Live data from Hacker News

Cancer-related mortality among US pilots and flight attendants

cnn.com

101–110 of 115 posts

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

#101
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is so pervasive you'll see airline attendants spraying glycol-based air fresheners during these times to COVER UP the smell of this toxic stuff I've never once seen a flight attendant do that. Flown hundreds and hundreds of times. You'd think something that's "so pervasive" would have been common enough that I'd have seen it dozens of times?

https://farahandfarah.com/blog/toxic-airplane-fumes-workers-... Feels like youre defensive about this would love to know why. If you havent seen aerosols on a flight youre being disengenous or are not looking up/around. They are used for lavoratories and pest fumiagation during passengered flights regularly - and those are uses we agreed to as a society. Ive seen firsthand them sprayed during takeoff and landing at t…

FWIW I probably 2-5 round trips per year and I’ve never seen a flight attendant spraying anything

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

#102

This doesn't really say what it looks like it says. They don't have an above average risk of dying of cancer. Rather, if they die they are more likely than average to have died of cancer. Which is not exactly surprising given that the medical screenings remove many of those who would die of heart issues. What would be strange is if there wasn't a higher percentage of cancer deaths.

… IF they die?

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

#103
post #80

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…

Feel free to pay extra for the fancy seats up front, known as either first class or business class depending on the airline you're flying (I've seen other names for them like "premier" or something, too). But if you keep up the "I know what's best for other people" attitude that you display in your second paragraph, don't be surprised if people start thinking... poorly of you. (I rewrote that sentence multiple times.…

The problem is that in the current world business class is overpriced because economics of scale don’t kick in and they know they can get away with far higher margins.

The point is to make business class the worst class of cabin, so the average cost/profitability will look a lot closer to current economy.

And yes airlines have razor thin margins. This is why privatizing them is a mistake. I the taxpayer am just fine with my tax dollars going to force the air industry to stop committing war crimes in the sky with their garbage economy seats and garbage treatment of the average flyer.

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

#104
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comments makes problematic suggestions, but I found it funny that the more childish one —farts– is actually very true: with the lower pressure, people do fart more on airplanes.

What problematic suggestions?

[deleted]

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

#105
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to pay extra for the fancy seats up front, known as either first class or business class depending on the airline you're flying (I've seen other names for them like "premier" or something, too). But if you keep up the "I know what's best for other people" attitude that you display in your second paragraph, don't be surprised if people start thinking... poorly of you. (I rewrote that sentence multiple times.…

The problem is that in the current world business class is overpriced because economics of scale don’t kick in and they know they can get away with far higher margins. The point is to make business class the worst class of cabin, so the average cost/profitability will look a lot closer to current economy. And yes airlines have razor thin margins. This is why privatizing them is a mistake. I the taxpayer am just fine…

Where are you? North America? Europe? Asia? Somewhere else? I've flown quite a bit in the USA and in Asia, and airlines feel somewhat different in America vs. in Asia. (Not 100% different, of course). Oh, and I've flown a few Middle Eastern airlines (like Emirates) from time to time, and they also have a different feel. If your name is any indication, I'm guessing you're in Germany or Austria, in which case I don't know what the airlines act like where you live. (Last time I was in Europe was over 20 years ago). But how airlines treat their customers does vary quite widely, in my experience, from one country to another. I quite like Korean Airlines, though they're never the cheapest available — and I'll sometimes be willing to pay an extra $150-200 (on a $1000 ticket across the Pacific) to fly Korean Airlines rather than, say, China Eastern. (A colleague once got stuck on the ground for fourteen hours on a China Eastern flight because the airline hadn't paid their airport fees and the airport wouldn't let them pull up to the terminal and disembark until the airline paid the airport. Have to let planes land, that's a safety issue... but they're under no obligation to let the planes pull up to the terminal without paying. My colleague's experience made me swear off flying China Eastern forever.)

But every airline I've flown has had different price options, usually three or four, within economy class: cheapest option (picked by nearly everyone) where you can't cancel, slightly more expensive option where you get more flexible cancellation policies, even more expensive option where you get more benefits (details vary widely from airline to airline, but sometimes include "slightly fancier seats", i.e. there's a mid-grade section that's fancier than economy but less fancy than business class), and so on. So if you want better seats, it's a matter of picking an airline that offers that mid-grade seat section, and paying a bit extra for it.

As for razor-thin margins, that means people are paying about as low prices as possible for airline tickets. GOOD. That means they're able to fly cheaply. And if they want to trade off some convenience for cheaper prices, that's no reason for you to complain about their decisions. You still have the option of paying more for fancier seats, right?

But when you say you want to "make business class the worst class of cabin", I can't help but remember that you said that 50% of the people flying "should not be flying", and suspect you of not wanting the hoi polloi to be flying, because flying should be reserved for the Special People like you. If I'm misunderstanding your meaning, GOOD, and sorry for misunderstanding you. But if I've understood you correctly, then there just aren't any polite words I can think of to express my opinion of that terrible, elitist worldview. Hopefully I'm just misunderstanding you, and you'll explain what you actually meant.

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

#108

I read once that a CT scan is roughly equivalent to 1000 hours of flight WRT radiation exposure. I've had about 6 or 8 of those over the years.

Cosmic radiation is mainly protons and heavier nuclei. It's called radiation for legacy reasons, but it's a different beast from Earth's medical CT scans and X-rays which are manly photons.

Cosmic radiation hitting planes is also not the original cosmic protons and He nucleus etc, but secondary N and O nucleus hit by Cosmic particles creating a shower of neutrons, secondary and gamma protons, muons, pions, nuclear fragments... There's also a high dose of photons from these collisions, but proportionally it can be 500x less photons than a CT scan for a 10h USA-Europe flight.

What's biologically significant for air crew are these secondary protons and neutrons, which punch above their weight in damage interactions, they are not comparable to X-rays in Sieve alone.

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

#109

According to Gemini, radiation related cancer rates aren't higher in high elevation cities like Quito or La Paz... Shouldn't they be too? Airliners fly a lot higher but people live in these 24x7.

High altitude Equatorial populations and air crew exposures are different beasts. A 10h flight close to the North Pole is like living in Quito for almost a month. The type of dosage (bursts x contínuous) also matters as the body can probably accommodate more easily, but that's just me saying. Then add natural selection to that mix that should have helped prepare high-altitude populations residents for those living conditions, which will heavily skew the data. Finally, the cosmic shower has lost a lot of energy from 12,000m to say 2,500m, so the "hit" is not the same. It all may end up having an exponential effect reducing cancer rates...

So a flight attendant that clocks ~700h a year, that's roughly 5 years of living in Quito in a year of flying in Sieves. Now, given that the air crew studies are not all that conclusive yet, take high-altitude populations at 5x less exposure and all these other factors I've mentioned, and they will end up having an even lower chance of showing up in any cancer studies.

So... not remotely comparable.

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

#110

I read once that a CT scan is roughly equivalent to 1000 hours of flight WRT radiation exposure. I've had about 6 or 8 of those over the years.

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

WOW, what a cool chart! :)

Thanks for the link!

Didnt know that one Mammogram is that intensive, so my partner shouldnt go each year, Id guess?

Post reply on HN