Working pilots: sunscreen?

Yeah it sees to be much the same for UPS, in fact I'm told it's slightly over 50% day flying these days. It's not the 90s anymore. Too bad, I love flying at night. Uh, I'm still answering the phone if you're reading this FedEx/UPS hiring committee.
 
Or the fact that UV isn't an issue in the cockpit for, well, anyone...

But some of us do spend a lot of time outside during our day, and for that reason sunscreen is a good idea!
 
When they got to the tomb, low and behold, they discovered that this thread had already been resurrected.

upload_2017-4-28_19-37-41.jpeg
 
Or the fact that UV isn't an issue in the cockpit for, well, anyone...

My dermatologist disagrees with your theory.


Also here is some information on the topic:

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2019958



The Risk of Melanoma in Pilots and Cabin Crew UV Measurements in Flying Airplanes
April 2015
Martina Sanlorenzo, MD
Igor Vujic, MD
Christian Posch, MD
James E. Cleaver, PhD
Pietro Quaglino, MD
Susana Ortiz-Urda, MD, PhD


Recently, a meta-analysis reported an increased incidence of melanoma in pilots and cabin crew, which was possibly due to occupational exposures.1 Cabin crews’ exposure to cosmic radiation was assessed in different studies and always found below the allowed dose limit.2However, the cumulative exposure of pilots and cabin crew to UV radiation, a known risk factor for melanoma, has not been assessed to our knowledge.

Intrigued by our findings and the clinical observation of pilots developing melanomas on sun-exposed skin, we measured the amount of UV radiation in airplane cockpits during flight and compared them with measurements performed in tanning beds.

Methods

UV radiation measurements were performed using a Solartech UV index meter designed to measure UV radiation from 280 to 400 nm (UV-B and UV-A) and a Solartech UV index meter designed to measure UV-B only (280-322 nm) (Solartech Inc). We first measured UV radiation in the pilot seat inside a general aviation turboprop airplane (Socata TBM850) through the acrylic plastic windshield (1.6-cm thick) at ground level and at 2500, 6000, 10 000, 15 000, 20 000, 25 000, and 30 000 feet above sea level. The measurements were taken in 2 locations with different solar exposures: San Jose, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada, around midday in April. Later, the same meters were used to measure UV radiation levels in an Omega UV-A tanning bed. The study design has been reviewed and approved by the Committee on Human Research, University of California, San Francisco.

Results

Our measurements inside the airplane revealed that the windshields blocked UV-B but allowed UV-A transmission. The amount of UV-A at 30 000 feet measured in Las Vegas, Nevada, was approximately 242 µW/cm2 (Table 1). The UV-A dose in a UV-A–only tanning bed was 706 µW/cm2. The carcinogenic effective dose was calculated using the Skin Cancer Utrecht–Philadelphia human action spectrum,4 and the dose for a 20-minute tanning session was 2940 mJ/m2. The carcinogenic effective doses of UV-A radiation in tanning beds and airplanes are compared in Table 2.

Discussion

The pathogenic role of UV-A in melanoma is well established. UV-A is capable of causing DNA damage in cell culture5 and in animal models.6 Pilots flying for 56.6 minutes at 30 000 feet receive the same amount of UV-A carcinogenic effective radiation as that from a 20-minute tanning bed session. These levels could be significantly higher when flying over thick cloud layers and snow fields, which could reflect up to 85% of UV radiation. Airplane windshields do not completely block UV-A radiation and therefore are not enough to protect pilots. UV-A transmission inside airplanes can play a role in pilots’ increased risk of melanoma.

We recommend further studies to establish recommendations for occupation-related UV radiation dose limits. These studies should include more precise measurement in several airplanes. We believe that better UV protection on aircraft windshields is necessary to offer cabin crew a hazard-free work environment. We strongly recommend the use of sunscreens and periodical skin checks for pilots and cabin crew.
 
My dermatologist disagrees with your theory.


Also here is some information on the topic:

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2019958



The Risk of Melanoma in Pilots and Cabin Crew UV Measurements in Flying Airplanes
April 2015
Martina Sanlorenzo, MD
Igor Vujic, MD
Christian Posch, MD
James E. Cleaver, PhD
Pietro Quaglino, MD
Susana Ortiz-Urda, MD, PhD


Recently, a meta-analysis reported an increased incidence of melanoma in pilots and cabin crew, which was possibly due to occupational exposures.1 Cabin crews’ exposure to cosmic radiation was assessed in different studies and always found below the allowed dose limit.2However, the cumulative exposure of pilots and cabin crew to UV radiation, a known risk factor for melanoma, has not been assessed to our knowledge.

Intrigued by our findings and the clinical observation of pilots developing melanomas on sun-exposed skin, we measured the amount of UV radiation in airplane cockpits during flight and compared them with measurements performed in tanning beds.

Methods

UV radiation measurements were performed using a Solartech UV index meter designed to measure UV radiation from 280 to 400 nm (UV-B and UV-A) and a Solartech UV index meter designed to measure UV-B only (280-322 nm) (Solartech Inc). We first measured UV radiation in the pilot seat inside a general aviation turboprop airplane (Socata TBM850) through the acrylic plastic windshield (1.6-cm thick) at ground level and at 2500, 6000, 10 000, 15 000, 20 000, 25 000, and 30 000 feet above sea level. The measurements were taken in 2 locations with different solar exposures: San Jose, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada, around midday in April. Later, the same meters were used to measure UV radiation levels in an Omega UV-A tanning bed. The study design has been reviewed and approved by the Committee on Human Research, University of California, San Francisco.

Results

Our measurements inside the airplane revealed that the windshields blocked UV-B but allowed UV-A transmission. The amount of UV-A at 30 000 feet measured in Las Vegas, Nevada, was approximately 242 µW/cm2 (Table 1). The UV-A dose in a UV-A–only tanning bed was 706 µW/cm2. The carcinogenic effective dose was calculated using the Skin Cancer Utrecht–Philadelphia human action spectrum,4 and the dose for a 20-minute tanning session was 2940 mJ/m2. The carcinogenic effective doses of UV-A radiation in tanning beds and airplanes are compared in Table 2.

Discussion

The pathogenic role of UV-A in melanoma is well established. UV-A is capable of causing DNA damage in cell culture5 and in animal models.6 Pilots flying for 56.6 minutes at 30 000 feet receive the same amount of UV-A carcinogenic effective radiation as that from a 20-minute tanning bed session. These levels could be significantly higher when flying over thick cloud layers and snow fields, which could reflect up to 85% of UV radiation. Airplane windshields do not completely block UV-A radiation and therefore are not enough to protect pilots. UV-A transmission inside airplanes can play a role in pilots’ increased risk of melanoma.

We recommend further studies to establish recommendations for occupation-related UV radiation dose limits. These studies should include more precise measurement in several airplanes. We believe that better UV protection on aircraft windshields is necessary to offer cabin crew a hazard-free work environment. We strongly recommend the use of sunscreens and periodical skin checks for pilots and cabin crew.

As covered in 2013:

http://www.ewg.org/release/Sunscreens-Get-Flunking-Grade-for-UVA-Protection
 
http://www.passcoalition.com/index.php/media-info
Created on 10 February 2017
"Each year there are more new cases of skin cancer — including melanoma — than the combined incidence of breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer and colon cancer. From 1975-2011, rates of melanoma in young men and women ages 20-39 years increased by 34% in men and by 84% in women.

Although treatments for melanoma are improving rapidly, the survival rates are still low. Taking steps to prevent melanoma are key, and part of those steps is using the most technologically advanced sunscreen products available. People around the world are doing that, but they aren’t in the U.S.

According to the Surgeon General, nearly 5 million Americans are diagnosed with skin cancer and one person dies every hour of every day from melanoma, the deadliest skin cancer. Most of these cases are preventable. The cost to treat skin cancer is over $8 billion, which doesn’t include the pain and suffering for families that lose their loved ones from the disease. The Surgeon General and CDC both regularly call on Americans to wear sunscreen to prevent skin cancer.

The last over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen ingredient to be approved by FDA was in the 1990s. Since 2002, eight new sunscreen applications have been filed and are still awaiting final decisions 14 years later. New sunscreen technologies currently awaiting approval in the U.S. have been widely available in Europe, Asia, and Central and South America, in some cases for more than 20 years.”


The mission of the Public Access to SunScreens Coalition is to work collaboratively with the FDA, Congress, the White House, health providers, consumer organizations and stakeholders to establish a regulatory pathway for timely pre-market review of new, safe and effective sunscreen ingredients. We are also committed to ensuring that FDA has the resources it needs to conduct the pre-market review of sunscreen time and extent applications (TEAs).
http://cosmetics.specialchem.com/ne...ide-americans-with-effective-safe-ingredients
 
Last edited:
You want the best cancer prevention? Fly as little as possible. No matter how much crap you slather on yourself, you're still getting bombarded with a lot more radiation at altitude than you are on the ground.

I've flown 65 hours this year. That's my cancer prevention.

Yeah, or fly low. Most of the time I'm below 3,000 MSL. Still need the sunscreen though. The cosmic background radiation that flight crews are exposed to is potentially serious though - they probably should be wearing dosimeters and tracking it. I wouldn't be surprised if some pilots flying a lot of polar routes exceed safe levels for radiation workers in a given year.
 
Go see a dermatologist once a year for an "annual inspection". Mines covered by our PPO and I wind up paying like $30 out of pocket. I've got the same complexion as "the visible human", so that's money well spent.

Ask him/her what they use. I'd be interested to see the marginal rate of skin cancer from slathering goop on every day vs going naked.

Of course, everything is relative. My GF gave me a tub of goop I was supposed to use when I went to malaria regions (trust me, you don't want that).

She'd never tell me exactly what was in the goop, but when I asked "will it give me cancer?". She said "well, not right away, but malaria will kill you right now. Choose wisely."
 
Heh, I was just thinking about this thread within the last 48 hours. WEIRD.

I never did start using sunscreen with any regularity in the cockpit, but I do actively prevent direct sunlight from contacting my skin. Now that I have amazing health insurance, I'll probably go get a check up at the dermatologist.
 
So if the cabin and cockpit windows don't block this, do you lather up your whole body before every flight? (Since obviously your clothes won't block the radiation). My original understanding of this was that the windows in airliners, unlike the windows in GA planes, block that form of radiation that causes sunburns. But not the cosmic radiation.

Also, keep in mind that I don't think sunscreen is gonna block the cosmic ionizing radiation that I always thought was the concern for flight crews. Would need 4 inches of lead to shield from that I think.
 
So if the cabin and cockpit windows don't block this, do you lather up your whole body before every flight? (Since obviously your clothes won't block the radiation). My original understanding of this was that the windows in airliners, unlike the windows in GA planes, block that form of radiation that causes sunburns. But not the cosmic radiation.

Also, keep in mind that I don't think sunscreen is gonna block the cosmic ionizing radiation that I always thought was the concern for flight crews. Would need 4 inches of lead to shield from that I think.
Tinfoil inside the baseball cap.
 
So if the cabin and cockpit windows don't block this, do you lather up your whole body before every flight? (Since obviously your clothes won't block the radiation). My original understanding of this was that the windows in airliners, unlike the windows in GA planes, block that form of radiation that causes sunburns. But not the cosmic radiation.

Also, keep in mind that I don't think sunscreen is gonna block the cosmic ionizing radiation that I always thought was the concern for flight crews. Would need 4 inches of lead to shield from that I think.

Anything transparent blocks the radiation UV-B that causes sunburn.

Some say that airplane windows allow through UV-A that is also a cancer causing. The 'study' quoted above is obviously drivel, but there may well be some very limited exposure to UV-A. Sunscreen in the US generally has a limited ability to block UV-A.

Wear sunscreen outside (Where your UV exposure will dwarf anything encountered in a cockpit, do a proper preflight, don't slather yourself with grease when entering a cockpit. (Unless you fly a Lear).
 
My dermatologist disagrees with your theory.


Also here is some information on the topic:

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2019958



The Risk of Melanoma in Pilots and Cabin Crew UV Measurements in Flying Airplanes
April 2015
Martina Sanlorenzo, MD
Igor Vujic, MD
Christian Posch, MD
James E. Cleaver, PhD
Pietro Quaglino, MD
Susana Ortiz-Urda, MD, PhD


Recently, a meta-analysis reported an increased incidence of melanoma in pilots and cabin crew, which was possibly due to occupational exposures.1 Cabin crews’ exposure to cosmic radiation was assessed in different studies and always found below the allowed dose limit.2However, the cumulative exposure of pilots and cabin crew to UV radiation, a known risk factor for melanoma, has not been assessed to our knowledge.

Intrigued by our findings and the clinical observation of pilots developing melanomas on sun-exposed skin, we measured the amount of UV radiation in airplane cockpits during flight and compared them with measurements performed in tanning beds.

Methods

UV radiation measurements were performed using a Solartech UV index meter designed to measure UV radiation from 280 to 400 nm (UV-B and UV-A) and a Solartech UV index meter designed to measure UV-B only (280-322 nm) (Solartech Inc). We first measured UV radiation in the pilot seat inside a general aviation turboprop airplane (Socata TBM850) through the acrylic plastic windshield (1.6-cm thick) at ground level and at 2500, 6000, 10 000, 15 000, 20 000, 25 000, and 30 000 feet above sea level. The measurements were taken in 2 locations with different solar exposures: San Jose, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada, around midday in April. Later, the same meters were used to measure UV radiation levels in an Omega UV-A tanning bed. The study design has been reviewed and approved by the Committee on Human Research, University of California, San Francisco.

Results

Our measurements inside the airplane revealed that the windshields blocked UV-B but allowed UV-A transmission. The amount of UV-A at 30 000 feet measured in Las Vegas, Nevada, was approximately 242 µW/cm2 (Table 1). The UV-A dose in a UV-A–only tanning bed was 706 µW/cm2. The carcinogenic effective dose was calculated using the Skin Cancer Utrecht–Philadelphia human action spectrum,4 and the dose for a 20-minute tanning session was 2940 mJ/m2. The carcinogenic effective doses of UV-A radiation in tanning beds and airplanes are compared in Table 2.

Discussion

The pathogenic role of UV-A in melanoma is well established. UV-A is capable of causing DNA damage in cell culture5 and in animal models.6 Pilots flying for 56.6 minutes at 30 000 feet receive the same amount of UV-A carcinogenic effective radiation as that from a 20-minute tanning bed session. These levels could be significantly higher when flying over thick cloud layers and snow fields, which could reflect up to 85% of UV radiation. Airplane windshields do not completely block UV-A radiation and therefore are not enough to protect pilots. UV-A transmission inside airplanes can play a role in pilots’ increased risk of melanoma.

We recommend further studies to establish recommendations for occupation-related UV radiation dose limits. These studies should include more precise measurement in several airplanes. We believe that better UV protection on aircraft windshields is necessary to offer cabin crew a hazard-free work environment. We strongly recommend the use of sunscreens and periodical skin checks for pilots and cabin crew.
It would have been nice if they chose an airplane where people actually spend a ridiculous amount of time in. Something like and airliner with 6 inches of glass between you and the outside.
 
It would have been nice if they chose an airplane where people actually spend a ridiculous amount of time in. Something like and airliner with 6 inches of glass between you and the outside.

I didn't even get that far. They didn't use a UV-A meter. They didn't publish the ramp numbers, and all they really wanted to do was compare it to a tanning bed (because scary?). Their conclusion was that I'd had 1.8 tanning bed sessions per day, averaged over my career. Given that my complexion has been described as 'pallid' and 'are you even technically alive', there might be something just a little off with their figures...

But if you can scare people it will drum up business.
 
I use sunscreen..but then again I had the privilege of having a small chunk of my face removed due to Basal Cell Carcinoma...English people didn't protect themselves well in SOCAL in the late 70's..lots of damage done at an early age..now I am trying to avoid damage that will manifest later in life as Basal or Squamous cell cancers..a little prevention goes a long way as they say.
 
Back
Top