, telecasting this data to the public. This calculation doesn't include any country testing nuclear weapons in space secretly. I am really happy that Mentour Pilot is realistic channel.
Hi mentour, it was really an interesting video, I liked it as the all you release. Just out of curiosity, I watched the movie Flight, and I am interested that can it happen in the real life to fly upside down or not. It would be good if you made a video in what you explained why it cant happen or like these. 😁
I wonder what Peter thinks of the so called Apollo space program in regards of the radiation belt on how we have gone backwards in technology if they did go to the moon and your thoughts why haven't we gone back to the moon since then
I would be interested in whether pilots are less likely to be getting their preventative health screenings like colonoscopies compared to the general population. While the aviation of course wants pilots to be healthy and rested I imagine with so much travel it would be difficult to schedule routine physicals, much less any more involved procedures like colonoscopies or surgeries.
Petter, excellent video on cosmic radiation. Thank you so much for addressing this topic. Question I have is - can aircrafts be designed to reduce the effects of cosmic radiation on flight crew and passengers?
Cosmic radiation is very hard to stop, you need typically several meters of material (water, ground, or an equivalent amount of air). To reduce the radiation on cruising altitude to the same level as on the ground you'd need more than half a metre of lead shielding.
agavai07 Anything can be done. Just a matter of cost basically. But in this case there is no motivation to take steps to reduce cosmic radiation that flight crew and passengers are exposed to. Please watch this video again where our friend mentour has spoken for more than 10 minutes I guess and his conclusion has been that everything is fine as it is except for pregnant women.
and it is much more cost effective if pregnant women avoid flying than everybody (including all non-pregnant people who should be a huge majority) flying in much heavier and especial machines that are designed for pregnant women. Makes sense?
And just to add to your comment, there is no need for pregnant women to avoid flying as passengers. An occasional flight won't cause harm. The restriction is for pilots or cabin crew, who fly every day. Pregnant women in those professions are assigned to ground duty or given leave for the duration of the pregnancy because of the cumulative levels of radiation they may be exposed to from very frequent periods in the air.
Yes, I knew that and I also agree with you. I was just trying to make a point about one class of people who can avoid flying if they want to be extra cautious. It is correct that flying will not cause any direct harm to the fetus. Thank you for pointing out. I agree that I had sounded like it is mandatory for pregnant women to avoid flying. At best avoiding flying is just a precaution that I would take if I was a woman.
I highly recommend taking 15 Mgs of zinc along with 1,000 Mgs of Vitamin C and 800-1,200 Mgs of Vitamin D3 everyday to help prevent cancer, since these antioxidants do preventand reduce the risk of developing cancer. You guys aren't appreciated enough for what you do, and I miss flying.
Megagrams? Like tonnes? :D Antioxidants are helping reduce cancer but not that caused by radiation but rather from free radials and not perfect handling of oxygen by mitochondria. I would say especially colourful vegetables is good cure for that.
As far as I know, antioxidants will not prevent from skin cancer coming from cosmic radiation. Don't fly if you are obsessive, compulsive about a non-issue.
This is shameful! There are hundreds, maybe thousands of monitored parameters in a modern plane, measuring stress and relative movement, acceleration, temperature, pressure, they even monitor what the pilots say to each other! So, why not monitor the radiation levels as well? Because you might have to send an expensive pilot home when he gets too much dose? What about solar storms? In my opinion there is so much variation in cosmic radiation that it really can’t be simulated accurately. Are they still going to rely on their simulation during the next solar maximum? What a joke! They ground the planes during a volcanic eruption because they might get damaged, but let the pilots continue flying during solar storms? I’m speechless.
Thanks Petter, nice video this one! And great location (even tho, in such amazing room you maybe should have had a captain uniform or a suit and not just a white t shirt and jeans :p)
You rule! Love the accent, it sounds like my family over holidays.. I take it you're either Norwegian or Swedish? I'm not real good with naming accents, but yours really sounds Scandinavian for sure.. Anyway, love the vids!
What about UV coming in through the airplane windows? Might be the main cause of the increased rate of skin cancer rather than cosmic radiation. Can you do a video about UV exposure while flying?
As a nuclear professional, I do a lot of consideration of the effects of radiation. I think this was a pretty good, nuanced view. What may be interesting would be to separate the skin cancers from the rest. One very well may see that internal cancers actually were lower (this is actually a very common result in radiated populations). Given the window area in the cockpit, I would not be surprised to see skin cancer from UV (not entirely blocked by windows) vs. Ionizing radiation from the Cosmos. I believe the same is seen in truckers, even if they don't keep their arm out the window.
Interesting insight! Thank you!
"One very well may see that internal cancers actually were lower (this is actually a very common result in radiated populations)"
Can confirm that as a biologist. As I stated in my other post, the most popular hypothesis is that the increased DNA damage actually triggers DNA repair mechanisms and makes them work. The DNA damage is a signal for DNA repair mechanisms and more damage means those systems become more active and more transcribed (produced) by the cell and there will be more of them. Up to a certain point, when they get saturated and cannot keep up with the new damage. You can often see slight decrease of cancer in people exposed to slightly above normal radiation levels. (does not work much for Japanese). At a higher doses the cancer count suddenly jumps up.
good points!
Cory: Think the Concorde had Victoreens in it?
Cory Stansbury that's true about truckers, from what I've read. They tend to get cancer on the left arm, and left side of the face and neck from exposure to sunlight through the side window. UK truckers get more on the right side of the body.
I'm an editor of a chemistry journal and I'm quite impressed with how you explained this stuff to a general TH-cam audience. Good job, Mentour!
I like how you described the study groups as "pilots" and "normal men!" 😂😂
So pilots aren't normal men then...I guess?
Vizz3x no we are more superior
Heh ^^
This channel gets better and better.
The rules are different in the United States. Pregnant flight crew are not taken off line immediately. And they never modify our schedules for radiation risks.
To me, your most informative video is the one about tail strike. Cosmic radiation is the second best. Can you please do a video on aircraft stall and what are the safeguard mechansims in place in commercial airliners to prevent stall. I have seen empty aircrafts go at near vertical trajectory right after take off. What is the mechansims to prevent stall if the pilot becomes too showy and aims too fast lift upon take off?
Sure!
Very nice overview of the subject, well done! Two remarks worth mentioning: A lot of the high energy cosmic radiation is protons, and this kind of radiation doesn't occur naturally, little is known about long term health effects. Protons tend to go deep into the body and decay in a number of secondary radioactive particles there. Second remark is Solar Flares (Coronal mass ejections from the Sun). The particle flow from these is astronomical and very dangerous.They can be predicted with a couple of days warming, and you should avoid to fly near them if at all possible. They can even knock out power lines on ground.
I worked in a lab and someone spilled a dose of plutonium. Did not tell us so my radiation badge showed high so i had to stay away for 1month. Finally I was out of the woods. Still no cancer 40 years latèr.
Great video! Occasionally I travel with a small Geiger counter inside the cabin. I always make sure the alarm is mute. Otherwise, it will startle my seatmate when the readings get above 300 counts per minute (and higher) of radioactive decay. Normal background radiation at my location is ~38 CPM at 250 meters above sea level.
This topic is very interesting! Great work Petter, see you on Sunday ;)
To be honest that's just a little concerning. :-) There's a TH-cam channel called "The Flight Channel" and in several of his videos it's apparent the captain is under pressure to complete as soon as possible and this is where the serious mistakes start happening. In one the captain effectively overruled his first officer even though the situation had progressed to the point that a go-around was more than just an _extremely_ good idea...
I do wonder though if airlines do what my company does and have their pilots' performance (and attitude) anonymously reviewed by other pilots that have flown with them?
his name is mentour
You quote studies that were done, but also recognize that the studies don’t represent statistically significant differences. I really appreciate this in an age where studies are often quoted as being hard and fast. Thanks for the nice work in this and your other videos!
Good information captain and being myself as an NDT professional we use to carry a pocket dosimeter to check the recorded dosage of radiation within the stipulated time
Great topic, I enjoyed being schooled on radiation when flying. Good fortunes in your travels.
It’s funny that I research the exact same topics the night before you upload every time and I love it!
Thanks, Mentour Pilot.
I am also an experienced radiation person. The only way to know actual exposure is to wear a radiation detector. Levels that pilots are exposed to are barely detectable unless they fly regularly over the earths magnet poles. BTW I like that globe is that real or virtual?
Hi, John! Hey, this is TH-cam, don't forget, so Petter's globe or 'sphere' (ha!) must be either virtual or completely fake because everybody knows the world is FLAT. [Please note: Of course I'm kidding. In his brief time on this so-called planet of ours, the late Terry Pratchett proved conclusively that the world is a Disc supported by four elephants balancing on the back of a gigantic turtle...]
Oh dear. Now the poop is REALLY going to hit the turbofan! ;-)
Excellent pod cast Captain! WOW
That's reassuring thank you. Next up: The risk of x-ray machines at security? 😊
Very interesting, I was totally ignorant of this aspect of flight travel, thank you
I am glad to see you in a T-shirt and blue-jeans instead of your pilot uniform while you are on vacation. Now you are a real person. Especially, since you are on vacation now!
Good one! Here's a topic I'd be interested in hearing about. The business side of airlines, specifically, I've heard that airlines don't buy engines for planes any more, instead they buy "thrusts". Not sure what that means. In addition, I'd be interested in hearing how airlines pay for those very expensive planes, is it a one time payment or is it a payment plan? Things along these lines. Thanks for your great channel!
RR lease engines to some airlines complete with maintenance. That's one of the reasons MH370 could be monitored a little after it went off radar - the engine telemetry was still being monitored by Rolls Royce in Derby England. Unfortunately the data can only tell you throttle setting, fuel flow, temperatures of various sections, vibration and noise levels and such like. I could be wrong but the thrust thing is for example buying 10 billion pound seconds. For a Trent 1000 that would be 200,000 seconds at cruise throttle (if I remember correctly 50,000 pounds thrust). On a four engine aircraft that would be only 50,000 seconds, or about 14 hours flight. Then you have all the malarkey of take-off thrust (which is on some engines rated as more than maximum thrust) and landing thrust (the engines can be almost at idle at points). It can be calculated but would be a pain in the neck without a computer monitoring second by second.
Very informative. I was wondering about CT scans. Thanks for the chart.
Best decorated room in the Mentour Pilot series, so far!
very interesting indeed. Thank you for this.
I am not really sure why I really like these videos! I mean I fly relatively a lot, maybe around 20-30 times a year, and I was relatively smart at school with maths / physics / chem, but nothing too geeky or to much in love with airplanes. Still, I thoroughly enjoy most of your videos Mentour, keep it up!
Another excellent video as always! ☘️
Super interesting video, mentour.
Great! I’m really happy you like it!
Excellent spot for a podcast. Another super interesting video!
Thank you! I’m happy you liked it!
Great information pilot 👨✈️💕
Interesting video. I recently flew in an old 737 in Thailand and it was remarkably comfortable compared to the tiny economy seats in 777's. I don't think the 777's seats would even pass occupational health and safety rules for long haul travel without a lot of industry lobbying. I'm not to worried about radiation but those seats really worry me.
Like your set.
Really interesting video. Keep up the great work Captain. 😁
Good video, thanks for releasing it.
Wow. That is very interesting. Loved this podcast.
Thanks for this. I've been curious since meeting a retired LH flight attendant who seemed a bit alarmist about this topic. This brings it back to reality.
Thanks, very interesting. The risks seem to be pretty minimal
A really nice topic .
Recent shifts in magnetic patterns on the Earth could potentially change the amount of cosmic radiation received from space in a given area significantly. The magnetic weather patterns have recently been shown to be more complex and active than previously observed. I am not confident that the safety modeling has adequately accounted for these deviations from historical norms. I think that all commercial airlines should detect the actual exposure in each aircraft.
Furthermore, given the known risks of long term exposure to sunlight for skin cancers in particular and the apparent higher than average incidence in flight crews, some mitigating measures could be warranted. Perhaps adjusting procedures, uniforms, window coatings, or shades might be worthwhile. Even just supplying UV protecting skin cream to crews might help.
Fantastic video! I look forward to the next one!
Fascinating.
So now I have an explanation on why I flow in the dark! Thanks for clearing this up for me!
Really interesting! Thanks, mate! 😊
I’m happy you liked it!
Very interesting Video, especialy because my father has flown 35 years 727, DC10, A320, A340 and unfortunately was only one of several pilots out of his Flight Class who maybe (to make sure - MAYBE)) haven affected by this issue.
Looks like you took quite a bit of solar radiation these last few days ;p
Great video! Very detailed yet still easy to grasp :)
Very interesting video, Petter! could let us know more about JET A1 fuel. I in love how its smell :D
How about prolonged radiation effects to the aircraft integrity and systems?
Lovely video! I was wondering about that topic for a bit so thanks for clearing it up :D
I would also love to see you collaborate with Aviator Inspirations or Captain Joe some time in the future :)
We will see what happens.
very interesting topic. Always wondered about this
Great! I’m happy you liked it!
Nice Video, nice Topic, nice background
Great video on interesting topic but lifestyle diseases are number one killer... ahem. That t shirt shows you’ve been indulging a little and maybe not getting enough exercise. Take care of yourself - you’re a great asset to aviation enthusiasts.
I love your tone and appreciate the level of sophistication in your presentations!
Good lecture, very informative.
Really love the video backdrop, suits the theme of the video excellently!!
Hey Petter, thanks for this, a very interesting subject for me! See you on Sunday's livestream.
What an itresting topic I love science and aviation but I've never thought about this
Thanks for the good report. Please set your camera for manual exposure to prevent the changes as you move.
With the increase in transpolar flights in recent years, did you come across anything about increased radiation when flying over the poles?
Also thought it was humorous that you compared pilots vs “normal men”.
Is there a difference in cosmic radiation between carbon fiber and aluminum boded aircraft?
Classy drinks globe mentour ;)
I work in the nuclear industry. We have thermoluminescent dosimeters, TLDs. Not to offer any protection (as if!!) but to record the dose you are exposed to. 20mSv per annum is our limit and no one gets anywhere near it. To be honest a chronic exposure of maybe even 1Sv/yr is far less harmful than an acute exposure. Also, it depends on which flavour. Alpha is generally regarded as an internal hazard only, so you’d have to ingest the radioisotope, and then it’s damn dangerous if it has a long half-life. I guess cosmic radiation is gamma and maybe some beta?
I have been waiting for this video for so long as most pilots I spoke to never gave much details on the info. One interesting fact I dicovered though was that male pilots were more likely to have daughters as kids
I took my Soeks dosimeter on a flight. Normal reading on the ground is around 0.04-0.12 µSv/h. On the plane at 40000 ft it reached 3.12 µSv/h, which read as "dangerous."
Petter, I think you mean µSv (microSieverts), not millisieverts.
Thanks for making this video. I am the one who suggested it.
What about a video debunking those flat-earth theories that are based on strange flight-paths and times. I'm guessing it's about headwinds and the like but it would be nice to see an actual pilot debunking a bunch of them
"Normal" background radiation levels vary from less than 1mSv/a to over 200mSv/a ... European Alps have 8 to about 12mSv/a ... Much of that is Radon outgassing from granites, etc.
See also "radiation hormesis"... Low levels of radiation exposure can be protective against cancers.
Is that a FLIR Scout TK you took your profile pic with by any chance?
True enough and those levels can be even worse in subsurface structures like cellars since Radon is heavier than air it tends to collect in cellars and such. In some areas mostly those that have higher levels of Uranium in the ground planning policies recommend radon testing prior to cellar conversions if they are to used for living space for this reason. Thorium deposits are not as bad as Radon-220 has such a short half life (under a minute) but the several day half life of the Radon-222 from Uranium decay is enough for it to peculate up from shallow deposits in areas with permeable soils.
That globe is amazing!
It looks like you had a little too much ultra violet radiation.
What?
Mentour Pilot I think it’s a comment on your tan.
Yeah it was just a little joke on your tan since the topic was cosmic radiation, which the camera makes it look like a sunburn.
Absolutely stunning and interesting
Very informative topic... If frequent flyer found to be at less risk even if he has clocked more hours than a pilot what could be the reason? Is it that the body was able to perfectly repair!
No, it’s the same risk.
Mentour Pilot Tx Captain.
Cosmos is actually all of nature. Not just space. I still think the video is very good.
Great video always.
ThNk you for this very important and health wise its of upmost need to know information. I love all your episodes but this one was very much needed.
Now I got actually a little worried to become a pilot...
Great video with good information.
I am great fan of you. Can you make video about cleared concept while applying jobs. Please its my request
I'm surprised the cockpit does not have about 500 kg of lead shielding in the cockpit ceiling to lessen the radiation above the pilots. It would be worth the 7 passenger weight penalty to reduce the risk of cancer.
I love this topic!
Interesting video. However, some points. The CAA site cites the Directive Euratom 96/29 Euratom which has been repealed by Directive 2013/59 Euratom. As those are directives they have to be incorporated into local state law in each of the european member states (and probably those in the EEA/EFTA), there is no european legislation about the specifics of how to work with those rather general rules. The incorporation should have been done by 6th February this year, but the UK probably had other things concerning the EU which are more important right now for them to worry about.
Air crew expected to exceed 6mS a year, which does happen in long haul flying, especially flying polar routes, does not have to carry dosimeters or other measurement devices. They have to be monitored individually, however, that can be done, and indeed is routinely done, by the normal computer programs that actually do take into account the actual space weather situation, for example Epcard, which allows normal aviation users to do a free calculation of their exposure on their website. (search for Epcard Neu) for single flight, but of course there are others out there as well, for example CARI, SIEVERT and PCAIRE. Those usually calculate an individual dose for each air crew member based on their roster, depending on program taking into account planned or actual cruising levels, routing and actual space weather. There are some projects on the way for live update and traffic warning about sudden space weather phenomena so that flightcrew can adjust their exposure levels by flying lower. Which is quite important over the north atlantic for example, even more so flying polar routes.
As you noted in the subtitle it is actually 49.000ft, not 39.000ft which would include pretty much all more modern commercial aircraft types that fly higher, for example the whole 737 NG series and pretty much much every longhaul aircraft (not the Airbus A320 family, that is limited to FL390). However, some business jets are now effectively limited to 49.000ft under european rules as there is simply no effective and lightweight measurement equipment available, even less so with aviation approval. And some of them are able to fly higher. Which is actually a slight commercial disadvantage for european operators.
The flight deck windows of commercial airliners are glass laminated windows, which do not block the whole UV spectrum and therefore aircrew on the flight deck is constantly exposed to high levels of UV. wearing long sleeved shirts and high grade sunblockers is advised, at the least crew should wear wrap around UV blocking glasses in cruise. And yes, i usually turn up for work in short sleeved shirts for work in summer as well, in that case, yearly skin cancer screenings are a must.
Wow, thought the risk would be much higher!
you thought wrong!
Hello Captain. Hope you are fine and that you are enjoying your vacation with your family. Great work again Captain. By the way Captain, are those your Four Stripes near the globe?
Since 1988 know wait “knew” many old school commercial pilots and flight attendants that have died of all sorts of cancer. Ex Pan Am, Eastern, Northwest etc. and the common thing all had 20 years plus of flying.
very interesting! thanks!
For comparison, the natural radiation level in Ramsar (Iran) is 400 mSv / year and people do adapt for it there.
I don't know about pilots, but flight attendants in the U.S.A., are not monitored at all for radiation levels.
Fine report. And I like the norwegian/irish accent.
Where did you get the globe from cause it locks verry old
Could be an issue for pregnant women or people with bad DNA repair systems. Otherwise slightly increased radiation is "healthy" as it makes DNA repair mechanisms work more than they usually do. There is a point when they cannot keep up with the new damage and that is different for different people but usually it is higher doses than you face in aviation. This effect is magnified for people who live in places with higher natural background radiation as they have more robust DNA repair systems usually. Does not work well for people from areas with low natural background radiation, I think that especially Japanese are very susceptible to low doses of radiation.
PS: I would be more worried about cancer caused by all those flame retardants used all over the planes, those are nasty chemicals.
Interesting! Thank you!
You can get in contact with them from the wear and tear of the material. Now I am not saying that the probability of getting cancer from them is high, especially not when there is no fire/destruction when they release into air in mass. Anyway some of them unlike radiation are effective on the cellular level from any exposure. Most mutations are harmless as they happen in the non-coding DNA and then most cells commit suicide when seriously damaged so the risk of cancer is still pretty low, they are just more dangerous than cosmic radiation for pilots when it comes to cancer.
As VHF radio technics we are working under Non-Ionizing radiation (radiofrecuency) emissions. But anyway they check us every 6 months...
That makes sense after all remember that sunburn is a radiation burn which at least on the surface of the Earth is caused by non-ionising UVA and UVB (Only extreme UV and above is ionising UVA and UVB are not). Being lower energy though you would mostly be looking at thermal burns to the skin and the associated increased risk of skin cancer as a result of potential mutations caused by the thermal breakdown of DNA even contact burns can actually cause this not something most people think about but there is a small but statistically significant increase in the risk of skin cancer after receiving skin burns from any cause.
Fantastic information from our Mentour Pilot. I guess, this calculation of radiation doesn't include any heavy bursts of cosmic radiation that is occuring in space at different intervals of time not necessarily due to sun. We don't know whether we are there at the point of time in space or not. It is a matter of fact that some radiation does penetrate our atmosphere in sky at different points.
I am afraid there is no radiation map of the sky like weather map or turbulence map. There is no historic information/data pertaining this subject. I have no idea about the satellites of different countries tracking this radiation in sky, telecasting this data to the public. This calculation doesn't include any country testing nuclear weapons in space secretly.
I am really happy that Mentour Pilot is realistic channel.
Hi mentour, it was really an interesting video, I liked it as the all you release.
Just out of curiosity, I watched the movie Flight, and I am interested that can it happen in the real life to fly upside down or not. It would be good if you made a video in what you explained why it cant happen or like these. 😁
In the real life, if You ever get to fly upside down on a big plane
It basically means: It's seconds before You become
a corpus ...
.
I wonder what Peter thinks of the so called Apollo space program in regards of the radiation belt on how we have gone backwards in technology if they did go to the moon and your thoughts why haven't we gone back to the moon since then
The Moon is magnetic construct flying 500K feet up Your
nose, reason why nobody goes there ...
.
I would be interested in whether pilots are less likely to be getting their preventative health screenings like colonoscopies compared to the general population. While the aviation of course wants pilots to be healthy and rested I imagine with so much travel it would be difficult to schedule routine physicals, much less any more involved procedures like colonoscopies or surgeries.
Petter, excellent video on cosmic radiation. Thank you so much for addressing this topic. Question I have is - can aircrafts be designed to reduce the effects of cosmic radiation on flight crew and passengers?
Cosmic radiation is very hard to stop, you need typically several meters of material (water, ground, or an equivalent amount of air). To reduce the radiation on cruising altitude to the same level as on the ground you'd need more than half a metre of lead shielding.
agavai07 Anything can be done. Just a matter of cost basically. But in this case there is no motivation to take steps to reduce cosmic radiation that flight crew and passengers are exposed to. Please watch this video again where our friend mentour has spoken for more than 10 minutes I guess and his conclusion has been that everything is fine as it is except for pregnant women.
and it is much more cost effective if pregnant women avoid flying than everybody (including all non-pregnant people who should be a huge majority) flying in much heavier and especial machines that are designed for pregnant women. Makes sense?
And just to add to your comment, there is no need for pregnant women to avoid flying as passengers. An occasional flight won't cause harm. The restriction is for pilots or cabin crew, who fly every day. Pregnant women in those professions are assigned to ground duty or given leave for the duration of the pregnancy because of the cumulative levels of radiation they may be exposed to from very frequent periods in the air.
Yes, I knew that and I also agree with you. I was just trying to make a point about one class of people who can avoid flying if they want to be extra cautious. It is correct that flying will not cause any direct harm to the fetus. Thank you for pointing out. I agree that I had sounded like it is mandatory for pregnant women to avoid flying. At best avoiding flying is just a precaution that I would take if I was a woman.
OMG does that globe contain drinks? You truly are a king among men.
I highly recommend taking 15 Mgs of zinc along with 1,000 Mgs of Vitamin C and 800-1,200 Mgs of Vitamin D3 everyday to help prevent cancer, since these antioxidants do preventand reduce the risk of developing cancer. You guys aren't appreciated enough for what you do, and I miss flying.
Megagrams? Like tonnes? :D Antioxidants are helping reduce cancer but not that caused by radiation but rather from free radials and not perfect handling of oxygen by mitochondria. I would say especially colourful vegetables is good cure for that.
As far as I know, antioxidants will not prevent from skin cancer coming from cosmic radiation. Don't fly if you are obsessive, compulsive about a non-issue.
Very interesting!
Great Video, Thanks :)
This is shameful! There are hundreds, maybe thousands of monitored parameters in a modern plane, measuring stress and relative movement, acceleration, temperature, pressure, they even monitor what the pilots say to each other! So, why not monitor the radiation levels as well? Because you might have to send an expensive pilot home when he gets too much dose? What about solar storms? In my opinion there is so much variation in cosmic radiation that it really can’t be simulated accurately. Are they still going to rely on their simulation during the next solar maximum? What a joke! They ground the planes during a volcanic eruption because they might get damaged, but let the pilots continue flying during solar storms? I’m speechless.
Thanks Petter, nice video this one! And great location (even tho, in such amazing room you maybe should have had a captain uniform or a suit and not just a white t shirt and jeans :p)
You rule! Love the accent, it sounds like my family over holidays.. I take it you're either Norwegian or Swedish? I'm not real good with naming accents, but yours really sounds Scandinavian for sure..
Anyway, love the vids!
Interesting location. Looks like the Reform Club of Phileas Fogg from the motion picture "Around the World in Eighty Days."
It’s my parents study, 😊
What about UV coming in through the airplane windows? Might be the main cause of the increased rate of skin cancer rather than cosmic radiation. Can you do a video about UV exposure while flying?