Pentagon Study Reveals Higher Cancer Rates For Military Pilots, Ground Crews (axios.com) 62
A new study from the Department of Defense revealed that military pilots and ground crews experienced higher rates of certain cancers compared to the general population. Axios: Earlier military studies had not indicated that aviators were at higher risk, though the data has long been sought by those who raised alarm about the rates of cancer they observed among air and ground crew members, according to AP, which first reported the study. The study examined cancer rates among nearly 900,000 air and ground crew from 1992 to 2017. Overall -- compared to the general population after adjusting for age, sex and race -- aircrews saw a 24% higher rate of cancer of all types while ground crews saw a 3% higher rate of cancer of all types. However, both air and ground crews saw "lower or similar" cancer mortality rates for all cancer types compared to the general population.
Should come as no big surprise... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Should come as no big surprise... (Score:4, Funny)
Billy: Does that mean I’ve got superpowers!?
Doctor: No Billy, you have cancer.
Robot chicken was a great show.
Re:Should come as no big surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's been known for years that flying high altitude polar routes expose pilots to twice the cosmic ray radiation compared to non-pilots. As to the ground crew, lots of UV exposure in their outdoor work.
I doubt UV has as much to do with it as all of the electronics that modern military aircraft are stuffed with, including big honkin' radars and various radio transmitters, all operating at high power.
Re: (Score:3)
My Dad was a EE and spent his career designing ECMs and radars for military aircraft. He always said, "Don't worry about the EM radiation - it drops at the square of the distance and you're fine."
Then whenever he turned on the microwave oven, he'd leave the kitchen until it was finished.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
UV should have about infinity times more to do with it than the non-ionizing radiation from a military radar or anything other aircraft electronics. Even standing near radium paint on the aircraft and gauges would have more to do with it.
I wouldn't recommend it, but radar techs, especially in the dumb old days, would sometimes warm themselves up in the winter by standing in the beam of the radar systems they were working on...they were fine and went on to have kids who were fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't recommend it, but radar techs, especially in the dumb old days, would sometimes warm themselves up in the winter by standing in the beam of the radar systems they were working on...they were fine and went on to have kids who were fine.
That urban legend was around in the 50s when radars were new and mysterious. By the 80s strict radiation guidelines were in place with orange cones placed at appropriate distances and locations anytime a transmitter was tested on the ground. More often, the use of dummy loads or RF enclosures were used to block any transmitted radiation when on the ground.
Powerful transmitters like HF radios were limited to in-air use only and some transmitters had disabling signals applied anytime there was a weight-on-w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
not just UV but background radiation. The average background radiation in Denver is equal to a couple chest x-rays over that of sea level...
If this is also accurate, then perhaps the cancer rates and statistics in the city of Denver (and many other high-altitude cities) would reflect that? Or perhaps we would find a couple more chest x-rays of exposure a year isn't really enough to create the statistics we would expect? Does the overall healthier lifestyle of Colorado citizens also play a part? Compare and contrast to an unhealthy high-altitude area perhaps?
Not doubting your claim, just more curious.
Re: Should come as no big surprise... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are three petroleum products with roughly the same composition: Diesel, Kerosene, and JP-8 (Jet Fuel). Most ground crews don't get anywhere near the fuel due to safety issues. As to exhaust fumes, most drivers stuck in traffic daily probably have a higher exposure than the average ground crew and doesn't really factor in the air crew members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If breathing petroleum fumes were a huge cancer risk, gas pump attendants in Oregon and New Jersey where they pump all drive
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt UV has as much to do with it as all of the electronics that modern military aircraft are stuffed with, including big honkin' radars and various radio transmitters, all operating at high power.
Even very high microwave radiation is not associated with cancer. What looks more realistic is exposure to products of avgas combustion. Planes don't have catalytic convertors.
Re: Should come as no big surprise... (Score:1)
my neighbor worked for unisys, worked at radar sites, died of cancer...widow told me many coworkers also got cancer...jussayin
Re: (Score:2)
my neighbor worked for unisys, worked at radar sites, died of cancer...widow told me many coworkers also got cancer...jussayin
Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in older populations, so without knowing how that population compares to similar populations who do not work at radar sites - it is difficult to know if there is any correlation with just this type of evidence.
All the big studies have shown that increases to cancer risk due to non-ionizing EM radiation is small, and typically consistent with zero. The larger the studies, the smaller the association. This is in line with our understanding of the physics and chemis
Re:Should come as no big surprise... (Score:5, Informative)
Came here to say this, but also point out that the ground crew are exposed to lots of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and materials: Apart from the obvious jet fuel & combustion byproducts, there's aircraft brake dust (do you think that asbestos was phased out of those as in automotive brake pads?), aircraft greases that will literally peel your skin off (heard a story about that one involving a guy who, unlike a good chemist, didn't wash his hands both *before* and after going to the bathroom). and fighter jet emergency APUs, engine start systems, missiles, and JATO units that run on all kinds of exotic rocket fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep you know jp-5 and DFM is allowed to have lead? Spent so much time getting blasted in the face with exhaust right over my work areas. I would keep a rag in my pocket and wipe the soot and snot off my face every 5 or 10 minutes. Just once being enough to make it resemble the shroud of turin.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't they just put some kind of UV filter coating on the cockpit windows?
Re: (Score:3)
How would UV filter help against gamma radiation?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you want to protect against gamma radiation? That's how you get Hulk powers.
Re: (Score:2)
No need for polar routes. Just flying in general, even civil massively increases gamma radiation from space, far more than twice than normal people. Typical comparison that organisations like CDC tend to use in material aimed at general public is not to normal daily exposure (because that would be very alarming to someone who doesn't know how to interpret numbers) but to things that are considered normal but quite dangerous is continuously exposed to such as chest x-ray scans. You get about 1/10th of a ches
Re:Should come as no big surprise... or JP-8 ? (Score:2)
Yes. Extra radiation exposure would be a risk . Another risk air crews and ground crews share in common is exposure to military jet fuel JP-8 , and its additives. The fuel itself is kerosene-like but is known to cause some other health problems. The carcinogenic effects of various additives to the fuel may still be understudied
Re: (Score:2)
But you'd think that the ground crews would be more exposed to jet fuel (as would the rest of the military, isn't JP-8 used for literally everything nowadays?)
Re: (Score:2)
So UV exposure from working outdoors, and not all the hazardous chemicals they're exposed to all day?
A wash? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But the good news is that mortality is not increased
Sounds like selection bias because they only take healthy adults that are statistically more likely to exercise more throughout their lives partly because it’s a literal job requirement. Its like smoking and running marathons, I’m not sure it really cancels out.
Re: (Score:2)
They take healthy young people, which is overwhelming majority of population (or at least used to be). Conditions you develop with time, you can usually still fly and do maintenance. I follow one former USAF and USN fighter pilot (yes, both with congressional waver to switch between the two, a bit of a unicorn), and he openly speaks that he had a health waver for a kidney disease, and that a lot of even fighter pilots often need those as they age, not to even speak of people flying less physically stressful
Mixed Signals (Score:2)
"aircrews saw a 24% higher rate of cancer of all types while ground crews saw a 3% higher rate of cancer of all types. However, both air and ground crews saw "lower or similar" cancer mortality rates for all cancer types compared to the general population."
The latter statement only validates that A) cancer treatments are basically the same if you're human, and B) although military personnel in certain jobs face a 24% higher rate, the survival rate is considerably better due to better physical fitness and maintaining health due to military standards.
The latter statement still smacks of dismissing the obvious issue. Don't do that. This is clearly a serious problem to address regardless of survival rates. You don't shove 24% under the rug of mil-spec outliers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably also get VA healthcare for life
Given that military service was likely what caused the medical issues, I'd say VA healthcare for life is the least our Government could do for the men and women sworn to protect its very existence, defending it with their lives when necessary, and especially considering what's being gifted to those crossing our borders in search of that same security.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh they absolutely deserve healthcare. My point was it seems likely to me that it would skew the study. In terms of outcomes for example or in terms of detection.
The problem might even be the VA ! CAT scans, X rays etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mixed Signals (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see it as dismissing the issue. I see it as making two distinct points that happen to have overlap: * hazardous jobs are hazardous, in ways that can take years/decades to show, AND * universal healthcare (which the military has and the general population does not) leads to lower mortality.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see it as dismissing the issue. I see it as making two distinct points that happen to have overlap: * hazardous jobs are hazardous, in ways that can take years/decades to show, AND * universal healthcare (which the military has and the general population does not) leads to lower mortality.
Sorry, but these statistics hardly prove your latter statement. Military fitness standards speak more towards that than anything, which is what doctors and dieticians have been saying for literally decades to a lazy obese society suffering greatly as a direct result.
Besides, most people diagnosed with cancer are of an age that they also use the "universal healthcare" called Medicare.
Re: (Score:2)
If by woke I assume you mean scientists.
Re: (Score:1)
Please point me to a non-woke scientist that thinks that healthy lifestyle doesn't lead to better health outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
If the cause is exposure to radiation due to spending time at high altitudes, then that would cause cancers, like thyroid cancer, that tend have low mortality rates.
Doesn't surprise me. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for your service.
how does it compare to commercial? (Score:2)
"aircrews saw a 24% higher rate of cancer of all types while ground crews saw a 3% higher rate of cancer of all types"
Is the incidence of cancer different from what is experienced by people working in the commercial airline industry? If so it will point to some kind of carcinogenic substances or workplace practices that are particular to the military.
Here are some of the Numbers (Score:2)
I read the article and found the Government study here: https://www.documentcloud.org/... [documentcloud.org] . I know, I know, I should not have done that. But the numbers are instructive. Per the study summary:
"“This study found that compared to the U.S. population after adjusting for age, sex, and race, aircrew had an 87 percent higher rate of melanoma, 39 percent higher rate of thyroid cancer, 16 percent higher rate of prostate cancer, and a 24 percent higher rate of cancer for all sites. Ground crew members had hi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read the article and found the Government study here: https://www.documentcloud.org/... [documentcloud.org] . I know, I know, I should not have done that. But the numbers are instructive. Per the study summary:
"“This study found that compared to the U.S. population after adjusting for age, sex, and race, aircrew had an 87 percent higher rate of melanoma, 39 percent higher rate of thyroid cancer, 16 percent higher rate of prostate cancer, and a 24 percent higher rate of cancer for all sites. Ground crew members had higher incidence of cancers of brain and nervous system (by 19 percent), thyroid (by 15 percent), melanoma (by 9 percent), kidney and renal pelvis (by 9 percent), and of all sites (by 3 percent). However, aircrew and ground crew both had lower or similar cancer mortality rates for all cancer types when compared to the U.S. population. This concludes the Phase 1 epidemiologic study and triggers aPhase2 study to identify risk factors for the cancer diagnoses identified in the Phase 1 study. Elements to be included in the Phase 2 study are outlined in section 750(a)(3)(c)of the NDAA for FY 2021."
So from the numbers, it appears that much of the aircrew incidences are related to sunlight and/or cosmic ray exposure and the ground crews get hit by air pollution. At least that's my uninformed analysis of the data. Someone in the medical field might be able to shed better light on the numbers.
Well I'm guessing radiation more than sunlight for the pilots (they're pretty well covered in there).
But I think there's a second part of this where military folks, particularly pilots, are subjected to medical examination a lot more frequently and extensively than the general population.
That's not to say there isn't a real increase, but the similar mortality rates suggest that increased detection is partly to play.
Note, an important factor to consider is that early detection is very important to cancer sur
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by the mortality rates it appears they are more conscious of their health and get better medical care than the general population.
Aerospace work (Score:2)
Re: Aerospace work (Score:1)
bad air (Score:2)
Ground crews are exposed to tons of air polluted by planes burning kerosene.
Also, need to know other factors: do these people smoke more? do they drink more alcohol or smoke more weed? Do they eat more unhealthful food?
Military life is dangerous and hard (Score:1)
When I was in I was eventually in charge of dozens of people. I was often given work that was dangerous and the available PPE was inadequate.
Work doesn’t stop because the CO spent your safety budget on wardroom decorations or because they simply forgot to order a realistic supply of filters and rubber gloves. It should. But it’s the military.
It was my policy to do such work myself because it was immoral to order someone to poison themselves over inconsequential work and it was almost always i
More cancers, same mortality (Score:2)
More cancers than in general population, but same mortality
A possible explanation could be that by screening a lot, we find and treat cancers that would not have grow much.
Another explanation is that there are indeed more serious cancers, but thank to intensive screening, they are discovered and cured early, at a time where remission is more likely.
Old news, and not just military (Score:2)
The elevated risk of cancer in people spending time at high altitudes has long been known. People who spend time above a significant part of the Earth's atmosphere, which provides a degree of protection from things like cosmic rays, are obviously going to suffer from the reduced protection. Remember: the air at lower altitudes is denser (each square inch/cm is more compressed by the weight of the column of air above it) and more protective, so the loss of protection with increased altitude is worse than lin