Slashdot Mirror


"Dark Lightning" Could Expose Airline Passengers To Radiation

mbstone writes "Lightning researcher Joseph Dwyer of the Florida Institute of Technology claims that thunderstorms unleash sprays of X-rays and even intense bursts of gamma rays which could cause airline passengers to receive in an instant the maximum safe lifetime dose of ionizing radiation — the kind that wreaks the most havoc on the human body. Dwyer hopes his sensor aboard the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, will provide more data."

23 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Hrmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I smell a boost in tinfoil hat sales skyrocketing ....

    1. Re:Hrmmm by telchine · · Score: 4, Funny

      I propose that we should legislate to ensure that all the passengers are wrapped inside one metal enclosure before take-off!

    2. Re: Hrmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Normally I would say Whoosh.
      In your case I have to say Douche.

    3. Re:Hrmmm by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Funny

      Tinfoil does not set off metal detectors.

      Yes, I have first-hand knowledge of this.

      That can't be right, I saw a tinfoil covered cucumber set off a metal detector in the Spinal Tap documentary!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:Hrmmm by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You and everybody else is making jokes but did you forget we thought "radiation is your friend" and even looked at using nukes to make harbors in the 50s and in the 40s nearly every boat and a lot of the tanks used asbestos "for the safety of the men" because of its fireproof qualities?

      I'll never forget a lecture I saw by Neil Tyson where he said "All great scientists work at the edge of ignorance" and he's right, if its one thing that science has taught us is that we REALLY don't know as much about how everything works as we THINK we do. Now is this happening? I do not know which is why i look forward to his findings, it would explain why we seem to have a lot more cases of cancer, at least from what I've seen. Maybe some people are more sensitive to this than others, like how some people can smoke all their lives and never get cancer while somebody else smokes 5 years and gets it, who knows? All I DO know is if it turns out to be true it wouldn't surprise me, anymore than it surprises me we knew so little about radiation and asbestos back in the day. We still have so much to learn about how everything works, especially hard to study things like lightning.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re: Hrmmm by steve_bryan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gamma rays are stopped by 1/4 inches of aluminum? I can see it messing with radio waves, but gamma radiation? Requiring all passenger planes to include a radiation dosimeter for a while (include it with the black box recorder) and we would have a practical answer.

  2. FUD summary as usual by N1AK · · Score: 4, Informative

    However, because there’s only about one dark lightning occurrence for every thousand visible flashes and because pilots take great pains to avoid thunderstorms, Dwyer says, the risk of injury is quite limited. No one knows for sure if anyone has ever been hit by dark lightning.

    It's an interesting claim and I look forward to hearing more about it but there is effectively no risk to people flying being suggested. Unfortunately /. has decided to focus on the non-existent risk rather than the rather interesting properties of 'dark lightning' and what study of it could help us to understand.

    1. Re:FUD summary as usual by macraig · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not so fast, mister cynic. First the article says "one dark lightning occurrence for every thousand visible flashes" and then shortly afterward "thunderstorms produce about a billion or so lightning bolts annually".

      So that's one million "dark lightning" incidents every year, and how many global aircraft flights? Avoidance of thunderstorms or not, odds are it's been happening and we didn't know to look for symptoms until now.

    2. Re:FUD summary as usual by OolimPhon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Still, if you have to looking for symptoms, it can't be that bad.

      The symptoms, in the form of radiation damage, don't appear until many years afterwards. Like the damage cigarettes cause, for example.

      How do you associate your cancer to the airplane rides you took 20 years previously?

    3. Re:FUD summary as usual by muon-catalyzed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > just stick a few geiger counters and recorders on planes and fly them near thunderstorms

      Rewind the footage to about 5:00 when the airplane is at about the cruising altitude, it is that bad, even without the pesky thunderstorms.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2IMEk1dvNw

    4. Re:FUD summary as usual by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well this should be easy enough -- there are tens of thousands of retired lifetime commercial pilots already. Do they have increased cancer risks?

      Stop blathering and look into it. I would think such would have been discovered already, in fact.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  3. Why haven't we seen the effects then? by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Should be really easy to study - are aircrew more likely to suffer the ill effects of ionizing radiation, whatever those are.

    It would be the sort of thing that an established Airline and staff (or air force) would probably already have noticed, particularly any that fly through and around the intense storms in the tropics. The fact that they haven't leads me to think that this may be a non-story.

    1. Re:Why haven't we seen the effects then? by telchine · · Score: 5, Informative

      Should be really easy to study - are aircrew more likely to suffer the ill effects of ionizing radiation, whatever those are.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/557340.stm

    2. Re:Why haven't we seen the effects then? by stenvar · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's been studied. Airline pilots get more melanoma than the rest of us, probably from hanging out on nice beaches too much. They don't get any of the other cancers you'd predict from large bursts of x-rays or gamma rays any more than anybody else.

  4. No Dosometers on Board by nukenerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It being common knowledge that flying is subject to higher than normal radiation levels, and there is therefore a worry about crews, I had assumed that aircraft carried dosimeters so that crew members' total personal doses were monitored. No? If so, then this would not be a theory - it could be checked from the monitoring.

    If they do not carry dosimeters, why not? Ground level radiation workers have to by law. I am a nuclear engineer and do so on visits to plant - yet my total life dose over some years of this is tiny, less than typical aircrew would have I believe.

    1. Re:No Dosometers on Board by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they do not carry dosimeters, why not?

      It's an avoidable business expense. As most airlines are either bankrupt or teetering on the edge, they don't spend a red cent more than they absolutely have to.

      Plus why carry something that could only give your airline bad publicity, and open up the possibility of being sued for "not taking sufficient evasive measures".

    2. Re:No Dosometers on Board by jma34 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are dosimeters on board. I have completed several radiation safety courses during my work and radiation levels for airline crew are monitored and tracked just like they are for workers in nuclear and other research fields. Frequent fliers are not monitored and tracked. I work at CERN and I know exactly how much ionizing and neutron dose I receive during my work, but I also have to travel between my home at Fermilab and CERN and I have no idea how much dose I receive on my trans-Atlantic flights. The pilot of the plane is monitored and his dose is tracked. That pilot should also have access to his personal dose, but I don't know what the level of transparency is in the airline industry. So if there were a significant likelihood, the data is there.

      Speaking from a physics point of view, a huge acceleration is need to produce x-ray and gamma rays. And they aren't hard to detect. It would seem that a balloon experiment flying some CsI or other crystals in some thunderstorms would quickly detect this phenomena even if it is 1/1000 or even 1/10000.

  5. Re:Flying abobe clouds by Archtech · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't most planes fly above the storms?

    Not necessarily. Airliners in which I have flown commonly go no higher than 36,000 feet - occasionally perhaps 40,000 feet. The tops of thunderstorms often reach 55,000 feet and can be even higher. One extreme case reached about 70,000 feet. Moreover, it is necessary to fly well above the tops of the visible clouds, as bad things can happen up to a mile higher. Check out, for instance, http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/152684/

    So pilots almost always opt to fly around storms instead.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  6. Re:Flying abobe clouds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I thought flight levels were odd-only starting at and above FL290 — or do the airliners in which you fly not adhere to flight levels?

    Not since 2005 in the U.S. - under a program called Reduced Vertical Separation Minima, the 2000-foot separations apply at FL410 and above. Below that, it's based on heading (or actually ground track); 0-179 will be assigned odd FLs; 180-359 get assigned even FLs.

  7. regulations by ssam · · Score: 4, Funny

    Airlines should be subject to the same regulations as nuclear power. All planes should have a few meters of lean and concrete shielding to protect the passengers. Anything that saves one childs life should be done.

  8. Re:s/aluminum/aluminium/g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    FTFY

    You crazy Americans insist on misspelling everything

    That's exactly how we spell 'everything', what are you talking about?

  9. Re:s/aluminum/aluminium/g by White+Flame · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum#Etymology

    The scientist who first named the actual element settled on the name aluminum, which matches the oxide to the elemental name, alumina -> aluminum, as is consistent with other oxides. It is not incorrect, and predates the -ium use.

  10. Intense bursts of gamma rays? by QilessQi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then don't get those flight attendants angry. You wouldn't like them when they're angry.