OK to fly?
80122-stankovich
and wants us to fly up to Mystic Seaport with him.
My concern is that in one of my pregnancy books
(What to Expect When You're Expecting), it says
NEVER to fly in a plane that does not have a
pressurized cabin because the change in air
pressure can cut off the oxygen supply to the baby.
I'm very concerned about the non-pressurized cabin,
but both my husband and his friend keep telling
me that we won't be flying at altitudes all that
high, so I shouldn't be worried about the changes
im pressure. I'm currently 5 months now, but by
the time we get together it will be more like 6 or
7 months. I'm going to check with my doctor when
I go for my next visit, but I thought I would check out
the "net wisdom" as well.
Thanks!
Jim Lyon
>
> A friend of my husband's has a four-seater plane
> and wants us to fly up to Mystic Seaport with him.
> My concern is that in one of my pregnancy books
> (What to Expect When You're Expecting), it says
> NEVER to fly in a plane that does not have a
> pressurized cabin because the change in air
> pressure can cut off the oxygen supply to the baby.
"What to Expect When You're Expecting" (an otherwise excellent
book, by the way) is misinformed when it comes to flight.
A typical airliner in cruising flight is pressurized to a cabin
altitude of about 8,000 feet. So, if you are flying in an
unpressurized plane below 8,000 feet you will have more oxygen
available than an airliner does. In my flying on the east coast,
I never had reason to go above 5,000 feet. (The west coast is
a different matter; there's BIG mountains out here.)
I have never asked a flight-knowledgable obstetrician about alititude
limits during pregnancy. I have asked a pediatrician (my brother-in-law),
and he said that he wouldn't worry about any alitutudes below 10,000 feet.
The bottom line: You have nothing to worry about. Have fun.
-- Jim Lyon "... where the work is NonStop,
Lyon...@Tandem.Com and we do everything twice."
EK...@cmsa.gmr.com
Lyon...@Tandem.Com (Jim Lyon) writes:
>In article <1992Apr27....@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, pa...@nestor.uucp (8122-stankovich) writes:
>>
>> A friend of my husband's has a four-seater plane
>> and wants us to fly up to Mystic Seaport with him.
>> My concern is that in one of my pregnancy books
>> (What to Expect When You're Expecting), it says
>> NEVER to fly in a plane that does not have a
>> pressurized cabin because the change in air
>> pressure can cut off the oxygen supply to the baby.
>
>"What to Expect When You're Expecting" (an otherwise excellent
>book, by the way) is misinformed when it comes to flight.
>
>
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I vaguely recall that there
is increased risk to the fetus because of radiation not because
of pressure. At x 1000 feet you've lost the protection of the
atmosphere/clouds. I remember reading about this in the
N.Y. Times when I was about 3 months pregnant and being pretty
bummed out because I had to go on a business trip. Anyway, the
article is long gone from my memory but perhaps someone else
can dig it out. The news report came out at about June 1990.
To reiterate, the risk had nothing to do with pressure, only
atmospheric radiation.
Ellen
Don Elton
at between 6000 and 9000 feet depending on the aircraft and that you
wouldn't be flying higher than that in a pressurized plane. If you and the
baby are healthy you shouldn't have any trouble below about 6000 feet.
Don Elton
ProLine: delton@pro-carolina GEnie, MCI, AOL: delton
Internet: del...@pro-carolina.cts.com CIS: 72010,37
UUCP: crash!pro-carolina!delton FAX: 803-776-3936
pro-carolina BBS: 803-776-3936
Mark Cousins
>(What to Expect When You're Expecting), it says NEVER to fly in a plane that
>does not have a pressurized cabin because the change in air pressure can cut
>off the oxygen supply to the baby. I'm very concerned about the
>non-pressurized cabin, but both my husband and his friend keep telling me that
>we won't be flying at altitudes all that high, so I shouldn't be worried about
>the changes im pressure. I'm currently 5 months now, but by the time we get
Nonsense. Airliners and other planes with pressurized cabins are not
pressurized to sea-level conditions. At normal cruise altitudes (35,000 feet
or so), an airliner cabin altitude will be 8,000 feet or so (higher if the pax
are boisterous ;-) ). In an unpressurized airplane, the cabin altitude is the
same as the airplane altitude, so as long as you're at 8,000 feet or less
you're no worse off oxygen-wise than you are in an airliner.
I'm not a doctor, but from everything I've heard you and your baby will be
just fine. There even was a story on the net here a while back about a
pregnant person taking flying lessons, well into the third trimester, with her
obgyn's approval.
It's sometimes advisable to avoid airliner travel during the last month or so
simply because there's some risk you'll go into labor (not because of the
airplane, just because it's almost time) and an airliner cabin three hours
from destination ain't the best place to be giving birth.
>together it will be more like 6 or 7 months. I'm going to check with my
>doctor when I go for my next visit, but I thought I would check out the "net
>wisdom" as well.
If your doc disagrees with this please do let me know!
Mark, father of 2 and uncle to 7!
--
Mark Cousins Hewlett-Packard Co. m...@hpsemc.cup.hp.com
HP-UX VAB programs 19055 Pruneridge Ave., MS 46T5
(408) 447-4659 Cupertino, CA 95014 FAX: (408) 447-4364
Jer/ Eberhard
Not to worry. If you are in good health and the airplane does not go
above 8,000 feet MSL, it is no different than in an airliner with a
cabin pressure of 8,000 feet MSL.
My wife is a nurse, and flew thru her 8th month of pregnancy... she
quit flying when she was too pregnant to pull the yoke all the way back
on a Cessna-152. Yes, she soloed!
Please talk to an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) about this if you have
any further concerns. These are the people who give flight physicals to
pilots and it is their job to know about such things as oxygen in
flight.
MSL=Mean Sea Level... what the sign at the entrance to town says.
AME=Aviation Medical Examiner...
Jer/ Eberhard, (SLASH), HAM = N0FZD | Hewlett-Packard - MS99, 1UP10,15'East
Pilot: COMM, INST, CFI-Airplane & Glider| 3404 East Harmony Road (303) 229-2861
CAP CFI, Check & Mission, Pikes Peak 218| Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-9599
EMAIL: j...@fc.hp.com or Jer_Eb...@fc.hp.com
Shannon Smith
I AM NOT A DOCTOR, NOR DO I PLAY ONE ON TV.
That having been stated, I probably wouldn't worry about it for
jaunts of under, oh, 10,000' for less than a couple or three hours.
I'd be more concerned about all the jostling--you might be *very*
sore--especially at 7 mos or so after the elastin kicks in and
softens your ligaments.
I'd check everything I've just said with a doctor :-)
---
Shannon Smith ssm...@xocolatl.com
Paul Padley
Here is some information on the possible hazard of radiation when flying:
The "typical" radiation dose when flying at an altitude of 8km (which is
typical) is 2 microsieverts per hour. This is caused by the natural cosmic
ray radiation which comes from the sun. Note that the radiation received
can fluctuate wildly due to the activity of the sun. A typical chest X-ray
is 100 microsieverts of radiation and so flying for 50 hours is on average
equivalent to one chest x-ray, but like I said, this is subject to large
variations and depends upon the route taken (Polar flights will have more
radiation exposure).
Given the above information the advice I gave to my wife when she was pregnant
was to regard a transcontinental air flight as being equivalent to one
medical x-ray (which is definitelyu erring on the side of caution). Thus I
discouraged her from flying during her pregnancy.
Now the disclaimer: I am a physicist, but not a medical physicist and so my
opinion counts for nothing, so make your own judgement. The numbers given
above were reported in the
August 1991 issue of "Physics Today"
Julian E. Gomez
"
" Here is some information on the possible hazard of radiation when flying:
"
" The "typical" radiation dose when flying at an altitude of 8km (which is
" typical) is 2 microsieverts per hour. This is caused by the natural cosmic
" ray radiation which comes from the sun. Note that the radiation received
" can fluctuate wildly due to the activity of the sun. A typical chest X-ray
" is 100 microsieverts of radiation and so flying for 50 hours is on average
So what's the dose on the ground?
--
"Common sense isn't"
Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
j...@netcom.com
Charles K. Scott
> The "typical" radiation dose when flying at an altitude of 8km (which is
> typical) is 2 microsieverts per hour.
Am I to assume from this thread that the fuselage of the aircraft
offers no protection from radiation? What kind of radiation is this?
Corky Scott
gregory.p.kochanski
You got it!
The radiation you get is extremely high energy cosmic rays, or the debris
that they generate when they run into something. A couple of millimeters
of aluminum won't stop them; in fact, small amounts of shielding can
sometimes make the total dose higher. The energy of many cosmic rays
are high enough so that each fragment produced when they hit an atomic nucleus
have enough energy to go right through both you and the airplane.
So small amounts of shielding trade of a few hits by very high energy
particles against more hits by lower (but still high) energy particles.
Cosmic rays are generally protons (hydrogen nuclei) with energies
of 10^9 electron-volts or higher. There's a lot of stuff with lower energies
hitting our atmosphere, but it generally won't get near the surface
without at least 10^9 eV. (One electron-volt is how much energy a particle
gets when you accelerate it with one volt. 1 eV is 10^-19 joules,
so 10^9 eV is 10^-10 joules, or the energy to lift a sand grain by a millimeter.
That's a fair bit of energy to pack into one nucleus.)
Some Cosmic rays have energies up to 10^14 eV, which is enough energy
to blast a sand grain 100 meters up in the air.
One way to look at the shielding question is to realize that the atmosphere
weighs about 15 pounds/square inch, and it doesn't stop all
cosmic rays. That's as much weight as 30 feet of water.
For high energy stuff, the shielding per unit weight
for aluminum is not too different from air or water.
So, we'd have to add several feet of aluminum to the walls of your
jet to equal the shielding effectiveness of the atmosphere.
The jet would never get off the ground.
Lead would be better, but not by enough to let it fly.
Greg Kochanski g...@physics.att.com
AT&T Physics Research -- Physics for Fun and Profit
Mike McWilliams
>>" The "typical" radiation dose when flying at an altitude of 8km (which is
>>" typical) is 2 microsieverts per hour.
And later someone wrote:
>The radiation
>is harmless even though it does penetrate the aircraft. You neednt worry about
>landing only to find that you have grown another head because of radiation.
I for one think that my instrument scan would be improved by having another
head. But why stop there; imagine an extra set of arms and hands ...
one for the yoke
one for the throttle and mixture
one for the radios
one for the chart ...
and one head could be watching the instruments,
and the other could be looking for traffic, talking to the pax, etc.
Hey, this could really go somewhere ... Most controllers I know could use one
more head too!
Paul Padley
In article <1992May1.1...@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, writes:
|> Overall the risk from radiation is probably
|> smaller than the risk of going *splat* into the ground.
|>
Note that the concern here is not for adults but rather for the prenatal child.
I quote from the article by A.C.Upton in "Physics Today" August 1991.
"During prenatal life, suceptibility to radiation-induced carcinogenisis appears
to be relatively high, judging from the elevated risk of leukemia, and
possibly other childhood cancers, observed in children who were exposed to
x-rays prenatally in the course of radiographic examination of their mothers."
Given that statement, and given the large fluctuations in exposure that one
can obtain while flying I think it is prudent for pregnant women to avoid
medical and dental x rays, and to avoid flying where possible.
For everyone who has been asking, the average annual dose due to cosmic rays
on the ground is 240 microsieverts.
Robert Herndon
>> (Paul Padley) writes:
>>
>> The "typical" radiation dose when flying at an altitude of 8km (which is
>
>above where the original poster will be flying on a local recreational flight
>in a single engine airplane. Along the New England coast, where the flight
>will take place, they probably won't be flying much above 5,000 feet, if that
>high. So the real question for this case is what's the radiation like at and
>below 5,000'?
Around here it's probably pretty good, but breathing might be difficult --
5000' MSL would include 1000' or more of earth shielding!
More seriously, Denver (just over 5,000' MSL) does have measurably higher
background radiation counts than other cities. But it does not have higher
cancer rates, nor have I ever heard of a physician advising a pregnant woman
to stay away from Denver because of the altitude or radiation.
Robert "Pattern at 7800' MSL" Herndon
----
Robert Herndon -- not speaking officially for Cray Computer.
Cray Computer Corporation --|-- 719/540-4240
1110 Bayfield Dr. -----o----- r...@craycos.com
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 " " C-172A N7511T
USA PP-ASEL
Richard Tweedie
>In article <1992May1.0...@unixg.ubc.ca> pad...@floydtriumf.ca (Paul Padley) writes:
>"
>" Here is some information on the possible hazard of radiation when flying:
>"
>" The "typical" radiation dose when flying at an altitude of 8km (which is
+++++++
Your average 172 has a real struggle getting to 25,000 ft with a
full load! Actual cruise altitude may be somewhat lower ! 8*)
Rich Tweedie
Dave Allen
> Here is some information on the possible hazard of radiation when flying:
>
> The "typical" radiation dose when flying at an altitude of 8km (which is
> typical) is 2 microsieverts per hour. This is caused by the natural cosmic
> ray radiation which comes from the sun. Note that the radiation received
> can fluctuate wildly due to the activity of the sun. A typical chest X-ray
> is 100 microsieverts of radiation and so flying for 50 hours is on average
j...@netcom.com (Julian E. Gomez) writes:
> So what's the dose on the ground?
8km (24000'?) isn't "typical" for light planes. Maybe the few turbocharged
ones. But the original poster was going to stay under 8000'.
And a more "typical" altitude for airliners, especially trans-continental,
is 35000 or 40000. So get out that lead suit.
dave allen - Fly because you love it.
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>Also someone asked about the effects of flying at about 8 km. The radiation
>is harmless even though it does penetrate the aircraft. You neednt worry about
>landing only to find that you have grown another head because of radiation.
Possibly the radiation at 8 km altitude is harmless, however, there is
the interesting passage in the international regulations for air
traffic control (PANS-RAC), about "Emergency descent of supersonic
aircraft due to increased radiation from the sun".
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
William LeFebvre
|> It's sometimes advisable to avoid airliner travel during the last month or so
|> simply because there's some risk you'll go into labor (not because of the
|> airplane, just because it's almost time) and an airliner cabin three hours
|> from destination ain't the best place to be giving birth.
1: Most ObGyns say "stay close to home" starting the 7th month. That
includes ground travel. This is to make sure that you can get to the
doctor quickly if there are any complications (including early labor).
2: My understanding is that most airliners will calmly refuse to take
an expectant woman who is in her ninth month. But perhaps that is an
urban legend.
On the plus side, having one's wife in labor is considered to be a
"medical emergency" with regard to non-refundable non-alterable
tickets (i.e.: the airline will alter such tickets free of charge
if the need arises). I had to know this in December of 1990 when my
wife was 2 weeks from birth and I had to be in San Jose.
William "father of 1, uncle to 4" LeFebvre
Bill Hopkins
>
>2: My understanding is that most airliners will calmly refuse to take
>an expectant woman who is in her ninth month. But perhaps that is an
>urban legend.
Perhaps. My wife flew on Allegheny (USAir) in her ninth month for a
family emergency. Ob/Gyn said "well, if you gotta..." Airline said
nothing (but then they might not have *known* it was her ninth month).
This was, of course, 11 years ago. And she wasn't particularly calm ;-}.
>On the plus side, having one's wife in labor is considered to be a
>"medical emergency" with regard to non-refundable non-alterable
>tickets (i.e.: the airline will alter such tickets free of charge
>if the need arises). I had to know this in December of 1990 when my
>wife was 2 weeks from birth and I had to be in San Jose.
All the rules have changed with the fare restructuring. I haven't seen
any info on the "emergency fare" policies yet, just that they've changed.
> William "father of 1, uncle to 4" LeFebvre
Bill (Father of Two, If We Got Them Out of Dan's Pool) Hopkins
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hopkins Paramax Systems Corporation (A Unisys Company)
215-648-2854 Great Valley Labs, PO Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301
hop...@GVL.Unisys.Com Opening my mouth is not company policy.
Lonnie C. Martin
radiation in aircraft. If I remember right, an interesting point was that
airliners have glass windscreens that do a pretty good job of absorbing the
UV, but many of the fairly high-flying GA aircraft have plastic windscreens
that pass UV fairly well.
The article was printed within the past several months, and was very
informative.
Lonnie
--
Lonnie C. Martin lon...@hydrogen.cchem.berkeley.edu