Dim to Space Weather

[staryeyed]

Hello! I'm new to the forum. I wanted to ask a question to all the space weather experts and related scientists (I'm assuming there are plenty on here). 

I'm a mother of a toddler, and we enjoy travelling. However, since I found out about solar flares and storms, I began to question the safety of flying commercial during the solar maximum (which is currently reaching it's peak)? I'm not sure if it is true or not, but I read a few articles indicating that during significant solar flares and space storms, the amount of radiation experienced in a commercial flight can be equal to a few CT scans. This might not be concerning for most, but for small children (who we always try to avoid unnecessary radiation on, including xrays, etc), this becomes questionable.

Am I understanding space weather correctly? And if so, I am actually planning a trip from Toronto (Canada) to Miami, Florida next month. At approximately 30-40k feet in flight, could we potentially experience heightened radiation levels during solar flares or other space weather activity? I don't fully understand, so hopefully some of you can put it into perspective for me. If say, we experienced an M or X class flare, or CME, how would that affect us in flight? Perhaps I have no idea what I'm talking about...hence, I found this forum!

Would appreciate your thoughts and perspective. In all honesty, I'm now a bit nervous to fly with my kiddo! At least, while there is so much activity above the skies!

[Vancanneyt Sander]

As long as you don’t fly near the poles (where the Van Allen belt is, that’s the point where the magnetic field lines of the Earth enter the atmosphere) there shouldn’t be any issues. During strong geomagnetic storms and strong space radiation storms, flights over the poles will be cancelled or rerouted to avoid higher dosis of radiation. 

keep in mind solar maximum doesn’t mean there would be a continuous risk, that’s only during severe events and those are rare, even in solar maximum! The Earth has a very good protective layer that protects us from harmful effects of space weather.

[MinYoongi]

As long as youre not a stewardess or a really frequent flyer (like a businessman) youre gonna be fine.  

[staryeyed]

47 minutes ago, Vancanneyt Sander said:

As long as you don’t fly near the poles (where the Van Allen belt is, that’s the point where the magnetic field lines of the Earth enter the atmosphere) there shouldn’t be any issues. During strong geomagnetic storms and strong space radiation storms, flights over the poles will be cancelled or rerouted to avoid higher dosis of radiation. 

keep in mind solar maximum doesn’t mean there would be a continuous risk, that’s only during severe events and those are rare, even in solar maximum! The Earth has a very good protective layer that protects us from harmful effects of space weather.

Thank you. In this case, flying towards the equator, not away from it (thankfully). I was reading this as well just now, which I understand to mean that in a worse case scenario, a radiation dose of 0.6 msv could be anticipated in a 3 hour flight during a solar flare....although, little information is provided about how big of a solar flare, or whether (as you've mentioned) this is a flight near the poles vs. away from. Either way, it appears it would be equivalent to an xray or two. However, there are other sources that indicate exposure could be as high as 2 msv. That's when it becomes more concerning. That's quite a hefty dose.

• According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), radiation dose from solar flares can reach as high as 200 µSv h^-1 for up to a few hours at commercial aircraft altitudes. This would give a radiation dose of up to 400–600 µSv h^-1 during a two-to-three-hour solar flare. Although this is a higher radiation dose than is normally experienced, such solar flares are expected to occur only a few times during the 11-year solar cycle and the great majority of passengers simply won't be in the air when one occurs. Even for those passengers who are exposed to this level of radiation, the expected effects still are not significant—this level of radiation exposure is similar to receiving an x ray and is far less than what you get in a computerized tomography scan.
• Source: https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/solarflare.html#:~:text=According to the National Oceanographic,-three-hour solar flare.

• “During a large solar particle event we see sudden SEP fluxes with dose rates exceeding 2 mSv/h, but these are rare and short-lived,” said Kyoto University’s Yosuke Yamashiki, who led the research team." SOURCE: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2021/09/07/radiation-from-sudden-solar-flares-are-a-danger-to-airline-passengers-and-now-space-tourists-say-scientists/?sh=482f5f461125

Edited October 4, 2022 by staryeyed
added information

[Archmonoth]

2 hours ago, staryeyed said:

 That's when it becomes more concerning. That's quite a hefty dose.

Like others have said, unless you are flying near the poles it's not a big deal.

 

Airplane pilots/staff get many years of these potential doses. Your quoted sources also say it's not a big deal. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Archmonoth

[staryeyed]

Just out of curiosity. If and when I do fly, if I recorded what type of solar activity was occurring during my flight (using the space weather app for example), would it be possible to know the approximate amount of radiation, or whether it would have been significant enough to even cause an increase in in flight radiation?

[Sam Warfel]

@staryeyedlet me direct you to this website:

https://www.radsonaplane.com

[Solarflaretracker200]

32 minutes ago, staryeyed said:

Just out of curiosity. If and when I do fly, if I recorded what type of solar activity was occurring during my flight (using the space weather app for example), would it be possible to know the approximate amount of radiation, or whether it would have been significant enough to even cause an increase in in flight radiation?

I'm not..well lets say experienced, but I don't think you would be able to know the amount of radiation. Like other have said, you need to be near the poles to get that type of radiation. From your area, your fine. I probably don't explain this well but i tried lol

This type of radiation your talking about is like a Carrington type of thing. 

(Again sorry if this is a very poor explanation) 

and no it would not cause an increase in flight radiation. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Solarflaretracker200

[staryeyed]

23 hours ago, Vancanneyt Sander said:

As long as you don’t fly near the poles (where the Van Allen belt is, that’s the point where the magnetic field lines of the Earth enter the atmosphere) there shouldn’t be any issues. During strong geomagnetic storms and strong space radiation storms, flights over the poles will be cancelled or rerouted to avoid higher dosis of radiation. 

keep in mind solar maximum doesn’t mean there would be a continuous risk, that’s only during severe events and those are rare, even in solar maximum! The Earth has a very good protective layer that protects us from harmful effects of space weather.

I also have to ask, how do I know if my flight path is at or near the van allen belt? For example, a flight from within Canada to say, the UK or Germany. It is a cross oceanic flight that runs across the northern hemisphere. Is higher radiation anticipated in that case?

[Vancanneyt Sander]

35 minuten geleden, staryeyed zei:

I also have to ask, how do I know if my flight path is at or near the van allen belt? For example, a flight from within Canada to say, the UK or Germany. It is a cross oceanic flight that runs across the northern hemisphere. Is higher radiation anticipated in that case?

Van allen belt is around the poles so if you’re not flying too far north there isn’t any risk at all. And again, even if you would fly along the Van Allen belt, the risk is still very low as higher levels are ONLY during strong SEP events (max 5 times in 11 years) or severe geomagnetic storming (max 2 times in 11 years).

[staryeyed]

Thank you for the information and insight!

[SpaceWhiskey]

I dont think anyone can tell you for sure what the outcome of increased radiation exposure is. The idea is to minimize radiation exposure as much as possible. Unfortunately, there is NO safe level of ionizing radiation for humans. Same with other bad stuff like consuming lead and other heavy metals. There is absolutely no safe level, however these things are present in our environment and can be costly to avoid completely. We simply "tolerate" these biohazards because we have not been able to figure out how to safely avoid them. 

If you want to understand how ionizing radiation affects human biology, there is plenty of literature. However, I dont think there is any literature that can answer your question about the safety of flying (regardless of solar cycle). I don't think anyone can say something like, "after X amount of flights, you get cancer". I think you can develop cancer just the same by avoiding altitudes of 30 thousand feet (regardless of solar minimum or maximum). There may also be no way to link flying to the negative outcomes of radiation, other than correlative studies (eg, rates of cancer in career aviation workers). You can wear a radiation badge and measure how many times it gets hit, but the biological outcome of getting smacked with radiation (at low doses and at higher doses) is not always clear.

I love this question, because there is so much to think about, but I dont think it will be answered, even by the top experts in space weather, biology, medicine. 
- glass half full: its safe to fly, we all do it and its probably fine.
- glass half empty: no amount of radiation is safe, and adding additional ionization radiation (even low doses) increases oxidative stress in our cells and leads to cell injury and could lead to DNA damage and mutations leading to cancer.
- realistically: great question and very fun to explore. probably a good idea to avoid any ionizing radiation as a human (sorry sun, we love you but you are a spicy pepper!). we are built to withstand background radiation as humans, but guess what, we don't/can't do it every time, even for background radiation. Its like shooting bullets into the air. Its unlikely one will hit you on the way down, until one does. Same with radiation. Its unlikely it will hit any molecule, and maybe even more unlikely it will hit one that matters, and even if hits one that matters you may recover without injury... or may not.

Hope that helps. 

Try looking up some papers (high impact peer reviewed scientific journals), I got some hits searching for ionizing radiation and metabolic oxidative stress, found one with the title "Ionizing radiation-induced metabolic oxidative stress". You can chase down some decent reviews on the effects of radiation on biology.

Apologies to our great sun, I'm not knocking those beautiful ionizing rays you shine on us, but im sure even the sun itself would want us to know what we are getting into as we enjoy the pleasantries of its energy.

Cheers!

Edited October 7, 2022 by SpaceWhiskey

[Archmonoth]

On 10/6/2022 at 9:36 PM, SpaceWhiskey said:

I dont think anyone can tell you for sure what the outcome of increased radiation exposure is.

There is quite a bit of medical history regarding the effects of radiation on biology. Here is a link from the CDC: Health Effects of Radiation | Radiation | NCEH | CDC 

On 10/6/2022 at 9:36 PM, SpaceWhiskey said:

 Unfortunately, there is NO safe level of ionizing radiation for humans.

Depends on how you define "safe". Medical X-Rays are considered safe, and after many years of refined technology are a fraction of the radiation they used to be. 

On 10/6/2022 at 9:36 PM, SpaceWhiskey said:

Same with other bad stuff like consuming lead and other heavy metals.

Radiation damage can be repaired, but often heavy metals cannot be metabolized. I understand your analogy, but I think there are some considerable differences between radiation and heavy metals in human biology. 

On 10/6/2022 at 9:36 PM, SpaceWhiskey said:

There is absolutely no safe level, however these things are present in our environment and can be costly to avoid completely. We simply "tolerate" these biohazards because we have not been able to figure out how to safely avoid them. 

Depends on how you define "safe."

[SpaceWhiskey]

On 10/10/2022 at 12:34 PM, Archmonoth said:

Depends on how you define "safe."

You got it. I think you need clarification based on those quotes you did up there. You nailed it when you said there is a lot of information, but you are missing a really big point here, and I am worried about that, so here is my reply. Its hard to know the outcome for humans. I should have been more clear and specified "human radiation exposure". Perhaps you are thinking of something else, like in vitro studies (like cells in a dish), or non-human in vivo (animals and other living systems). However in humans, we know a lot based on radiation exposure in industry, radiation accidents, etc. What we learned is that it is difficult to keep track of radiation exposure on a person, and the effects are variable depending on the person.

I think this will clear it up for you. You can't really track the effects of a mostly unknown amount of radiation exposure in a human over time, because we have confounding effects of multiple sources of radiation, other variables related to environmental exposures for humans, and no way to track the exact amount of exposure to some or all of our body. Remember that radiation exposure can have "latent" health effects. in other words, you can get cancer many years after exposure. Imagine trying to track that in humans. Human studies are difficult for this reason. Thus, why I said "I dont think anyone can tell you for sure what the outcome of increased radiation exposure is". I should have just said that in the first place, so thank you for the heads up on that.

Now, bring that into the context of a human traveling by aircraft at high altitudes being exposed to a variable and unpredictable amount of radiation from the sun. I'm pretty sure my summary above is spot on.

Instead of the CDC (which has its merits if you dig), there are many better options to learn about radiation, including primary literature and reviews from high impact journals (which would be the source of info for the CDC, I would hope). You should read some books on the effects of radiation on the workers who clean up radiation disasters such as Chernobyl, as an example of what we have learned about radiation exposure in humans. It is unethical to perform radiation experimentation in humans, so much of what we know is from empirical observation and follow ups with people who are known to be exposed.