02.06.2013 Views

Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation: - Clark University

Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation: - Clark University

Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation: - Clark University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

114 <strong>Radiation</strong> Exposure in Flight<br />

fact that AML incidence apparently increased with<br />

the duration <strong>of</strong> employment 2 . An American study<br />

<strong>of</strong> pilots found elevated prostate cancer mortality<br />

and significantly increased mortality from cancer<br />

<strong>of</strong> the kidney or renal pelvis. This study showed<br />

equivocal leukemia results (16 observed cases and<br />

~15 expected) but did not separate leukemia cases<br />

by type (Nicholas et al 1998).<br />

The rest <strong>of</strong> the studies that we looked at were<br />

conducted in northern Europe and compared cancer<br />

rates in flight crew to national rates. All but one<br />

<strong>of</strong> these studies found significantly increased skin<br />

cancer incidence, and one found a significant skin<br />

cancer trend with dose (Pukkala et al 2002) 3 . A<br />

study <strong>of</strong> Danish pilots found a three-fold increase<br />

in AML but the result was not significant (4 cases,<br />

1.4 expected cases). When dividing the cohort by<br />

type <strong>of</strong> aircraft flown, however, jet pilots (who<br />

fly at higher altitudes) were observed to have a<br />

significantly increased risk <strong>of</strong> AML 4 (Gundestrap<br />

and Storm 1999). A study <strong>of</strong> Norwegian flight<br />

attendants found significantly increased incidence <strong>of</strong><br />

cancer <strong>of</strong> the skin, liver, upper respiratory tract, and<br />

gastric tract in men, and <strong>of</strong> skin cancer in women.<br />

Total cancer rates were also increased (Haldorsen et<br />

al 2001). A study <strong>of</strong> German flight attendants found<br />

no significant mortality differences with the general<br />

population (Blettner et al 2002) but did not analyze<br />

cancer incidence.<br />

Each <strong>of</strong> these studies alone is somewhat limited<br />

by small numbers and so it is useful to attempt a<br />

meta-analysis that pools multiple study results.<br />

Elsebeth Lynge from the <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Copenhagen<br />

did this in 2001: among male pilots there were<br />

increases in three types <strong>of</strong> cancer- prostate cancer<br />

(SIR 1.3), skin cancer (SIR 2.0) and AML (SIR 3.8,<br />

1.9-6.7). Among female flight attendants there was<br />

evidence <strong>of</strong> increased breast cancer risk (SIR 1.4)<br />

and among men there was evidence <strong>of</strong> increased<br />

liver and upper respiratory tract cancer (perhaps due<br />

to drinking). Flight attendants also showed weak<br />

evidence <strong>of</strong> increased total leukemia risk in addition<br />

to a clear increase in skin cancer incidence.<br />

The most consistent finding in these studies was<br />

increased skin cancer and it is not clear that this is<br />

linked to radiation. The Danish study found similar<br />

skin cancer results in high- and low-altitude pilots,<br />

evidence against a radiation cause. One author has<br />

suggested that flying over multiple time zones might<br />

contribute to skin cancer (melanoma) by disrupting<br />

circadian rhythms and thus the homeostasis <strong>of</strong><br />

melatonin (Raffnson et al 2000), and various authors<br />

have proposed that lifestyle factors unique to flight<br />

crew (excessive sunbathing) might be involved or<br />

that increased detection plays a role. On the other<br />

hand the largest study found a significant skin cancer<br />

trend with dose (Pukkala et al 2002).<br />

9.2 Cell studies<br />

Several studies have looked for cell-level<br />

abnormalities in pilots and other flight crew with<br />

mixed results. Two studies by an Italian research<br />

team looked for chromosome abnormalities and<br />

DNA damage. These authors found increased<br />

‘stable’ chromosome abnormalities (translocations,<br />

gaps and breaks), nonsignificant elevations <strong>of</strong><br />

‘unstable’ abnormalities (micronuclei, dicentrics,<br />

fragments and rings), and a nonsignificant increase<br />

in DNA single or double strand breaks (RR 1.36;<br />

0.46, 3.98). In another Italian study Romano et al.<br />

(1997) found roughly twice as many dicentric and<br />

ring chromosomes in Italian flight personnel as in<br />

controls. Heimers (2000) found increased numbers<br />

<strong>of</strong> dicentric chromosomes (~8-fold increase) and<br />

translocations (~4-fold increase) in British Concorde<br />

pilots exposed to 3-6 mSv/yr. Nicholas et al. (2003)<br />

found a roughly threefold increase in translocations<br />

among pilots. In a study <strong>of</strong> Dutch flight engineers<br />

two types <strong>of</strong> effects were studied- DNA damage and<br />

DNA protection and repair. Flight engineers were<br />

shown to have significantly higher rates <strong>of</strong> oxidative<br />

2 For two cases with less than 20 years <strong>of</strong> employment the SIR was 3.8 (90% CI 0.7, 11.9); for four cases with over<br />

twenty years <strong>of</strong> employment the SIR was 5.4 (90% CI 1.8, 12.4)<br />

3 Compared to pilots with less than 3 mSv <strong>of</strong> cumulative dose, pilots with more than 20 mSv were almost three times<br />

more likely to develop melanoma (RR 2.78; 1.30, 5.93).<br />

4 Among all jet pilots 3 cases <strong>of</strong> AML were observed versus 0.65 expected (SIR 4.6; 0.9, 13.4). All <strong>of</strong> these cases were<br />

in pilots with more than 5000 flight hours, bringing the SIR for that group to 5.1. Among non-jet pilots there was 1<br />

case <strong>of</strong> AML (0.75 expected).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!