Comment by RajT88
1 month ago
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.
1 month ago
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.
> 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.
According to a bit of Googling (which included LLM responses so if you need to be sure verify what follows), although flight attendants and pilots spend about the same amount of time in the air and so get the same exposure, flight attendants have fewer rest requirements and scheduling protection. This results in them working more erratic shifts with shorter rest windows, which results in more circadian rhythm disruption than in pilots.
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.
This is peak HN. Two engineers running google searches without any primary sources speaking up about the issue.
2 replies →
The fuselage probably has a lot less attention to shielding even if the cockpit seems very exposed.
It varies with the airline and their staffing needs and your seniority as well. Some might fly you to your legal limits and you might have to get a ride back home on top of that. Some you might be on call but never really called, and might not be formally scheduled for much, and therefore might only fly a couple times a month through some stretches.
I guess I am going off when a pilot spoke at my high school for career day. (Decades ago...)
I wonder if pilots' medical checks would catch some of these early?
Probably not unless there was something presenting, as a Class 1 FAA medical exam is checking medical history, vital signs, vision, hearing, cardiovascular health, neurological function, and general physical condition. There's a urine test for blood, glucose, protein. Last one I had there was no blood test or cancer screening unless it was something showing on the skin.
Interestingly, to me, my last medical was 2 years ago and there was no concern for the spot on my cheek that turned out to be basal cell carcinoma.
[flagged]
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?
1 reply →
They are also more exposed industrial disinfectants and cleaners used to clean the cabin than are pilots.
[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?
2 replies →
[flagged]