One more thing to worry about
August 18, 2013 11:41 AM Subscribe
Scientists first discovered invisible gamma-ray flashes in Earth's atmosphere in 1991. This year, the radiation burst, known as dark lightning, was discovered to be linked to regular lightning flashes.
Will you get zapped by dark lightning when flying through a thunder cloud? A single burst can give an airline passenger a lifetime's safe dose of ionizing radiation. But it is rare enough that, for now, the risk is thought to be minimal. The US Naval Research Laboratory is rigging balloons and aircraft to further study the radiation burst threat.
Thunderstorms are considered an extreme hazard to aviation. You would never expect to find a regular passenger or cargo aircraft intentionally penetrating a thunderstorm. So the probability is pretty low that a passenger will a) find themselves inside a violent thunderstorm and b) be exactly positioned inside the dark lighting when it occurs. So while dark lighting maybe an interesting natural phenomenon to study it's a huge stretch to consider it an aviation hazard.
posted by Long Way To Go at 12:12 PM on August 18, 2013
posted by Long Way To Go at 12:12 PM on August 18, 2013
*sigh* I read it as "invisible gamma-ray fishes" and got really excited.
posted by neuromodulator at 12:17 PM on August 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by neuromodulator at 12:17 PM on August 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yes, hello, will there be any studies on their effect on man-in-the-moon marigolds?
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 12:24 PM on August 18, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 12:24 PM on August 18, 2013 [3 favorites]
Finally. I've been waiting for my own, very personal origin story.
posted by adipocere at 12:27 PM on August 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by adipocere at 12:27 PM on August 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
Ugh, the shouty guy's title "Dark lightning is radioactive" is pretty annoying. Gamma rays/GRBs are ionizing radiation; they are not themselves radioactive because they are not decaying atoms.
posted by kiltedtaco at 12:59 PM on August 18, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by kiltedtaco at 12:59 PM on August 18, 2013 [4 favorites]
The question isn't "will you get zapped," it's "do you get zapped". Just because this is a new discovery doesn't mean it's a new phenomenon.
And the answer, as Long Way To Go points out, is that this is probably much less hazardous than flying an airplane near a thunderstorm in the first place.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 1:12 PM on August 18, 2013
And the answer, as Long Way To Go points out, is that this is probably much less hazardous than flying an airplane near a thunderstorm in the first place.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 1:12 PM on August 18, 2013
So the probability is pretty low that a passenger will a) find themselves inside a violent thunderstorm.
Certainly pilots do their best to avoid them. But they don't always succeed. I've been on more than one flight that has gone through a thunderstorm, with lightning visible out the windows. Is there now a 1 in 100 chance that I've been given my maximum safe lifetime dose of radiation?
Until a few months ago, it wasn't even known that dark lightning had any relationship with regular lightning. It'll be interesting to see the results of further studies.
posted by eye of newt at 1:24 PM on August 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
Certainly pilots do their best to avoid them. But they don't always succeed. I've been on more than one flight that has gone through a thunderstorm, with lightning visible out the windows. Is there now a 1 in 100 chance that I've been given my maximum safe lifetime dose of radiation?
Until a few months ago, it wasn't even known that dark lightning had any relationship with regular lightning. It'll be interesting to see the results of further studies.
posted by eye of newt at 1:24 PM on August 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
1) Couldn't they just keep a dosimeter inside every plane, that is swapped out after each flight?
2) This makes thunderstorms even more awesome. We can't replicate a lightning bolt, there is just too much power there, I mean, we probably could if we put enough money into it, but it would be damn expensive. Now imagine throwing enough power to put a giant gamma-ray burst before the lightning bolt. Damn. That is a lot of power just built up but stuff rubbing stuff together!
posted by Canageek at 3:37 PM on August 18, 2013
2) This makes thunderstorms even more awesome. We can't replicate a lightning bolt, there is just too much power there, I mean, we probably could if we put enough money into it, but it would be damn expensive. Now imagine throwing enough power to put a giant gamma-ray burst before the lightning bolt. Damn. That is a lot of power just built up but stuff rubbing stuff together!
posted by Canageek at 3:37 PM on August 18, 2013
If the illustration in Science Daily is accurate, very few people would actually have been exposed. Rarely do aircraft fly directly over thunderstorms.
posted by wierdo at 3:41 PM on August 18, 2013
posted by wierdo at 3:41 PM on August 18, 2013
1) Couldn't they just keep a dosimeter inside every plane, that is swapped out after each flight?
That's a lot of dosimeters.
What are you going to do with that information, anyway? "Welp, yeah, looks like y'all got zapped this time. Might get cancer someday, sorry 'bout that but thanks for flying with us anyway!"
posted by ook at 4:48 PM on August 18, 2013
That's a lot of dosimeters.
What are you going to do with that information, anyway? "Welp, yeah, looks like y'all got zapped this time. Might get cancer someday, sorry 'bout that but thanks for flying with us anyway!"
posted by ook at 4:48 PM on August 18, 2013
I think it's misleading to talk about a "lifetime safe dose of ionizing radiation" since there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation (though this is controversial). But there is a "maximum acceptible risk" which is 1 mSv/year or whatever.
So this raises the question of whether to treat "winning" the aviation lottery of flying through a gamma ray burst any differently from "winning" the genetic lottery of having one particular gamma ray mutate that special gene that gives you cancer. It's all just the same kind of risk -- so there's no reason to treat a low probability of moderate exposure as different form a moderate probability of low exposure.
posted by goingonit at 5:26 PM on August 18, 2013
So this raises the question of whether to treat "winning" the aviation lottery of flying through a gamma ray burst any differently from "winning" the genetic lottery of having one particular gamma ray mutate that special gene that gives you cancer. It's all just the same kind of risk -- so there's no reason to treat a low probability of moderate exposure as different form a moderate probability of low exposure.
posted by goingonit at 5:26 PM on August 18, 2013
On further Googling, here is a 2009 paper bringing biological and epidemiological data to bear on the question of what doses of radiation are damaging, and a 2010 paper estimating the effective radiation dose caused by planes flying through these things if you're interested.
Based on the two papers, the doses you would get from flying through a terrestrial gamma ray flash are right on the threshold of what could potentially cause an increased risk of cancer (though again there are other people who subscribe to the linear no-threshold model, etc.)
posted by goingonit at 5:35 PM on August 18, 2013
Based on the two papers, the doses you would get from flying through a terrestrial gamma ray flash are right on the threshold of what could potentially cause an increased risk of cancer (though again there are other people who subscribe to the linear no-threshold model, etc.)
posted by goingonit at 5:35 PM on August 18, 2013
In a world… Where government scientists studying the skies with an high-frequency antenna array… Unwittingly set off a storm so deadly… It will kill you where you stand… The danger is silent… and invisible… You'll… never… see… it… coming… Angelenos are not prepared for…
Gamma Storm: Dark Lightning: Death From Above
*rushes off to write SyFy Movie-of-the-Week*
posted by ob1quixote at 6:20 PM on August 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
Gamma Storm: Dark Lightning: Death From Above
*rushes off to write SyFy Movie-of-the-Week*
posted by ob1quixote at 6:20 PM on August 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
> Movie-of-the-week
Free plot twist, set it just a couple of years pre-now:
"Can you think of any reason that -every- passenger flying with a film camera has complained about all their pictures coming out foggy? Security wouldn't be opening up cameras, would they? ....."
posted by hank at 6:50 PM on August 18, 2013
Free plot twist, set it just a couple of years pre-now:
"Can you think of any reason that -every- passenger flying with a film camera has complained about all their pictures coming out foggy? Security wouldn't be opening up cameras, would they? ....."
posted by hank at 6:50 PM on August 18, 2013
1) Couldn't they just keep a dosimeter inside every plane, that is swapped out after each flight?
That's a lot of dosimeters.
Actually dosimeters aren't that expensive, certainly not aviation-equipment league expensive. Airline personnel is already at risk from radiation exposure, because cosmic rays are much more significant at high altitudes, so I wouldn't be surprised if airplanes were already equipped with some kind of cabin dosimeter but I couldn't tell you what the legal requirements are.
posted by Dr Dracator at 10:54 PM on August 18, 2013
That's a lot of dosimeters.
Actually dosimeters aren't that expensive, certainly not aviation-equipment league expensive. Airline personnel is already at risk from radiation exposure, because cosmic rays are much more significant at high altitudes, so I wouldn't be surprised if airplanes were already equipped with some kind of cabin dosimeter but I couldn't tell you what the legal requirements are.
posted by Dr Dracator at 10:54 PM on August 18, 2013
ook: Dosimeters are cheap and reusable. I've worked at pleaces with several thousand employees and every employee had two (They swap them out on a monthly basis to se how much radiation you got in the last month.)
In Canada if you work around radiation of any sort your employer has to monitor how much radiation you are getting and send it to a database in Ottawa so that they can see your employer isn't exposing you to unsafe levels, and check that you aren't accidentally working at multiple employers, each of which has you at a safe level, but when combined it would be dangerous (not hard to do: Suppose I work most of the time at Simon Fraser university, but go and spend a few days a month working at a higher radiation level at UBC/TRIUMF. Those two don't talk to each other, but when each send the dosimeters to Ottawa to be checked it would set off alarm bells if I'm getting too much radiation and they'd have to modify my work or get me an assistant or something so I got less.)
Anyway, if someone did go over their yearly does the company must find work for them that doesn't have increased risk of radiation exposure. Not applicable for businessmen flying so much, but stewardess, pilots, etc, would have to be given leave or sent on training courses or such (with pay).
posted by Canageek at 12:09 AM on August 19, 2013
In Canada if you work around radiation of any sort your employer has to monitor how much radiation you are getting and send it to a database in Ottawa so that they can see your employer isn't exposing you to unsafe levels, and check that you aren't accidentally working at multiple employers, each of which has you at a safe level, but when combined it would be dangerous (not hard to do: Suppose I work most of the time at Simon Fraser university, but go and spend a few days a month working at a higher radiation level at UBC/TRIUMF. Those two don't talk to each other, but when each send the dosimeters to Ottawa to be checked it would set off alarm bells if I'm getting too much radiation and they'd have to modify my work or get me an assistant or something so I got less.)
Anyway, if someone did go over their yearly does the company must find work for them that doesn't have increased risk of radiation exposure. Not applicable for businessmen flying so much, but stewardess, pilots, etc, would have to be given leave or sent on training courses or such (with pay).
posted by Canageek at 12:09 AM on August 19, 2013
What are you going to do with that information, anyway? "Welp, yeah, looks like y'all got zapped this time. Might get cancer someday, sorry 'bout that but thanks for flying with us anyway!"
"We know you have a lot of choices when it comes to receiving cancer-causing doses of radiation, so we're especially grateful that you chose to entrust us, Terminal Airways, with providing your fatal illness."
posted by yoink at 9:46 AM on August 19, 2013
"We know you have a lot of choices when it comes to receiving cancer-causing doses of radiation, so we're especially grateful that you chose to entrust us, Terminal Airways, with providing your fatal illness."
posted by yoink at 9:46 AM on August 19, 2013
...I've been on more than one flight that has gone through a thunderstorm, with lightning visible out the windows.
Unlikely -- lightning being visible means you were near a thunderstorm, not necessarily inside it. Ordinary aircraft will most likely suffer structural damage (possibly catastrophic) in thunderstorms.
posted by phliar at 4:09 PM on August 19, 2013
Unlikely -- lightning being visible means you were near a thunderstorm, not necessarily inside it. Ordinary aircraft will most likely suffer structural damage (possibly catastrophic) in thunderstorms.
posted by phliar at 4:09 PM on August 19, 2013
What you are saying is that the black lightning would be the least of your worries if you were flying through a thunderstorm (-any- thunderstorm? Or just the nasty ones?)
posted by eye of newt at 7:38 PM on August 19, 2013
posted by eye of newt at 7:38 PM on August 19, 2013
« Older “Were you the one who built....” | Welcome to Paradox "makes the future look... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by agentofselection at 11:55 AM on August 18, 2013 [2 favorites]