Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Hong Kong To New York - Dangerous?  
User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2784 posts, RR: 10
Posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 23548 times:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2005-03-28-flights-cancer_x.htm

"If you do two and a half polar flights a month you are in the danger zone," Flight Attendants Union general secretary Becky Kwan was quoted as saying.

Looks like the Hong Kong to New York route has a cancer risk... this is quite scary for me because I am a constant traveller on this route and I have had over 5 flights a month before...

71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7321 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 23503 times:

Quoting Elite (Thread starter):
Looks like the Hong Kong to New York route has a cancer risk... this is quite scary for me because I am a constant traveller on this route and I have had over 5 flights a month before...

Honestly, I wouldnt worry. The media tries to create fear on just about everything. I am very skeptical about this report.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineGeniusjacky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 23328 times:

HKG-JFK is not the only polar flight. HKG-ORD, SIN-EWR, BKK-JFK, etc all flies like that and has been for years.
I think the media talked about concord flights getting too much radiation before as well. But then, you probably get a lot of radiation from everywhere anyways. I don't think we should be too worried.


User currently offlineTristanHNL From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2006, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 23283 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 1):
Honestly, I wouldnt worry. The media tries to create fear on just about everything. I am very skeptical about this report.

To a certain extent I agree with you. However do not be so quick to dismiss this report. Working as a radiologic technologist (x-ray, nuclear medicine, CT, etc), people often ask me about the risks of receiving artificial manmade radiation from diagnostic imaging. I answer using BERT, or Background Equivalent Radiation Time. Just got a chest x-ray? That's approximately the same amount of radiation you'd get naturally from the sun, ground, and within your own body (metabolic processes) in 10 days. This comes to about 0.08 millisieverts or 8 millirems of radiation.

My point is that people don't realize they're exposed to radiation every single day of their lives, and most of it IS coming from the sun! Radiation is simply a form of electromagnetic energy (albeit potentially dangerous) and the sun is a huge source of this energy. Therefore it makes sense that the closer you are to the sun, and at a location on Earth where the intensity is greater, that you are receiving significantly more radiation.

Those who do long polar flights only periodically need not worry. However I am not saying those who work/take these flights more frequently should freak out either. Nobody can say for sure how much radiation it takes to mutate a DNA in a cell in a certain person's body to start a cancer. It might be as little as 0.001 millisieverts (which would be awfully ufortunate for such a small exposure) or it might be as much as 5 sieverts (enough to make a woman sterile). It really is all by chance. This is the reason physicists and radiation officers recommend us radiation workers to keep in mind the linear stochastic non-threshold trend of exposure: no exposure is safe and should be minimized whenever possible. ALARA = as low as reasonably achieveable.



Hong Kong: truly Asia's world city!
User currently offlineFLYGUY767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 23222 times:

Quoting Elite (Thread starter):
Looks like the Hong Kong to New York route has a cancer risk...

So now are we to expect warnings on airline websites, and on ticket jackets that say if you fly the Hong Kong to New York, Singapore to Newark, Hong Kong to Chicago, or Bangkok to New York you in danger of developing cancer?

Quoting Elite (Thread starter):
this is quite scary for me because I am a constant traveller on this route and I have had over 5 flights a month before...

Dont be worried there have been flight crews that have done these trips 4-5 times a month for years, and they are not dead from cancer.

Quoting TristanHNL (Reply 3):
However do not be so quick to dismiss this report

If we paid attention to every label that is coming our way, we would all be sitting at home inside of a box in fear of the outside World. In reality is this just the news agencies finding they have a lack of things to report? Or is this some idea that floated into the head of a news reporter that think airlines still have ice sculptures, and George Petroni can be found on the Golden Odyssey service to Rome?  rotfl 

-JD


User currently offlineADXMatt From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 947 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 23199 times:

Doesn't the ozone scrubbers on the B777 take care of this?

User currently offlineTristanHNL From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2006, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 23135 times:

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 4):
If we paid attention to every label that is coming our way, we would all be sitting at home inside of a box in fear of the outside World.

That is exactly my point. Radiation is all around you, and if you must work/take these flights, do it because it's a part of your life. Don't lose sleep over it. There is no certainty with regard to how much is too much. When I said don't be so quick to dismiss the report, well, that's what I meant. Whether the reporter was having a slow news day, I don't know and I don't care, what you do with the information, I don't know and I don't care, but I do want to clarify and say the contents of the report is NOT some made-up BS.



Hong Kong: truly Asia's world city!
User currently offlineATLAaron From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 23058 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Look at your window and you can probably see a cell phone tower . . . there's more risk than these flights.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21098 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 23024 times:

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 4):
Dont be worried there have been flight crews that have done these trips 4-5 times a month for years, and they are not dead from cancer.

While I'm of the mind that the radiation from polar flights is not a cause for alarm, just because someone hasn't come down with cancer doesn't mean that someone won't come down with cancer. Though if someone did, it would be difficult to prove that it was the flights themselves that did it, and not any other of the numerous sources of radiation that we are exposed to.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineTristanHNL From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2006, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 22950 times:

Quoting ATLAaron (Reply 7):
Look at your window and you can probably see a cell phone tower . . . there's more risk than these flights.

I am not discounting your statement, but can you provide some numbers, or a source? From what I learned in rad tech school, 55% of gross common exposure to background radiation comes from radon (in geologic formations or soil containing granite, shale, phosphate, etc). The next biggest contributing factor is cosmic/terrestial in nature.



Hong Kong: truly Asia's world city!
User currently offlineJcavinato From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 22820 times:

That was also an issue raised with the Concorde as well. But, in the last ten years I didn't hear any more about it. Has there been any heightened cancer in the flight crews on these birds?

User currently offlineLevg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 22752 times:

If people are able to visit Pripyat without risking the life, I'm sure that there is no harm to overfly the north pole, at least much much less than visiting Pripyat.

Leo.



A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
User currently offlineGeorgebush From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 22427 times:

Just make the flight attendants wear lead jackets on the "dangerous" portion of the trip. Wa La problem solved.


Al Gore invented global warming.
User currently offlineReins485 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 22102 times:

My dad, a former AA pilot, used to wear radiation badge while flying ORD-LHR. None of them were ever above the standard amount that people would receive from just walking around on a normal day, and I think, several years ago people expressed the same concern over trans-Atlantic flights. So I think this is a very big deal over nothing.

User currently offlineGeorgebush From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 22002 times:

Quoting Reins485 (Reply 13):
So I think this is a very big deal over nothing.

Actually I dont think this is that big of a deal, since no other airlines have restricted polar flights. But agreed just like global warming... lotta media hype.



Al Gore invented global warming.
User currently offlineJerald01 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 161 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 21865 times:

Does it really make any difference whether or not you are flying a polar route vs an equatorial route? Sure, there is evidence more radiation reaches the earth in the polar regions for a given amount of sunlight exposure at a given angle above the horizon than does at equitorial latitudes, but think about it: Trans-polar flights are not always done in the daytime, no more than trans-equitorial flights are. As a matter of fact, your chances of being IN daylight on trans-polar flights are diminished because of the tilt of the earth... that's why Anchorage and other northern cities have roughly 6 months of daylight and six months of dark continuously.

A second thought: Although aircraft components (aluminum, composites, steel, etc.,) do not afford the radiation absorbtion that lead does, they DO attenuate SOME of the radiation hazards associated with flying above 50% of the earth's atmosphere, so the increased radiation encountered on trans-polar flights (if there really is any increase...) would be minimal.

Of course, if Airbus wants to RE-re-design the A380 they might want to think about including lead panels in the ceiling for those airframes destined to fly over the poles. They could advertise that theirs are "radiation-proof" airliners. That might make a customer or two choose them over whatever Boeing is offerring. Of course, they MIGHT have a bit of a time getting that VERY "HEAVY" A380 certified...

Oh well, that would be familiar waters for them, now wouldn't it?  Yeah sure



"There may be old pilots, and there may be bold pilots, but there are darn few green cows"
User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1450 posts, RR: 44
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 21818 times:

Quoting TristanHNL (Reply 3):
Therefore it makes sense that the closer you are to the sun, and at a location on Earth where the intensity is greater, that you are receiving significantly more radiation.

Great post. I can tell you studied hard in school.

Can you clarify what you meant by "the closer you are to the sun"? You're not implying that being eight miles up in the atmosphere puts you closer to the sun, are you?



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineAvroArrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 21787 times:

My 2 cents. I have watched the ITVV Concorde DVD a couple of times and as I recall there is a mention in the cockpit tour about a radiation exposure meter that was installed in Concorde in the beginning due to concerns regarding exposure from the extra high cruise altitude. In the DVD the FE mentions that the gauge was made inop many years ago as the radiation exposure was considered to be well below a safe level for the crew. Having said that of course safety standards are always changing and an exposure level that might have been considered OK 10 years ago may now be considered dangerous. As an aside I work as a technician in a steel mill and a couple of devices that I work on are X-ray thickness measuring devices. They provide me with a doseimiter badge that will tell me if I exceed the level that the government considers safe at this point in time. The catch is of course that I don't know that I've exceeded the safe level until 6 months later after the badge has been read and evaluated. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.   But so far no bad readings yet, so I guess thats fine by me.

[Edited 2007-05-28 07:03:54]


Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
User currently online777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2481 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 21653 times:

Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 5):
Doesn't the ozone scrubbers on the B777 take care of this?

Ozone is not radioactive - it's a simple compound consisting of three oxygen molecules and is the primary component of the atmosphere's shield from the sun's electromagnetic rays.

All in all, sounds like much ado about nothing - could the unions be seeking additional compensation for long haul polar flights?! I find it highly unlikely that after years of polar routes, those involved would suddenly "figure out" that airlines have been putting their crews at additional risk; if it were that dangerous, those routes would be halted immediately.


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineWarren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 21131 times:

I noticed that i need more time to recover after the PEK-EWR flight on CO which is flown almost entirely in daylight. Does any body know if there is less radiation flying in the evenign instead of the day?
W



747SP
User currently offlineJibblets From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 20955 times:

Quoting Elite (Thread starter):
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2005-03-28-flights-cancer_x.htm

This article is more than two years old. If this was a huge risk, don't you think we'd have some more data by now and some follow-up reports?

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 16):
Great post. I can tell you studied hard in school.

Can you clarify what you meant by "the closer you are to the sun"? You're not implying that being eight miles up in the atmosphere puts you closer to the sun, are you?

I honestly can't tell if you are being serious or facetious/condesending to the only person to reply to this thread with some actual facts. There's a lot of armchair experts on a.net (and the Internet in general) but when someone comes along with some fairly concrete information, no one seems to really care or notice.

Of course when you are flying in a plane you are not significantly closer to the sun, but you are significantly further in to the areas of the atmosphere where the protective magnetic shield around the planet is not protecting us from as much of the solar and intergalactic radiation as it does on the surface.


User currently offlineKonstantinkoll From Germany, joined Aug 2006, 98 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 20955 times:

I think you should translate "8 miles closer to the sun" to "8 miles out of the atmosphere".

User currently offlineSRQCrosscheck From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 20781 times:

I wouldn't discount this research. Aurora Borealis occurs in the northern polar regions because of the structure of the magnetic field surrounding the earth. I believe the regions around the poles receive more radiation from the solar wind in general (I haven't taken E&M in ages, so I don't remember, really). But definitely the higher up you are, the less protected you are by the atmosphere as well.

User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3520 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 20256 times:

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 4):
Dont be worried there have been flight crews that have done these trips 4-5 times a month for years, and they are not dead from cancer.

Um, some of them are: http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/n...ight-crews-have-higher-cancer-risk

Granted, that article's even 2 years older than the one listed at the top - but it references probably a dozen different studies, and the fact that flight crews *do* have higher rates of cancer than the general population hasn't suddenly reversed itself in the past 4 years. Studies have been and are being done, and flight crews do get cancer at higher than normal rates.

The exact reason *why* is really the only thing up for debate.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21098 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 20125 times:

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 16):
You're not implying that being eight miles up in the atmosphere puts you closer to the sun, are you?

Well, it does, doesn't it? However, that little distance is negligible. What is not negligible is the fact that you are above a lot of the atmosphere, and the atmosphere is great at filtering out some of the radiation. Take away some of that filtering by being above it, and you're more at risk for radiation. Appreciably more? Maybe, maybe not. But definitely more.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
25 Zvezda : The cancer risk from being on one such flight is probably similar to the cancer risk from being in the same room when someone else smokes one cigarett
26 Post contains images TristanHNL : Egad, when I posted "closer to the sun" the coffee didn't quite kick in yet. But yes I did imply that you are definitely more vulnerable to radiation
27 Mir : If I'm not mistaken, Concorde had one of these. They had to descend if it started reading too high. -Mir
28 TristanHNL : I am not sure, but I think that has simply more to do with your biological clock being off kilter due to the constant daylight. After all, dimmer lig
29 Toptravel : When QF got their B747-SP's I worked the SYD/LAX /SYD route regulary, there was alot of talk then about the amount of exposer especially during 'Sun S
30 TristanHNL : Wow I didn't know that. Cool! The next step would be to compare the reading on the aircraft with that worn by passengers. Such an experiment would pr
31 Post contains links and images Zeke : HKG-JFK/EWR generally is flown at lower latitudes via the north pacific to take advantage of the prevailing westerly winds, it will often crosses the
32 Elite : Taking another HKG-JFK flight in less than a month :P But good to see that the increase of the risk in cancer is so small that it is insignificant. It
33 SparkingWave : This is a joke, right? Are you aware how heavy lead is? With lead panels, the A380 would sacrifice range and/or payload capability. SparkingWave
34 Bimmerkid19 : When i Flew ORD to ICN back in December, the flight was very much a polar route.. we were about 500 nm north of Barrow Alaska at one point and really
35 Kalvado : magnetic field is taking care of charged high-energy particles from the sun. those particles drift along the field, making landfall near poles, day o
36 Post contains images Airbazar : That comparison doesn't bode well given that public smoking has been nearly completely banned in this country and certainly in most flights. So I gue
37 Kalvado : that is correct but your reasoning is wrong. Earth magnetic field is the keyword
38 Post contains links Comorin : http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...57cd44/$FILE/ATTTZXZ6/AC120-52.pdf All you want to know about the topic. Approx twice the radiation at Polar ro
39 GeorgiaAME : James, you have nothing to worry about, so calm down. This horrible risk is only incurred by actors in Hollywood, (and possibly out of work politician
40 N2DCaves : So the bottom line is that some people are sweating whether or not they will be glowing upon arrival, but have no problem hopping in their car or hail
41 BCNGRO : If you do two and a half polar flights a month you are in the danger zone because the last "half flight" leaves you right at the north pole, where yo
42 ContnlEliteCMH : If you can't tell, then you would be right to ask. But you didn't ask; it's clear from your post that you simply assumed. Clearly I noticed and cared
43 Post contains images Warszawa : Please - Hong Kong to New York, Dangerous?   I stopped believing these stupid comments from 'experts' long ago. -E V E R Y T H I N G - increases your
44 Kalvado : I found 10 mRem per transpolar flight. It's assumed absolutely safe to accumulate 25-35 Rem per lifetime, and all residential regulations are based o
45 MD80fanatic : This is precisely correct, and it's the entire reason for these findings. Using the "left-hand" rule for the force on a charged particle travelling t
46 YULWinterSkies : By loking at the city list, I would rather worry about cancers and diseases linked to smog during layovers... You mean high then? Well, for second-ha
47 ContnlEliteCMH : So, assuming absolutely no exposure to additional activies, 25 Rem might be accumulated in 2500 polar flights. How many such flights may the average
48 Airbazar : Quote: The atmosphere if thiner at the poles, thus allowing more radiation to get through. Thank you. I suspected that also had something to do with i
49 Kalvado : I hope professional FAs and pilots can answer better - but still: from OP: Union is concerned about 2.5 flights a month, that's 30/year On the other
50 Post contains links Aviateur : Inflight radiation is a problem. I wouldn't call it a crisis, but there is a level of risk and it's something worth paying attention to. Not so much f
51 DELTAJET757 : Here's the bottom line. The amount of radiation up there on polar flights is not nearly enough to harm you. If there was a significant risk (w/ the ev
52 Rampart : First, why on earth does this topic have anything to do with your political leaning? Second, why does it seem that controversial scientific informati
53 ContnlEliteCMH : I would suggest that your own article merely establishes it as a risk. You provided no evidence at all that it's a problem; indeed, the only evidence
54 Kalvado : Unfortunately, not quite that simple Since I got so involved in the discussion, some numbers: 1 out of 8 women would have a breast cancer in her life
55 Post contains links MD80fanatic : There seems to be quite a discrepancy between what flight safety related journals say and what radiation engineers say. Flight journals mention a very
56 Post contains images Jibblets : I appreciate the clarification and I do apologize for that remark. Much of my frustration was directed at your post, when in fact other posters here
57 Post contains images TristanHNL : Thanks for clarifying, and acknowledging my efforts. It is much appreciated I think I truncated 5 years off my lifespan from all the stress I endured
58 Rampart : On the contrary, you are a well reasoned breath of fresh air. Thanks! -Rampart
59 Mike89406 : I have to ask how. How do you prove that polar flights are more susceptible to radiation, unless were talking gamma rays, Th shell of the plane alone
60 Mike89406 : Not to get off topic but did you realize certain select foods, and beverages are capable of producing hundred fold or perhaps thousands in some cases
61 Warren747sp : Is there any flights that goes over the South Pole? And there should be higher risk since lack of ozone in that area?
62 ContnlEliteCMH : If I may, I'd like to discuss this point a little bit. Let me state my bias up front: I like numbers because they tell me things. I tend to discount
63 Rampart : Ozone blocks UV radiation. While more UV would get through an "ozone hole", and prolonged UV exposure can result in skin cancer, none would pass thro
64 COEWR787 : If the radioactivity that gets channeled closer to the Earth's surface at the magnetic poles is what is concerning people, shouldn't they be more worr
65 PPVRA : How would the CFRP in the new 787 and A350 stand up to these radiations? Looking at a periodic table, I'd imagine carbon not to block nearly as well a
66 Airbazar : Why not for passengers? Some passengers fly the polar routes far more than any cabin crew member. I suspect if you were to look, you'd find some pass
67 Post contains links Rampart : Good point. Even more concern during a solar flare. I wonder if someone familiar with flying in that area (Canadian Arctic archipelago) could comment
68 Post contains images TristanHNL : Understood, and I agree. Numbers are concrete and tell us more than a mere theory would. I apologize. If we are talking about deterministic, non-stoc
69 Bimmerkid19 : I think LANChile´s SCL to SYD and AKL flies not over the south pole but still flys very very close, if not over Antartica at some point during its r
70 ContnlEliteCMH : No need to apologize! I wasn't taking you to task for your statement. I was only pointing out that, as a matter of policy and/or law, you must have s
71 Bimmerkid19 : Back on Dec. 26th ORD to ICN ..... I believe at one point the flight was about 650 nm south of the Geographic North Pole (90deg.) and we were way way
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
UAL's Flight Between Hong Kong And New York JFK. posted Thu Mar 22 2001 10:04:07 by United Airline
Plane Crash....Oshawa, Ontario To New York posted Thu May 17 2007 21:10:02 by Vaporlock
QR To New York And Washington DC In June/July posted Wed May 2 2007 19:08:46 by EK156
London To New York, How Many A Day? posted Sun Mar 18 2007 20:43:00 by Readytotaxi
Silverjet Launch Daily Cargo Capacity To New York posted Sat Mar 3 2007 14:30:41 by EZYAirbus
Knock To New York? posted Fri Feb 9 2007 19:18:15 by Rdwootty
Hong Kong Express New Colours! First Pics posted Sat Jan 27 2007 16:09:17 by RobK
Hong Kong To South Korea: Other Possible Routes? posted Fri Jan 26 2007 13:37:00 by Pe@rson
Oasis Hong Kong To Launch ORD posted Wed Jan 10 2007 21:58:25 by Continental123
Oasis Hong Kong To Germany? posted Tue Oct 31 2006 10:09:06 by Thorben