Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cancer-related mortality among US pilots and flight attendants

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 115 posts

Re: Cancer-related mortality among US pilots and flight attendants

#61

Post by devin »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #37
dukeofdoom wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

I handed it a downvote. Here's why:

> Older flight attendants look really damaged by the job.

First off, this is just anecdotal and I know FAs who do _not_ look "damaged by the job". So, we're off to a bad start.

> The combination of irregular sleep, quite likely too much alcohol and sun in layover locations when younger.

Not all FAs fly crazy schedules. This comment then makes assumptions about where younger FAs fly, and suggests they all drink too much. More conjecture to back up a weak claim without any evidence provided.

> Plus radiation, and biological hazards like being around sick people and smelling farts all day. Being in an enclosed space is not that great for the lungs either, just being around people wearing perfume, is likely bad for the lungs

OK, so this article is about radiation. That is at least addressing the topic. Calling "smelling farts" a biological hazard is borderline ridiculous. "Being around sick people" is what nurses do all day. There are _many_, _many_ professions where _being around a lot of people_ is part of the job. It does not seem particularly notable here.

They end by saying that being in an enclosed space is bad for your lungs. Uh, ok. Maybe? Probably? How bad? Compared to what? Being outdoors in an area prone to air pollution?

Re: Cancer-related mortality among US pilots and flight attendants

#62

Post by 1-6 »

ViktorRay wrote: post #35

Cancers rates among Orthopedic surgeons are also much higher than those faced by non surgeon doctors. This is due to exposure to the radiation from intra operative x rays.

Our company shared a wall with an xray lab next door. My coworkers and I were always curious what impacts it would have to our health.

Re: Cancer-related mortality among US pilots and flight attendants

#63

Post by raverbashing »

4d4m wrote: post #33
raverbashing wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the last 50 flights I took, none had gym sock smell. If anything smelled it's usually due to a passenger. But nothing from the aircraft itself

We're not talking about stinky passengers, those are normal, expected smells :) Politely, I don't believe you haven't noticed the smell - this statistically is impossible when at an airport with multiple planes. You can smell it daily, at any airport terminal of your choosing, impossible to ignore when closer to the gates. It's a smell powerful enough to not get eaten by the various encapulation, ozone generators, an…

I assure you I'm very sensitive to smells and I haven't smelled anything like that in a plane

Re: Cancer-related mortality among US pilots and flight attendants

#67

Post by gulfofamerica »

andrehacker wrote: post #56
magnetic wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This chart has the flight & CT scan scenarios (among many other): https://xkcd.com/radiation/

Wonderful work by Mr. XKCD (Randall Munroe). This was published in 2011 when there was "some" misinformation in the U.S. press about the Fukushima nuclear accident. Based on this chart some proposed to use "bananas" as unit of radition (equivalent to 0.1 uSv). So (from this chart) one flight from New York to LA exposes you to 400 bananas worth of radiation.

[dead]

Re: Cancer-related mortality among US pilots and flight attendants

#68

Post by delbronski »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #43
4d4m wrote: post #8

Boeing, Bombardier, Learjet, Embraer and Airbus should be forced to clean up aircraft cabin air they poison us with. For people who don’t know how GROSS this is: on almost every modern passenger jet, the air you breathe is pulled through the engine’s Bleed-Air system before entering the cabin. As oil, hydraulic fluid, or other contaminants leak into that system, those superheated fumes can be pumped directly into the…

Like others, I have zero experience with any of the things you are mentioning, but I want flying to be more expensive, more luxurious, and far more comfortable in general for everyone so please keep giving them a hard time about this. In general, 50% or more of the people flying should not be flying , and going back to the pre-privatization era alongside much stricter regulations on seat sizes would be awesome as it…

Oh how the middle class hates having to share with the poor.

We don’t mind the rich flying private jets, but for the love of god don’t put a poor person next to us on a plane.

Re: Cancer-related mortality among US pilots and flight attendants

#69

Post by moioci »

Mistletoe wrote: post #31
Supermancho wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

paywalled (even with a "free" account")

It’s wild I can’t even read the abstract to understand what they found.

It's a research letter, not a full article. Accordingly, there's no abstract. They just show the first of 11 paragraphs as a teaser.

Re: Cancer-related mortality among US pilots and flight attendants

#70

Post by Der_Einzige »

delbronski wrote: post #68
Der_Einzige wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like others, I have zero experience with any of the things you are mentioning, but I want flying to be more expensive, more luxurious, and far more comfortable in general for everyone so please keep giving them a hard time about this. In general, 50% or more of the people flying should not be flying , and going back to the pre-privatization era alongside much stricter regulations on seat sizes would be awesome as it…

Oh how the middle class hates having to share with the poor. We don’t mind the rich flying private jets, but for the love of god don’t put a poor person next to us on a plane.

This but unironically.

The rich smell better than I do. I can learn from them.

Post reply on HN