In Light Of Fukushima, Is There Any Future In Aviation?

Independent scientist Leuren Moret while speaking on the radiation hazards of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster stated that "pilots are dead and dying... this is all over the Northern Hemisphere. I talked to a German pilot. He said some of the pilots are sick, but... he said some of them are dead in their 40s, but he said, 'We're all sick, everyone!' So I read him a list of diagnoses... I said: 'Do you have any of these symptoms... Do any of these sound familiar to you?' He said: 'I have all of them...' No one should be flying unless they absolutely have to."

The above is from Youtube video starting at approximate elapsed time of 58:30. This video was published on June 9, 2014.

An article from rense.com dated September 9, 2013 states that Fukushima Radiation Is Brutal On Flight Crews, Passengers and indicates that some "airlines are now restricting crews to only one flight per month due to dangerous levels of radiation emitting from Fukashima."

Back to the Leuren Moret video...

At elapsed time of 54:40 Leuren Moret talks about how the deteriorating Wigner Effect of radiation is causing components of aircraft, particularly the thin metal crimps of hydraulic landing gear hoses, to require maintenance and what has become routine emergency landings on Pacific islands.

Are these rather serious allegations true?

BTW, a cursory look at the websites of Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and American Airlines reveals that they are all currently recruiting cabin crew members. These three legacy airlines all operate trans-Pacific routes between the United States and Japan, do they not?

I raised the issue of cabin crew recruitment because historically, in poor job markets, those employed by the airline industry, particularly flight attendants, would hold onto their jobs for dear life, so the welcome mat for new hires would NOT be put out under these circumstances, yet at this time, the three really big carriers are in the midst of recruitment efforts.

P.M.

I listened to the opening remarks. There is a terrible amount of information given that really needs to be verified. Stuxnet? fuel changes? conspiracy? 9/11? Certainly there are problems at Fukushima, but the lady goes sooo far. Too much to believe in the entirety.

This is fascinating if true but Leuren Moret seems to be a bit over the top to me;

Anyone know any pilots to get their take on this? It'd be worth a discussion whether they've heard anything about pilots voluntarily limiting their flight time, or restricting what routes they'll take. I'm presuming sticking to the southern hemisphere would be safer?

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Are these rather serious allegations true?

No.

These three legacy airlines all operate trans-Pacific routes between the United States and Japan, do they not?

Yes, as well as other areas. And they are all expanding their flight schedules. Expanded flight schedules means more cabin and flight crews are needed.
www.bizjournals.com...
www.google.com...
www.prnewswire.com...

I am a retired commercial pilot. Air Tanker pilot. Used to fly corporate jets. Never flew for an airline thank god.

The upsurge in hiring is due to the recently revised crew rest requirements mandated by the FAA. They can no longer tweek the schedules to max out the crew times. Rest has become recognized as critical to flight safety.

As for the radiation.....not so sure on that one. Seems a little over the top to me. I would be more worried about eating a tuna fish sandwich than flying over the pacific. Don't get me wrong. I keep a gieger counter in my living room. After fuku blew, we had radioactive snow falling here in Idaho. I would guess that most of the atmospheric stuff has settled down by now. What worries me is the amount of water they are using to keep the thing cool. That is already leaking. The Pacific is dying. I no longer go fishing for salmon or steelhead. I stay away from the beach. I used to spend all winter and spring fishing the rivers in the NW for salmon and steelhead. I can no longer in good faith go fishing for radioactive fish. Take a geiger counter to the grocery sometime. You'll stop eating fish too.

What do you want to bet there is a czar somewhere in a basement in DC keeping a lid on media reports of whats going on over there. Sorta like our new eboma czar.

This video is some pretty tough listening material. Now I'm officially afraid of getting old, or becoming a scientist…..

The woman scientist proclaims somewhere before the 39 minute mark that they had to color-retouch all the images of the reactors because they looked like a 'candle had been heating the metal of the buildings for hours and hours until the temperature was thousands and thousands of degrees and the buildings were really a deep orange color'.

If she had stuck with something simple, like debunking the 911 OS, she would today be counting her millions, courtesy of the Uncle Sam-stein.

I'd rather just believe Phage with the 'the radiation all harmlessly disperses, like mixing a huge drink' explanation/solution to the mess than listen to this garbage anymore.

# 318

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Are these rather serious allegations true?

No.

These three legacy airlines all operate trans-Pacific routes between the United States and Japan, do they not?

Yes, as well as other areas. And they are all expanding their flight schedules. Expanded flight schedules means more cabin and flight crews are needed.
www.bizjournals.com...
www.google.com...
www.prnewswire.com...

Thank you for your input and your attempt to keep this discussion balanced.

I will be the first one to admit that, based on my statement about flight attendant recruitment, it is not possible to do a proper analysis of the situation.

But, then again, a proper analysis is not possible based on your statement either.

To do things right, it is necessary to have a complete set of statistics for flight attendants, to wit, resignation rates, retirement rates, termination rates, and expiration rates.

P.M.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

You think that expanding flight schedules don't require more personnel? Interesting.

Delta Air Lines Inc. plans to hire 1,800 flight attendants as the Atlanta-based carrier expands its flight schedule.

www.bizjournals.com...


Sounds like there is indeed a future in aviation.

originally posted by: Idahomie
I am a retired commercial pilot. Air Tanker pilot. Used to fly corporate jets. Never flew for an airline thank god.

The upsurge in hiring is due to the recently revised crew rest requirements mandated by the FAA. They can no longer tweek the schedules to max out the crew times. Rest has become recognized as critical to flight safety.

As for the radiation.....not so sure on that one. Seems a little over the top to me. I would be more worried about eating a tuna fish sandwich than flying over the pacific. Don't get me wrong. I keep a gieger counter in my living room. After fuku blew, we had radioactive snow falling here in Idaho. I would guess that most of the atmospheric stuff has settled down by now. What worries me is the amount of water they are using to keep the thing cool. That is already leaking. The Pacific is dying. I no longer go fishing for salmon or steelhead. I stay away from the beach. I used to spend all winter and spring fishing the rivers in the NW for salmon and steelhead. I can no longer in good faith go fishing for radioactive fish. Take a geiger counter to the grocery sometime. You'll stop eating fish too.

What do you want to bet there is a czar somewhere in a basement in DC keeping a lid on media reports of whats going on over there. Sorta like our new eboma czar.

I agree. Im training to be an aircraft tech and I am constantly around pilots, and techs. I am constantly at the airport doing work for school and I'm pretty sure me and my fellow students would have heard something. Even the A&P side is having a large upswing in job openings but is because many of our A&P's are retiring now and over the next few years.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

You think that expanding flight schedules don't require more personnel? Interesting.

I never stated that.

Please do not put words into my mouth.

However, now I will state explicitly that an increase in airline operational capacity does not necessarily result in the need for the hiring of new cabin crew.

Your initial post spurred me on to check into things, and I learned that American Airlines is planning to increase its capacity by a scant 2%.

Here's one possibility: that extra 2% capacity can be covered by utilizing existing staff and by increasing their work hours, hence flight attendants, instead of being paid for the minimum number of hours guaranteed by their union contracts, will find themselves working closer to the maximum allowed hours.

Here's another possibility: that increase in capacity may be covered by the recalling of furloughed flight attendants with no new hiring.

SO TO REPEAT: to do a proper analysis of the situation, meaning the need for new hires, you will need a full set of statistics for flight attendants: resignation rates, retirement rates, termination rates, and expiration rates. Let's add recall rates, too... and, of course, you have to factor projected operational needs into all of this.

Look, I took enough college Mathematics courses, for which, BTW, I received straight "A's", to be qualified to be an uncertified high school Math teacher in New York City when they were hiring uncertified teachers.

Can you say the same?

Anyway, there doesn't seem to be much substantiation for what Leuren Moret has been saying.

P.M.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Admittedly 2% doesn't sound like much, but when you look at the numbers it's pretty significant. American Airlines, in December of 2013, had over 9 million enplanements. That's for one month. They haven't released the numbers for the year yet, but in 2012, American carried over 86 million passengers, Delta over 112 million, and United/Continental over 92 million. Using those numbers, 2% is a bit more than it seems.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

My friends who fly the 777 from Houston to NRT (Tokyo) all seem to be healthy and wise... Now having said that I actually flew with a guy who had a rad meter he took with him on flights... He was an electrical engineer and made all kinds of gizmos.. When the rad meter was turned on the exposure rate below 12000 ft according to the pointer oon the meter was just about at the 9 to 10 O'clock position.. If I remember correctly it was past the 12 to 1 O'clock position up to about 29,000 ft. Depending on the time of year once you passed through 30 to 31,000 the meter pointed to about the 2 to 3 O'clock position..... No, I do not remember the calibration other than the needle positions.. I have a few years of corporate flying @ 43 and 45,000 ft (almost 30 years above 30,000 and another 12 at lower altitudes) and to my knowledge I do not have cancer yet and I am an old SOB.. Since Fuki I have flown as a passenger into NRT at least 8 times.. At night we do not glow in the dark and my last check-up the doc said he had seen dead people in better shape than me ! Naw joke, everything seems to be better than expected..

You as a passenger before you get concerned think of the flight crews who fly every week and some several times a week..
My friends are still flying to NRT making big bucks and getting 21 days a month off out of Houston... The Guam guys and girls fly all over the Pacific to include many places in Japan..

Is Fuki serious; I think so.. Makes you sick just reading some of the articles about the ocean and air that will be polluted for years and years to come..

Now I will watch the video and add later if I have something.

a reply to: 727Sky

I used to have a paper that detailed the amounts that you were exposed to from various things. Some were shocking (granite counter tops for example), but some were no brainers. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember an 8 hour flight at altitude was surprisingly higher than I thought. Nowhere near danger levels, but more than I expected it to be.

Here is an interesting article. This was in 2011, after Fukushima, and the readings were MUCH lower than they expected them to be on a 5 hour flight.

Yeah, I'm afraid I have to weigh in with, the claims in that video sound like utter nonsense to me.

Just... entirely fictional. Pilots are not dead and dying all over the northern hemisphere.

Yeah from my resent trip to Japan my hair is falling out and im dieing of a billion cancers. My BA flight crew were all ill and evening and everyone in Japan where horrific mutants

/sarcasm


Japan's fine go there and you will bloody well see a country full of some of the most healthiest people you will see!

Id be more concerned about the American junk food you put in your mouth than japan!

originally posted by: Idahomie

I would guess that most of the atmospheric stuff has settled down by now.

Well, OK, but it is a well known fact that flushing a toilet bowl will create an aerosol of tiny contaminated water droplets that can go very high and very wide in a bathroom.

By the same token, heavy rain on the Fukushima Daiichi site will splash up much water to be carried far and wide and high into the atmosphere by high winds.

Why should this concept be limited to the Daiichi site? Why would it not apply to the entire surface of the Pacific Ocean? Rain on the ocean will cause splatter to be carried far and wide and high by high winds.

Right now, Typhoo Nuri, which had weakened is now forecast to re-intensify EXPLOSIVELY.

Here is a newslink that states "Typhoon Nuri, a once great but now weakening storm east of Japan over the open Pacific, is on the brink of an explosive transformation and rejuvenation unlike anything I’ve seen in all my years of storm watching:" Bombs away! North Pacific storm to explosively intensify in historic fashion

P.M.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember an 8 hour flight at altitude was surprisingly higher than I thought.

I'm a former radiation worker, and I'm very healthy. I got exposed to maybe twice the background radiation levels in the work I did. Airline crews are classified as radiation workers and they probably get more radiation exposure than I did unless they fly a lot of red-eye flights at night, but this has nothing at all to do with Fukushima, and Leuren Moret is simply a fear monger spreading ignorance. However I'm not saying that the Fukushima incident is harmless, just that the people most likely to be affected by it are the people who live closest to, or actually work at the irradiated facility.

Modeling Radiation Exposure for Pilots, Crew and Passengers on Commercial Flights

While it may not be commonly known, airline flight crews are currently classified as "radiation workers," a federal designation that means they are consistently exposed to radiation. Flight crews on high-latitude routes, in fact, are exposed to more radiation on an annual basis than nuclear plant workers.

But unlike in other fields, radiation exposure is not measured in the airline industry, nor are there standards or limits regarding exposure.

A NASA Applied Sciences project called NAIRAS, Nowcast of Atmosphere Ionizing Radiation for Aviation Safety, seeks to build tools that use real-time data and modeling to estimate radiation exposure. The issue has been of concern to pilots, crews and scientists for some time, but this will be the first real-time, data-driven, global model to predict not just cosmic background radiation, but also radiation during solar storm events.

Passengers and flight crews are exposed to radiation because the shielding from Earth's atmosphere against high-energy solar particles and cosmic rays is weaker at normal cruising altitudes than at the surface. The threat is even greater for flight paths that take planes near the poles, because the momentum shielding by Earth's magnetic field is weaker at high latitudes. The concern is greatest for flight crews and frequent flyers because of their consistent exposure over long periods.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Oh, I know. I was just pointing out that long before Fukushima, they knew exactly how much flight crews were exposed to, and it wasn't really anything to be concerned about.

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

Well, OK, but it is a well known fact that flushing a toilet bowl will create an aerosol of tiny contaminated water droplets that can go very high and very wide in a bathroom.

By the same token, heavy rain on the Fukushima Daiichi site will splash up much water to be carried far and wide and high into the atmosphere by high winds.

Why should this concept be limited to the Daiichi site? Why would it not apply to the entire surface of the Pacific Ocean? Rain on the ocean will cause splatter to be carried far and wide and high by high winds.

Right now, Typhoo Nuri, which had weakened is now forecast to re-intensify EXPLOSIVELY.

Here is a newslink that states "Typhoon Nuri, a once great but now weakening storm east of Japan over the open Pacific, is on the brink of an explosive transformation and rejuvenation unlike anything I’ve seen in all my years of storm watching:" Bombs away! North Pacific storm to explosively intensify in historic fashion

P.M.

Here's another newslink that projects the waves that will hit the Aleutian Islands, 40 to 50 foot ones which, I am sure, will kick up an aerosol of radionuclides, and, with high winds, I am sure that these radionuclides will go high up into the atmosphere:

Extratropical Typhoon Nuri To Create Hurricane-Strong Winds, Giant Waves Around Alaska's Aleutian Islands

Nuri's central pressure, during that bombogenesis, will intensify and deepen from 970 MB late Thursday to between 918 to 922 MB late Friday. When this happens, waves as high as 40 to 50 feet will thrash the Aleutian …

P.M.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Oh, I know. I was just pointing out that long before Fukushima, they knew exactly how much flight crews were exposed to, and it wasn't really anything to be concerned about.

Actually I seem to remember a prior study that was rather alarming about exposure for passengers and flight crews. It basically said that a strong X-flare or CME could pose a hazard to airborne flight crews and passengers. There were strong suggestions to have all aircraft descend below a certain altitude in such and event. The whole thing was basically sat on and nothing was done due to the crowded sky principle and the possibility of some kind of legal ramifications if an aircraft could not descend due to fuel or no room... I think this was back in the 70s or 80s.... sorry do not have a link and that is all I remember.