"But in a yearlong study of almost 900,000 service members who flew on or worked on military aircraft between 1992 and 2017, the Pentagon found that air crew members had an 87% higher rate of melanoma and a 39% higher rate of thyroid cancer, as the AP reported. ... Overall, the air crews had a 24% higher rate of cancer of all types, according to the AP."


This is the second study that found higher cancer rates ... both done by the military itself.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/military ... s-pentagon

Well the pilots are at altitude being hammered by solar and cosmic radiation. The ground crews are practically huffing (via proximity) almost every toxic chemical known to man because they're all there in a hangar, on the flight line, and mashed all together in the plane. The same thing is affecting the civilian side of aviation too. I saw this headline on my phone and wrote it off as click bait since this is just a known danger of aviation. This and the environmental reasons are why authorities are considering moving away from leaded 100LL avgas to unleaded in aviation.

I love the smell of jet fuel as much as the next avgeek but it isn't something I want to smell full time.

I'm totally not trying to down play the study or the negative effects people go through from being in aviation. If you work in, or study, the field itself, it's a widely known fact that this all happens and everyone tacitly accepts it. The article itself is just click bait.

TWA772LR wrote:

Well the pilots are at altitude being hammered by solar and cosmic radiation. The ground crews are practically huffing (via proximity) almost every toxic chemical known to man because they're all there in a hangar, on the flight line, and mashed all together in the plane. The same thing is affecting the civilian side of aviation too. I saw this headline on my phone and wrote it off as click bait since this is just a known danger of aviation. This and the environmental reasons are why authorities are considering moving away from leaded 100LL avgas to unleaded in aviation.

I love the smell of jet fuel as much as the next avgeek but it isn't something I want to smell full time.

I'm totally not trying to down play the study or the negative effects people go through from being in aviation. If you work in, or study, the field itself, it's a widely known fact that this all happens and everyone tacitly accepts it. The article itself is just click bait.

Lots of people "know" lots of things. Sometimes getting them confirmed by science is nice. Also, having particular numbers to quantify the risk is nice. It's *not* click-bate.

I would guess the cancers would range from solar to chemical. Working out on the ramp we were exposed to the elements. While inside it was fumes of every sort. Every morning fuel samples were taken, from every fuel cell of every aircraft. It was common to have a valve occasionally stick, pouring jet fuel down your arm, elbow etc, while inside the hanger we use just about every harsh chemical known to man while maintaining our aircraft. At this very moment I am undergoing a preventative skin cancer treatment on my face, both sides. Brought on by to many years out under the sun without proper protection.

My father was in the USAF for a 4 year during the Korean conflict then went on to a 30+ year career in the airline maintenance industry. During the last 20 years of his life, he fought skin caners characteristic of long term sun exposure and eventually died from metastasizing prostrate cancer. While I don't attribute any of those things directly to chemical exposure in the business, the environmental damage from working out on the sun for most of his career definitely took it's toll.

kitplane01 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Well the pilots are at altitude being hammered by solar and cosmic radiation. The ground crews are practically huffing (via proximity) almost every toxic chemical known to man because they're all there in a hangar, on the flight line, and mashed all together in the plane. The same thing is affecting the civilian side of aviation too. I saw this headline on my phone and wrote it off as click bait since this is just a known danger of aviation. This and the environmental reasons are why authorities are considering moving away from leaded 100LL avgas to unleaded in aviation.

I love the smell of jet fuel as much as the next avgeek but it isn't something I want to smell full time.

I'm totally not trying to down play the study or the negative effects people go through from being in aviation. If you work in, or study, the field itself, it's a widely known fact that this all happens and everyone tacitly accepts it. The article itself is just click bait.

Lots of people "know" lots of things. Sometimes getting them confirmed by science is nice. Also, having particular numbers to quantify the risk is nice. It's *not* click-bate.

Fully agree. I am aware I am exposed to MPK, MEK, hexavalent chromium, sealants, and metal dust on a daily basis, but knowing the actual risk of such exposure rather than being mere coincidence is good to try and get more PPE and environmental controls in a shop environment.

kitplane01 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Well the pilots are at altitude being hammered by solar and cosmic radiation. The ground crews are practically huffing (via proximity) almost every toxic chemical known to man because they're all there in a hangar, on the flight line, and mashed all together in the plane. The same thing is affecting the civilian side of aviation too. I saw this headline on my phone and wrote it off as click bait since this is just a known danger of aviation. This and the environmental reasons are why authorities are considering moving away from leaded 100LL avgas to unleaded in aviation.

I love the smell of jet fuel as much as the next avgeek but it isn't something I want to smell full time.

I'm totally not trying to down play the study or the negative effects people go through from being in aviation. If you work in, or study, the field itself, it's a widely known fact that this all happens and everyone tacitly accepts it. The article itself is just click bait.

Lots of people "know" lots of things. Sometimes getting them confirmed by science is nice. Also, having particular numbers to quantify the risk is nice. It's *not* click-bate.

Canadian study, 1996
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/143/2/137/77557

Norwegian study, 2000
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40967033

(Can't find national origin in a timely manner) study, 2005
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.119 ... 705th238oa

This stuff wasn't just "known" it's been studied and published for at least almost 30 years now.

TWA772LR wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Well the pilots are at altitude being hammered by solar and cosmic radiation. The ground crews are practically huffing (via proximity) almost every toxic chemical known to man because they're all there in a hangar, on the flight line, and mashed all together in the plane. The same thing is affecting the civilian side of aviation too. I saw this headline on my phone and wrote it off as click bait since this is just a known danger of aviation. This and the environmental reasons are why authorities are considering moving away from leaded 100LL avgas to unleaded in aviation.

I love the smell of jet fuel as much as the next avgeek but it isn't something I want to smell full time.

I'm totally not trying to down play the study or the negative effects people go through from being in aviation. If you work in, or study, the field itself, it's a widely known fact that this all happens and everyone tacitly accepts it. The article itself is just click bait.

Lots of people "know" lots of things. Sometimes getting them confirmed by science is nice. Also, having particular numbers to quantify the risk is nice. It's *not* click-bate.

Canadian study, 1996
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/143/2/137/77557

Norwegian study, 2000
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40967033

(Can't find national origin in a timely manner) study, 2005
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.119 ... 705th238oa

This stuff wasn't just "known" it's been studied and published for at least almost 30 years now.

Agreed, I couldn’t stand the fumes, smell from MEK. Before I went into aviation I was on small boats, we use to use a primer, it’s nick name was Blue Death. To this day I still don’t know the actual name of the primer. It was delivered to us from government stocks in a 1gallon unmarked can. While we were big on eye and hearing protection were were, looking back now, totally negligent on the other forms of PPE.

Who are they compared to? Other vets or general population?

In the old days, luminiscent letters on airplane instrumentation were radiactive. Anti Aircraft Radar, Radar exposure and others are risky, too.

My grad father, a C160 Transall pilot, died with 94 years last year, and he also had cancer in the face (typical for exposure to sunlight). This happens, but he had a great long life.

I read somewhere but can't find the source that cosmic radiation exposure in commercial airliners doubles for every 1,000 feet above FL350. And there is no shielding in the airplanes.

SteelChair wrote:

I read somewhere but can't find the source that cosmic radiation exposure in commercial airliners doubles for every 1,000 feet above FL350. And there is no shielding in the airplanes.

Read again. That's nonsense.

Nomadd wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

I read somewhere but can't find the source that cosmic radiation exposure in commercial airliners doubles for every 1,000 feet above FL350. And there is no shielding in the airplanes.

Read again. That's nonsense.

One reads the strangest things in pilot union magazines.