Search

Do mobile phones cause brain cancer? Science makes definitive call

The question of whether mobile phones - specifically the electromagnetic radiation or radio waves emitted by these devices - cause cancer has been debated and researched for a long time, and now scientists have made a definitive call. A new comprehensive review commissioned by the World Health Organization has found that mobile phones are NOT linked to brain and head cancers. The systematic review, led by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (Arpansa), examined over 5,000 studies, which included 63 observational studies on humans published between 1994 and 2022 and is "the most comprehensive review to date" according to review lead author, associate prof Ken Karipidis. “We concluded the evidence does not show a link between mobile phones and brain cancer or other head and neck cancers," he said. The review, which was published on Wednesday, focused on cancers of the nervous system, salivary gland and brain tumours. They found no overall association between mobile phone use and cancer, even if people have used it for a long time (over 10 years) or spend a lot of time on their phones. “I’m quite confident with our conclusion. And what makes us quite confident is … even though mobile phone use has skyrocketed, brain tumour rates have remained stable,” Karipidis continued. Despite emitting electromagnetic radiation, also known as radio waves, the exposure is relatively low. Karipidis said people hear the word radiation and assume it is similar to nuclear radiation, “and because we use a mobile phone close to the head when we’re making calls, there is a lot of concern.” He clarified that “radiation is basically energy that travels from one point to another. There are many different types, for example, ultraviolet radiation from the sun." “We’re always exposed to low-level radio waves in the everyday environment.” While exposure from mobile phones is still low, it is much higher than exposure from any other wireless technology sources since they are used close to the head, Karipidis said. The association between mobile phones and cancers came about from early studies comparing differences between those with and without brain tumours and asking about their exposure history. According to Karipidis, who is also the vice-chair of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the results from these kind of studies tend to be biased, as the group with the tumour tend to overreport their exposure. Based on these early studies WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) designated radio-frequency fields like those from mobile phones as a possible cancer risk, but Karipidis said "this classification doesn’t mean all that much”. This is because the IARC has different classifications of cancer risk, with some substances classified as a “definite” carcinogen (such as smoking), and others as “probable” or “possible” carcinogens. Tim Driscoll, a professor at the University of Sydney and chair of the Australian Cancer Council’s occupational and environmental cancers committee, also backed the systematic review. “I think people should feel reassured by this study … but it’s worthwhile just remembering that the studies aren’t perfect, but the weight of evidence certainly is that mobile phones should be considered safe to use in terms of any concerns about increased risk of cancer,” Driscoll said. Images: Shutterstock

Body

Air travel exposes you to radiation – how much health risk comes with it?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/timothy-j-jorgensen-239253">Timothy J. Jorgensen</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/georgetown-university-1239">Georgetown University</a> In 2017, <a href="http://www.independent.ie/business/world/18-million-miles-and-counting-the-globes-top-business-traveller-35666790.html">business traveler Tom Stuker</a> was hailed as the world’s most frequent flyer, logging 18,000,000 miles of air travel on United Airlines over 14 years. That’s a lot of time up in the air. If Stuker’s traveling behaviors are typical of other business flyers, he may have eaten 6,500 <a href="http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=689041">inflight meals</a>, drunk 5,250 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8305.2009.00339.x">alcoholic beverages</a>, watched thousands of <a href="http://www.iata.org/publications/store/Pages/global-passenger-survey.aspx">inflight movies</a> and made around 10,000 visits to <a href="http://blog.thetravelinsider.info/2012/11/how-many-restrooms-are-enough-on-a-plane.html">airplane toilets</a>. He would also have accumulated a radiation dose equivalent to about 1,000 <a href="https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=safety-xray">chest x-rays</a>. But what kind of health risk does all that radiation actually pose? <h2>Cosmic rays coming at you</h2> You might guess that a frequent flyer’s radiation dose is coming from the airport security checkpoints, with their whole-body scanners and baggage x-ray machines, but you’d be wrong. The <a href="http://www.aapm.org/publicgeneral/AirportScannersPressRelease.asp">radiation doses to passengers from these security procedures</a> are trivial. The major source of radiation exposure from air travel comes from the flight itself. This is because at high altitude the <a href="http://www.altitude.org/why_less_oxygen.php">air gets thinner</a>. The farther you go from the Earth’s surface, the fewer molecules of gas there are per volume of space. Thinner air thus means fewer molecules to deflect incoming <a href="http://www.space.com/32644-cosmic-rays.html">cosmic rays</a> – radiation from outer space. With less <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/atmosphere_and_climate/atmosphere">atmospheric shielding</a>, there is more exposure to radiation. The most extreme situation is for astronauts who travel entirely outside of the Earth’s atmosphere and enjoy none of its protective shielding. Consequently, they receive high radiation doses. In fact, it is the accumulation of radiation dose that is the limiting factor for the maximum length of manned space flights. Too long in space and <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/bodyinspace">astronauts risk cataracts, cancer and potential heart ailments</a> when they get back home. Indeed, it’s the radiation dose problem that is a major spoiler for <a href="http://www.space.com/34210-elon-musk-unveils-spacex-mars-colony-ship.html">Elon Musk’s goal of inhabiting Mars</a>. An extended stay on Mars, with its <a href="http://www.space.com/16903-mars-atmosphere-climate-weather.html">extremely thin atmosphere</a>, would be lethal due to the high radiation doses, notwithstanding Matt Damon’s successful Mars colonization in the movie <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej3ioOneTy8">“The Martian</a>.” <h2>Radiation risks of ultra frequent flying</h2> What would be Stuker’s cumulative radiation dose and what are his health risks? It depends entirely on how much time he has spent in the air. Assuming an <a href="http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JobyJosekutty.shtml">average flight speed</a> (550 mph), Stuker’s 18,000,000 miles would translate into 32,727 hours (3.7 years) of flight time. The radiation dose rate at typical <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/why-do-planes-fly-so-high-feet/">commercial airline flight altitude</a> (35,000 feet) is about <a href="https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html">0.003 millisieverts per hour</a>. (As I explain in my book <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10691.html">“Strange Glow: The Story of Radiation</a>,” a millisievert or mSv is a unit of radiation dose that can be used to estimate cancer risk.) By multiplying the dose rate by the hours of flight time, we can see that Stuker has earned himself about 100 mSv of radiation dose, in addition to a lot of free airline tickets. But what does that mean for his health? The primary health threat at this dose level is an increased risk of some type of cancer later in life. Studies of atomic bomb victims, nuclear workers and medical radiation patients have <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/11340">allowed scientists to estimate the cancer risk</a> for any particular radiation dose. All else being equal and assuming that low doses have risk levels proportionate to high doses, then an overall cancer risk rate of <a href="http://www.imagewisely.org/imaging-modalities/computed-tomography/medical-physicists/articles/how-to-understand-and-communicate-radiation-risk">0.005 percent per mSv</a> is a reasonable and commonly used estimate. Thus, Stuker’s 100-mSv dose would increase his lifetime risk of contracting a potentially fatal cancer by about 0.5 percent. <h2>Contextualizing the risk</h2> The question then becomes whether that’s a high level of risk. Your own feeling might depend on how you see your background cancer risk. Most people <a href="http://www.who.int/whr/2002/chapter3/en/index4.html">underestimate their personal risk of dying from cancer</a>. Although the exact number is debatable, it’s fair to say that <a href="https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html">about 25 percent of men ultimately contract a potentially fatal cancer</a>. Stuker’s 0.5 percent cancer risk from radiation should be added to his baseline risk – so it would go from 25 percent to 25.5 percent. A cancer risk increase of that size is too small to actually measure in any scientific way, so it must remain a theoretical increase in risk. A 0.5 percent increase in risk is the same as one chance in 200 of getting cancer. In other words, if 200 male travelers logged 18,000,000 miles of air travel, like Stuker did, we might expect just one of them to contract a cancer thanks to his flight time. The other 199 travelers would suffer no health effects. So the chances that Stuker is the specific 18-million-mile traveler who would be so unlucky is quite small. Stuker was logging more air hours per year (greater than 2,000) than most pilots typically log (<a href="http://work.chron.com/duty-limitations-faa-pilot-17646.html">under 1,000</a>). So these airline workers would have risk levels proportionately lower than Stuker’s. But what about you? If you want to know your personal cancer risk from flying, estimate all of your commercial airline miles over the years. Assuming that the values and parameters for speed, radiation dose and risk stated above for Stuker are also true for you, dividing your total miles by 3,700,000,000 will give your approximate odds of getting cancer from your flying time. For example, let’s pretend that you have a mathematically convenient 370,000 total flying miles. That would mean 370,000 miles divided by 3,700,000,000, which comes out to be 1/10,000 odds of contracting cancer (or a 0.01 percent increase in risk). Most people do not fly 370,000 miles (equal to 150 flights from Los Angeles to New York) within their lifetimes. So for the average flyer, the increased risk is far less than 0.01 percent. To make your exercise complete, make a list of all the benefits that you’ve derived from your air travel over your lifetime (job opportunities, vacation travel, family visits and so on) and go back and look at your increased cancer risk again. If you think your benefits have been meager compared to your elevated cancer risk, maybe its time to rethink flying. But for many people today, flying is a necessity of life, and the small elevated cancer risk is worth the price.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78790/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/timothy-j-jorgensen-239253">Timothy J. Jorgensen</a>, Director of the Health Physics and Radiation Protection Graduate Program and Professor of Radiation Medicine, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/georgetown-university-1239">Georgetown University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/air-travel-exposes-you-to-radiation-how-much-health-risk-comes-with-it-78790">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

Life on Venus? Traces of phosphine may be a sign of biological activity

The discovery that the atmosphere of Venus absorbs a precise frequency of microwave radiation has just <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-020-1174-4">turned planetary science on its head</a>. An international team of scientists used radio telescopes in Hawaii and Chile to find signs that the clouds on Earth’s neighbouring planet contain tiny quantities of a molecule called phosphine. Phosphine is a compound made from phosphorus and hydrogen, and on Earth its only natural source is tiny microbes that live in oxygen-free environments. It’s too early to say whether phosphine is also a sign of life on Venus – but no other explanation so far proposed seems to fit. This video shows how methane was detected in the atmosphere of Mars. The process is the same for finding phosphine on Venus. What makes an atmosphere? The molecular makeup of a planet’s atmosphere normally depends on what its parent star is made of, the planet’s position in its star’s system, and the chemical and geological processes that take place given these conditions. There is phosphine in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn, for example, but there it’s not a sign of life. Scientists think it is formed in the deep atmosphere at high pressures and temperatures, then dredged into the upper atmosphere by a strong convection current. Join 130,000 people who subscribe to free evidence-based news. Although phosphine quickly breaks down into phosphorus and hydrogen in the top clouds of these planets, enough lingers – 4.8 parts per million – to be observable. The phosphorus may be what gives clouds on Jupiter a reddish tinge. Things are different on a rocky planet like Venus. The new research has found fainter traces of phosphine in the atmosphere, at 20 parts per billion. Lightning, clouds, volcanoes and meteorite impacts might all produce some phosphine, but not enough to counter the rapid destruction of the compound in Venus’s highly oxidising atmosphere. The researchers considered all the chemical processes they could think of on Venus, but none could explain the concentration of phosphine. What’s left? On Earth, phosphine is only produced by microbial life (and by various industrial processes) – and the concentration in our atmosphere is in the parts per trillion range. The much higher concentration on Venus cannot be ignored. Signs of life? To determine whether the phosphine on Venus is really produced by life, chemists and geologists will be trying to identify other reactions and processes that could be alternative explanations. Meanwhile, biologists will be trying to better understand the microbes that live in Venus-like conditions on Earth – high temperatures, high acidity, and high levels of carbon dioxide – and also ones that produce phosphine. When Earth microbes produce phosphine, they do it via an “anaerobic” process, which means it happens where no oxygen is present. It has been observed in places such as activated sludge and sewage treatment plants, but the exact collection of microbes and processes is not well understood. Biologists will also be trying to work out whether the microbes on Earth that produce phosphine could conceivably do it under the harsh Venusian conditions. If there is some biological process producing phosphine on Venus, it may be a form of “life” very different from what we know on Earth. Searches for life beyond Earth have often skipped over Venus, because its surface temperature is around 500℃ and the atmospheric pressure is almost 100 times greater than on Earth. Conditions are <a href="https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2017.1783">more hospitable for life</a> as we know it about 50 kilometres off the ground, although there are still vast clouds of sulfuric acid to deal with. Molecular barcodes The researchers found the phosphine using spectroscopy, which is the study of how light interacts with molecules. When sunlight passes through Venus’s atmosphere, each molecule absorbs very specific colours of this light. Using telescopes on Earth, we can take this light and split it into a massive rainbow. Each type of molecule present in Venus’ atmosphere produces a distinctive pattern of dark absorption lines in this rainbow, like an identifying barcode. This barcode is not always strongest in visible light. Sometimes it can only be detected in the parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that are invisible to the human eye, such as UV rays, microwave, radio waves and infrared. The barcode of carbon dioxide, for example, is most evident in the infrared region of the spectrum. While phosphine on Jupiter was first detected in infrared, for Venus observations astronomers used radio telescopes: the <a href="https://www.almaobservatory.org/en/home/">Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array</a> (ALMA) and <a href="https://www.eaobservatory.org/jcmt/about-jcmt/">James Clerk Maxwell Telescope</a> (JCMT), which can detect the barcode of phosphine in millimetre wavelengths. New barcodes, new discoveries The discovery of phosphine on Venus relied not only on new observations, but also a more detailed knowledge of the compound’s barcode. Accurately predicting the barcode of phosphine across all relevant frequencies took <a href="http://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/ftp/eThesis/ClaraSousaSilva2015.pdf">the whole PhD</a> of astrochemist Clara Sousa-Silva in the <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/exoplanets/research/spectroscopy-exoplanets">ExoMol group</a> at University College London in 2015. She used computational quantum chemistry – basically putting her molecule into a computer and solving the equations that describe its behaviour – to predict the strength of the barcode at different colours. She then tuned her model using available experimental data before making the <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.2917">16.8 billion lines of phosphine’s barcode</a> available to astronomers. Sousa-Silva originally thought her data would be used to study Jupiter and Saturn, as well as weird stars and distant “hot Jupiter” exoplanets. More recently, she led the detailed consideration of <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.05224">phosphine as a biosignature</a> – a molecule whose presence implies life. This analysis demonstrated that, on small rocky exoplanets, phosphine should not be present in observable concentrations unless there was life there as well. But she no doubt wouldn’t have dreamed of a phone call from an astronomer who has discovered phosphine on our nearest planetary neighbour. With phosphine on Venus, we won’t be limited to speculating and looking for molecular barcodes. We will be able to send probes there and hunt for the microbes directly. Written by Laura McKemmish, UNSW; Brendan Paul Burns, UNSW, and Lucyna Kedziora-Chudczer, Swinburne University of Technology. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/life-on-venus-traces-of-phosphine-may-be-a-sign-of-biological-activity-146093">The Conversation.</a>

Art

You can now visit Chernobyl’s control room

Tourists are now able to visit the radioactive control room at Chernobyl which has been within the exclusion zone of access since the disaster more than 30 years ago. The control room is in decay and is located at Unit Four, where the reactor exploded. It is also the location of the deadly “elephant’s foot” radioactive mass which was discovered in the basement under the remains of the reactor. <blockquote style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/ByiXTkBIbSz/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="12"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <a style="color: #000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;" rel="noopener" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/ByiXTkBIbSz/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank">ChNPP from the inside: the “golden corridor” connects all the blocks of the station, including the destroyed fourth one. The name comes from the appearance of wall cladding, which creates a golden glow in the hallway. The length of the corridor is more than a kilometer! ⠀ ЧАЕС зсередини: "золотий коридор" з'єднує всі блоки станції, в тому числі, і зруйнований четвертий. Назва походить від зовнішнього вигляду обшивки стін, яка створює в коридорі золотисте світіння. Протяжність коридору - більше кілометра! ⠀ ЧАЭС изнутри: "золотой коридор" соединяет все блоки станции, в том числе, и разрушенный четвертый. Название произошло от внешнего вида обшивки стен, которая создает в коридоре золотистое свечение. Протяженность коридора - более километра!</a> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;">A post shared by <a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px;" rel="noopener" href="https://www.instagram.com/chernobyltour/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank"> CHERNOBYL TOUR</a> (@chernobyltour) on Jun 10, 2019 at 10:03am PDT </div> </blockquote> As the control room is still a hotbed of radioactive activity and measures at around 40,000 times the safe level, visitors are only able to visit the control room for five minutes. The decision to open the site up to tourists came after the success of the HBO mini series Chernobyl, which outlined the disaster and what mistakes led to it happening. <blockquote style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/B06dUzTALb8/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="12"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <a style="color: #000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;" rel="noopener" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B06dUzTALb8/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank">Nowadays you can go inside the Chernobyl nuclear power station, see the main circulation pumps and one of the control rooms. Book a private tour to visit the ChNPP ☢️ ⠀ На сьогоднішній день ви можете побувати всередині Чорнобильської АЕС, побачити головні циркуляційні насоси та відвідати один з блочних щитів управління. Замовляйте приватний тур для відвідування ЧАЕС ☢️ ⠀ На сегодняшний день вы можете побывать внутри Чернобыльской АЭС, увидеть главные циркуляционные насосы и посетить один из блочных щитов управления. Заказывайте частный тур для посещения ЧАЭС ☢️</a> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;">A post shared by <a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px;" rel="noopener" href="https://www.instagram.com/chernobyltour/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank"> CHERNOBYL TOUR</a> (@chernobyltour) on Aug 8, 2019 at 11:40am PDT </div> </blockquote> Vitalii Viktorovych Petruk, the head of Ukraine's state agency for the Exclusion Zone, mentioned the popular TV series by name when talking on the decision to open up the site. "The HBO series boosted the interest to Chernobyl. Everybody now wants to see more, and we are going to satisfy the demand." This year alone has seen more than 85,000 visitors flock to the Ukraine to visit the infamous abandoned city.

Travel Trouble

Are you a frequent flyer? Solar storm radiation can be harmful

Space weather <a href="https://theconversation.com/solar-eruption-could-help-earth-prepare-for-technology-melt-down-18747">impacts</a> many modern-day technologies. But one of the most concerning – and least reported – space weather effects is the increased radiation exposure to passengers on commercial long-distance flights during so-called “<a href="http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/srs.html">solar radiation storms</a>”. The NASA-funded Nowcast of Atmospheric Ionizing Radiation System (<a href="http://sol.spacenvironment.net/~nairas/">NAIRAS</a>) is the computer system tasked with providing a real-time data-driven climatology of the aviation radiation environment. Recently, a series of papers published in the journal [Space Weather] estimate that when NAIRAS was turned off during the US government shutdown last year – which went into effect just as a solar radiation storm began – <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013SW001015/abstract">500,000 people</a> received increased radiation doses. It has also been estimated that this event is likely to eventually result in four cancer-related deaths. What is a solar radiation storm? Disturbances on the surface of the sun are commonly the cause of geomagnetic disturbances here on Earth; such as power grid faults/failures and increased errors in GPS navigation and positioning. Associated with some of these solar disturbances is the ejection of extremely fast plasma into the solar wind that, when aimed directly towards the Earth, causes the onset of increased geomagnetic and ionospheric activity. The Earth-bound solar energetic particles ejected into the solar wind eventually penetrate into the Earth’s magnetosphere. When inside the magnetosphere, they orbit the planet across the Earth’s magnetic field lines until they are scattered by various complicated magnetospheric processes and interactions. Once scattered, these solar particles then travel down the magnetic field lines until they impact the Earth’s upper atmosphere, where they are effectively absorbed. The penetration depth of these particles primarily depends on their kinetic energy, which is governed by their mass and velocity. The less energetic particles are stopped by the Earth’s atmosphere typically between 100 and 400km altitude, causing the well-known <a href="http://spaceweathergallery.com/aurora_gallery.html">aurora</a> in the northern and southern high-latitude regions. The atmosphere increases in density exponentially as the particle falls. This normally prevents particles penetrating to lower altitudes where they are harmful to living organisms. The more energetic particles, called “solar energetic particles”, caused by these solar disturbances can <a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~barrel/index.html">penetrate</a> to below 10km, near of commercial flights. During such events, the danger posed by the increased radiation levels is easily averted by decreasing the cruising altitudes of the aircraft. Pilots can also divert their flight paths to areas less affected by the increased radiation levels (more equatorward latitudes). Several chest X-rays worth of radiation The aviation radiation monitoring performed in real-time by computer systems such as NAIRAS can effectively be used to issue such warnings to aircraft. This will help remove the threat posed to hundreds of thousands of people across the globe during such space weather events. The geomagnetic activity levels associated with the solar radiation storm that occurred during the US government shutdown were only minor (a minimum <a href="https://theconversation.com/solar-eruption-could-help-earth-prepare-for-technology-melt-down-18747">Dst</a> of -54nT). This means the technologies normally classified as being <a href="https://theconversation.com/divert-power-to-shields-the-solar-maximum-is-coming-11228">vulnerable</a> to extreme space weather events are not likely to have been significantly affected. The solar energetic particle levels observed by <a href="http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/satellite/goes/index.html">geostationary satellites</a> classifies this as an <a href="http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/srs.html">S2</a>solar radiation storm. It lasted more than 24 hours, and took about four days to fully subside (see video below). Some controversy exists around the exact method used by the scientists of the first <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013SW001015/abstract">study</a>into this event. There has been doubt around the estimation of the number of eventual cancer fatalities related to this solar radiation storm. Even though the radiation levels air travellers were exposed to during this event are much higher than they might have been had an appropriate warning been issued, they were still comparatively low – on par with the dose that one would receive from a number of chest X-rays. Arguments put forward by some <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014SW001074/abstract">researchers</a> err on the side of caution. They indicate that some people who would be considered more vulnerable to increased radiation exposure (such as frequent flyers and unborn children) should have access to this radiation monitoring information. This would enable them to make educated decisions about appropriate air travel times in much the same way that non-urgent X-rays may be postponed during pregnancy. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014SW001061/abstract">Other researchers</a> have erred on the opposite side, with the view that the radiation doses during this event were too small to be considered a serious threat. Independent of whether or not this particular space weather event exposed air travellers to dangerous levels of radiation, these studies are in clear agreement that increasing radiation monitoring is a must in the future. This is especially important for the aviation industry, and the provision of such information must not be hindered by short-term political partisan interests. Written by Brett Carter. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-you-a-frequent-flyer-solar-storm-radiation-can-be-harmful-28775">The Conversation</a>.

Travel Tips

105-year-old radiates joy holding newborn great-grandchild

Video of a 105-year-old man meeting his newborn great-grandson has gone viral, depicting the most joyful moment we’ve seen in a long time. Lost for words, the centenarian absolutely lights up when he sees the newest member of the family for the first time. <iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fjason.zwolak%2Fvideos%2F10158677908175389%2F&show_text=0&width=400" width="400" height="710" style="border: none; overflow: hidden;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true"></iframe> “Easton, at 5 days old, meets his 105-year-old great-grandfather,” new dad Jason Zwolak wrote on Facebook. “This is one of the sweetest videos you will see. Pop is so happy.” Since it was uploaded a week ago, the adorable footage has been seen almost nine million times, receiving hundreds of thousands of likes and shares, plus 55,000 comments and counting. In a recent Facebook post, Zwolak thanked those who made the video a hit. “At the time, I recorded it on Facebook Live thinking it would be a great keepsake,” he wrote. “Little did we know the reach it would have. We have received messages from all over the world. It is absolutely amazing how this video has touched so many.”

News

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information