"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."

No Dosometers on Board

[nukenerd]

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.

Re:FUD summary as usual

[macraig]

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.

Re:No Dosometers on Board

[jma34]

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.

Re:FUD summary as usual

[wonkey_monkey]

we didn't know to look for symptoms until now.

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

Re:FUD summary as usual

[N1AK]

A billion lightning bolts really doesn't tell us very much and I'd be disinclined to just pretend that 'dark lightning' behaves in the same manner; however if it was, and if it did, then the odds of being hit by lightning ~1/1,000,000, thus odds of 'dark lightning' hitting you is ~1/1,000,000,000. If you're making any kind of decision based on a 1 in 1 billion chance of something happening to you each year then you are wasting your time.

As I said, the research is interesting and I look forward to seeing what they find out; However, one of the least important things about this research is the fact that it may or may not indicate that a tiny number of people are being exposed to radiation. ~24,000 people die each year from the emissions of coal power plants in the US, it would make far more difference to your chances of dying/getting a medical condition if you chose a house ~1% further away from the nearest coal plant than the risk of dark lightning while flying does.

Re:FUD summary as usual

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Most cancers from cigarettes are I believe caused because the layer of tar prevents the body from repairing itself normally. After a couple of years off them the tar and other negative effects should have dispersed for the most part.

What I don't get about this research is why they don't just stick a few geiger counters and recorders on planes and fly them near thunderstorms, surely that would be the best way to test the theory? Also, is there any chance this could lead to the return of zeppelins, because that would be awesome.

Re:Flying abobe clouds

[cffrost]

Airliners in which I have flown commonly go no higher than 36,000 feet - occasionally perhaps 40,000 feet.

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?

Re:FUD summary as usual

[muon-catalyzed]

> 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 [youtube.com]

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Hrmmm

[Cormacus]

From the article:
thunderstorms unleash sprays of X-rays and even intense bursts of gamma rays

From http://science.howstuffworks.com/radiation3.htm [howstuffworks.com]:
Beta particles can be stopped or reduced by a layer of clothing or a substance like aluminum .... Gamma rays often accompany alpha and beta particles. Unlike alpha and beta particles, they are extremely penetrating. In fact, several inches of lead or even a few feet of concrete are required to stop gamma rays. ... X-rays ... aren't quite as penetrating as gamma rays, and just a few millimeters of lead can stop them

On top of that, the aluminum body of an airplane has *lots* of holes in it (windows, control avionics, etc).