Space Radiation Called No Major Threat To Flyers
' Airline travellers should not be worried about high-altitude exposure to radiation from space and the sun, U.S. experts said on Monday. … Government and airline scientists said existing evidence does not point to cosmic radiation as a major health issue. "I don't think it poses such a risk that people should be concerned abut flying," said Wallace Friedberg, head of radiobiology research at the Federal Aviation Administration's Civil Aeromedical Institute. '
Download the whole document in a single PDF file (815 Kb)
Download a chapter at the time
View the whole document in hypertext (normal Internet format) on FORCES Netherlands (if you don't understand Dutch, scroll down to where "Executive Summary" is - the links are in English)
You need Acrobat Reader to read this document. Click here for a free copy.
What does this have to do with smoking? Very much indeed.
The veterans of the fight against the antitobacco mafia will remember that in 1989 an immense study was commissioned by the US Department of Transports on passive smoke and cosmic radiations on aircrafts. The study, "AIRLINER CABIN ENVIRONMENT: CONTAMINANT MEASUREMENTS, HEALTH RISKS, AND MITIGATION OPTIONS" (DOT-P-15-89-5), unquestionnably demonstrated that:
A passenger sitting in the area of the non smoking section bordering with the smoking section should fly 48,440 hours (5.5 years) to inhale the equivalent of one cigarette.
Statistically, passengers who fly 480 hours for 30 straight years risk from 0.3 to 0.8 "premature" deaths from lung cancer every 100,000 people.
Still statistically, the same passengers who still fly 480 hours but for just 20 years, risk from 45 to 513 "premature" deaths from lung cancer every 100,000 people.
The above means that cosmic radiations are from 150 to 641 times more dangerous than passive smoke, notwithstanding 10 less years of exposure.
But if we have just been told that cosmic radiations DO NOT REPRESENT A RISK FOR HEALTH, how can passive smoke, up to 641 times less dangerous, be considered a danger to health, to the point of not just prohibiting it, but even justify colossal class action suits from flight attendants and private individuals?
That is, of course, a rhetorical question. We all know that the dangers of passive smoke are a fraud to justify the prohibition of smoking, and the flow of immense public fortunes in the pocket of an industry of public cons.
The smoking prohibition has also allowed airlines to substantially reduce air filtration (thus to considerably increase profits), because smokeless air "smells" cleaner, although in the so-called "clean air" airplanes there is now considerable increase of pneumonic diseases (including airborne tuberculosis), not to mention the very much "kept-quiet" explosion of air rage, due to the deprivation of smoking, combined with the tightening of other "safety" regulations further restricting behaviour, and added to the decay of service and the prohibition of alcohol sales in certain airlines.
As it was the case for the WHO's Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe, in fact, this study was quickly buried and "forgotten" to proceed with the prohibition agenda by those who made it to public health instead of public prisons. No other study of this type was repeated for smoking in airplanes, since this type of study (instrumental instead of statistical) cannot be manipulated and "spinned" to show the desired misinformation on smoking.
But FORCES Netherlands took the time and the great effort to reproduce this huge study on hypertext, and we are glad to present it, once again, for the new readers of FORCES.
Remember: if you smoke, you do not hurt anyone