91–100 of 115 posts
I've wondered if billionaires get their jets lined with lead. Lead is notoriously heavy, but if you buy a 737 and it only ever has to fly you and a couple other people, it might be feasible. Or I guess they could just line one section where they spend the majority of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as my understanding is they don't have pilots fly too often From a quick search, I can’t find evidence of this. If anything, pilots are in the air more of their week/lives vs. flight attendants.
In my search, I found that they spend almost an equal number of hours in air like you said - 75-100 hours per month. If that's the case, after adjusting for sex, these numbers holding would throw some uncertainty into the radiation hypothesis.
Important mechanisms in the body to suppress tumor growth and repair DNA damage are linked to circadian rhythms and are less effective when those rhythms are disrupted.
Attendants have higher risk than pilots. This kind of makes sense, as my understanding is they don't have pilots fly too often. Meanwhile, attendants are flying all the time.
[flagged]
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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…
The “farts” comment is juvenile, but the cleaners, oil fumes, respiratory illnesses and more that fill an airplane cabin certainly contribute to respiratory issues. Nobody’s saying nurses or stone masons aren’t exposed to different respiratory risks.
Not a pay wall.
Not even a cookie wall (Block Element! bullet ricochet noise)
But a Terms of Use wall?
For an article?
I just wanna read it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Any flight attendants are going to have a disrupted schedule, that’s just inherent to the time change and travel. The “farts” comment is juvenile, but the cleaners, oil fumes, respiratory illnesses and more that fill an airplane cabin certainly contribute to respiratory issues. Nobody’s saying nurses or stone masons aren’t exposed to different respiratory risks.
Junior staff have less choice when it comes to flying routes where this kind of thing is true, but that changes as they gain seniority.
Cleaners, fumes, etc. almost certainly are not good for you, but the comment started from "look at all of these old haggard FAs" and I don't think any of the rest of this is particularly strong supporting evidence for that claim, even if I agree you shouldn't huff campfire smoke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my search, I found that they spend almost an equal number of hours in air like you said - 75-100 hours per month. If that's the case, after adjusting for sex, these numbers holding would throw some uncertainty into the radiation hypothesis.
This is peak HN. Two engineers running google searches without any primary sources speaking up about the issue.