On November 28, former Korean Air stewardess Choi Choi filed an application for industrial accidents at the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation. It is the intent to recognize the illness that was obtained while serving as an international flight attendant as an industrial disaster. Choi was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma, a rare cancer and blood cancer, in 2015, when he was 29 years old. It was the fifth year that I joined the twenty-five flower dawn age and worked as an international flight attendant.

Noteworthy is that Choi has pointed to 'cosmic radiation' as a cause of the disease, as well as frequent nighttime and overwork, which he experiences as a crew member. As we will explain in detail later, cosmic radiation refers to high-energy particles (radiation) that are caused by solar activity or supernova explosions and affect the Earth. Cosmic radiation, in which crews are exposed during flight, is still uncommon in our country.

Choi is not the first. In June, a former Korean Air crew member K also filed an application for industrial accidents, saying that he had acute myeloid leukemia due to cosmic radiation. It was the first case in Korea. The case was heard through the media and the application was followed. This is the third time that a former crew has applied for industrial accidents for a similar reason. SBS also posted this news in detail through 8 news on the same day.

▶ "Radiation Causes Blood Cancer" ... Medical Staff "Possible"
▶ 'Controversy' continues ... Unmanaged 'cosmic radiation'

● What is 'cosmic radiation'?

Cosmic radiation is literally 'flying from space' radiation. Stars (supernova) that have reached the end of life in the universe explode, and stars like the sun can cause fusion reactions to emit energy, which produces high energy particles of space radiation. The amount of energy is so enormous that it will fly to the distant planet. Fortunately, the impact on the ground is not great. Radiation is blocked by the Earth's magnetic field and can not enter the atmosphere, or even if it enters, it becomes weaker.

But airplanes flying at high altitudes are different stories. The average altitude of international airliners is known as 8 to 12 km. It goes without saying that the higher the altitude, the more the radiation is affected. Generally, when flying an altitude of 1km in an equatorial area, the dose of radiation is known to increase by about 10%. Especially, the closer to the high latitude, the North Pole, the higher the dose of cosmic radiation.
This cosmic ray penetrates into the aircraft. It will be shielded or attenuated to some degree while passing through aluminum gas, but it will not be blocked 100%. Choi Jang Seok, a researcher at the National Institute of Radiological Science and Space Research Center, explains, "It is not possible to shield 100% of the airplane unless it is made of lead." This means that you are exposed to a certain amount of radiation only by riding an airplane.

● Incheon - New York round-trip X-ray 4 ... "International flight attendants should note"

It has already been scientifically proven several times that exposure to radiation, even by flying, is already scientifically proven. Nonetheless, the reason for not being well known is that the degree of radiation exposure by flying is not so large (even considering that the number of boarding times is different) on the basis of the general public.

The problem is in the case of crews who have to occupy the airplane frequently. The average flight time of international flight crews in Korea is known to be around 1,000 hours on average. No matter how many people fly on a plane, they do not fly 1,000 hours a year. In addition, this is the time when the airline crews did not include extra flights (extra crews, commonly known as Add crews) sitting and working without returning to their destination.

The same is true for the radiation dose. Let's use the X-ray photographs that everyone has taken once to help understand. Usually a single chest (chest) X-ray is exposed to 0.05 mSv radiation. And once in New York from Incheon, it is exposed to 0.17 ~ 0.2mSv of radiation. In other words, when you return from Incheon to New York once, you are exposed to radiation from the chest X-ray 3-4 times. (Calculated by the numbers provided by Korean Air and the Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute).

According to Korean Air and Asiana Airlines, the average annual dose of international flight crews is around 3-4mSv. If you have more than 5mSv is also exceeded. If you do not do a simple calculation, you will get 80 X-rays and a maximum of 100 X-rays.
Of course, this is only a simple calculation. Because the amount of spaceborne radiation in flight depends on the weather and the flight environment, many variables need to be considered for more accurate figures. Because of the individual differences in relation to the human body effect of radiation, the effect on health can be different even if the same amount of radiation is irradiated. Nonetheless, it is clear that exposure to radiation, even by burning on an aircraft, causes a much higher dose of radiation than that of the general public, especially for occupants who frequently occupy aircraft.

● "Stewardess, the highest incidence of cancer incidence" ... ↑ dose than nuclear staff

Stewardess and radiation, but unfavorable keywords, but for the same reasons, this issue has been a problem in other countries for a long time. Not long ago, the Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under the Ministry of Labor in Taiwan (Taiwan) ranked the top crew with the highest incidence of cancer among the top 10 cancer incidence cases in 2014. "As the crew is exposed to cosmic radiation, the longer the day is spent, the lower the level of hemoglobin, which carries oxygen in red blood cells, and the higher the incidence of blood cancer, lymphoma, and bone cancer, than those of other occupations."

In Korea, the Korea Nuclear Safety Foundation (KAERI), the Korea National Institute of Atomic Energy Research (KNRA), conducted a survey in 2015. The average annual radiation dose of the stewardess (hereinafter referred to as the crew) was about 2.2mSv (including domestic flights), as well as medical staff working in CT and X- (0.6 mSv). Airline crews are considered to be one of the highest occupations with virtually no radiation exposure.
Internationally, in 1990, the International Radiation Protection Organization (ICRP) recommended that "airline crews exposed to natural radiation during flight should be managed like radiation workers." The World Health Organization WHO also issued a recommendation in 2005 that the government should legally protect its flight crews from excessive radiation exposure. Countries around the world have enacted relevant laws and regulations in accordance with these guidelines and systematically manage the crew 's cosmic radiation exposure.

● "Radiation causes the crew to get cancer?" ... Controversial controversy

So it is scientifically proven that international flight crews are exposed to a small amount of radiation. Ionizing radiation, including cosmic radiation, has also been recognized by the International Cancer Institute as a 'Group 1 carcinogen'.

However, the proposition that "the crew is exposed to cosmic radiation and suffers a rare disease such as cancer or leukemia" is not a fact. It is because there is a possibility of contention about scientific facts. Here is a brief summary.

Proposition 1. The crew is exposed to cosmic radiation during flight. (O)
Proposition 2. Exposure to radiation can lead to cancer. (O)
Proposition 3 (1 + 2) = A crew may be exposed to cosmic radiation and get cancer.

The main reason is that there is a debate as to whether the radiation level of the flight crew can have a fatal impact on the human body. For example, if an atomic bomb explodes or radiation is leaked from a nuclear power plant and a person is exposed, the likelihood of cancer development increases. It is caused by exposure to large amounts of radiation at once. However, it is generally known that low-dose radiation at the level of cosmic radiation is slowly and rarely affected. According to a linear model of radiation exposure adopted by the ICRP, the exposure to 100 mSv of radiation generally results in cancer in 4 out of 1,000, 4 out of 10,000 in 10 mSv, 100 in 1 mSv Explaining that four of the people can get cancer.

Therefore, controversy over prolonged controversy has continued in the academic world. In the United States and Northern Europe, there have been dozens of studies showing that the incidence of cancer among flight crews is higher than that of ordinary people since the 1990s. Most recently, researchers at the Harvard-Public Health Center in the United States in June conducted a survey of 5,366 US men and women crew members and found that the incidence of cancer was up to four times higher than in the general population. On the other hand, there is a strong opposition to refute these results. It is argued that there is no consistency between the studies in which the radiation exposure of the crew is highly correlated with cancer, and that it is not statistically clearly proven. Indeed, many of the above-mentioned studies have pointed to the limitations of "specimens larger and further research necessary".

However, it is clear that all agree that it is either dangerous or not, but that "further research is needed". This is the most accurate interpretation at present, as "more research is needed" than "no possibility" or "safe" in relation to the crew's cancer incidence. This also relates to the principle of As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), which is based on the basic principle of exposure to radiation: "Use all possible means to minimize radiation exposure, and there is no safe radiation exposure". There are also aspects that take into account the practical limits of research. In general, the atomic energy community needs 5 million people to assess the effects of 10 mSv radiation exposure, and 1 mSv requires 500 million people to produce statistically meaningful results. In reality, both sides acknowledge the limitations of such a large-scale study.

Therefore, it is a more accurate interpretation that the global trends in space radiation and crew health issues at present are more in the direction of preparation and management, with the point of being 'dangerous' rather than at any extreme. Major developed countries such as the United States, Germany, and Japan have been developing relevant systems and accumulating data since the 1990s. On the other hand, Korea is a little late. The regulations were first enforced in 2012.

● Government, Airline ... "Crew radiation, level exposed in daily life?"

However, our government and airlines are still not aware of the current cosmic radiation issue. Later, the related systems have been improved, but they are often relatively loose or biased. Concerns about Korean Airlines' understanding of the issue are of particular concern. Even if the cosmic radiation issue is relatively new to the media, it reveals the ignorance of basic scientific facts.

A typical example is an episode of the past administration audit. One Korean National Assembly official said, "Korean air crews' cosmic radiation exposure is 5 times higher than the domestic main airline." (Of course, there were quite a few false facts in this dissenting argument)

The point is that "the amount of cosmic radiation exposed during flight is not high compared to the amount of radiation exposed in daily life". It was explained that the number of international crews is on average 3 ~ 4mSv a year, which is not so big because the amount of natural radiation exposed by air, soil, food, etc. is about 2.5 ~ 2.95mSv in daily life. From the conclusion, this argument is both scientifically mistaken as well as common sense.

First of all, there is a serious mistake in this answer, even if the airline claims to accept it. It is a fact that airline crews completely ignored the fact that they were exposed to the same natural radiation as the general public. If an ordinary person is exposed to radiation of 2.5 to 2.95 mSv / year in food, soil, and air in his or her daily life, the crew must also be exposed to this radiation. When crew members do not fly, walking, breathing, and eating on the ground like ordinary people are the same. If so, the radiation dose of the crew is arithmetically and logically correct to add the dose of radiation exposed during flight from 2.5 to 2.95 mSv, which is exposed by the general public.

It is common knowledge among experts that the amount of radiation exposure during flight is considered as "additional exposure". Professor Ju Hyun Soo, Professor of Occupational Environmental Medicine at Hallym Sacred Heart Hospital, an expert in occupational environment medicine and radiation, said, "Occupants are occupationally exposed to additional cosmic radiation," and " There is no problem. "
It is an obvious mistake to describe these additional exposures as "levels exposed in everyday life" and not as additional exposures. Moreover, the annual radiation dose of international crews is 80 ~ 100 times the average X-ray, as explained above. No ordinary person shoots 80 to 100 X-ray pictures a year. CT is also taken only when it is absolutely necessary for medical reasons.

To help you understand, let's take the example of the big issue of 'Radon bed' this year. The radiation dose standard of the radon bed, which the government used as an administrative measure such as collection, was 1 mSv per year. This is because the current law stipulates that if the amount of radiation exposed in addition to the natural exposure to radiation exceeds 1 mSv, it may become a problem. He also nailed that he should not go to the amendment to be implemented next year. Even if the difference between artificial and natural radiation coming out of the bed is taken into consideration, the radiation dose of 2 ~ 3mSv is never negligible.

● "keep the standard" but ... Still neglected management

This awareness is not too different for Asiana Airlines. Basically, the common position of the airline is that there is no problem because the annual radiation dose of the crew is thoroughly controlled so that the recommended dose of 6mSv is not exceeded. However, these explanations reveal the airline's lack of awareness. The criterion called recommendation is only a means for management and not a means of ensuring safety.

"The story of cosmic radiation that an airplane crew should know about", a booklet published by the Korea Nuclear Safety Foundation for aviation crew and airline in 2016, said, "The important point is that the dose limit is a dangerous level, It is not a standard. " "We must remember that dose limits are a means of managing radiation exposure reasonably and safely." If it is below the standard, it means that there is no problem.

The key is 'management'. However, the airline repeats the word "no problem", and it is showing poor appearance in management. Current law requires airline personnel to regularly conduct training on cosmic radiation and provide information on radiation dose, but it is not easy to find a crew who knows this. Most of the crew members who met the reporters said, "I only know that there are such things, but it is hard to see that they are thoroughly managed."

In particular, most of the respondents said that they could inquire about their radiation dose information. The airline should provide the crew with information on the radiation exposure according to the Cosmic Radiation Safety Management Regulations (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) for crew members, but Korean Air has maintained its policy of "providing personal information when requested by mail" . Since the criticism that "it is easy for one employee to ask for the radiation dose of self-radiation" is poured through the media, it changed the system so that it can be inquired through the company intranet in August.

● The amount of exposure "underestimation" controversy

It is also argued that even the airline's direct measurement and management crew exposure is being measured lower than it actually is. So-called 'underestimation' is a controversy. When airlines measure the crew exposure dose, they use a precisely designed simulation program instead of direct measurement because of various practical limitations. (There is a limit to the fact that there is a measuring device, but it costs tens of millions of yen per piece and it is difficult to mount the device on every flight.)

First of all, the explanation of the person who raises suspicions of underestimation is as follows. Korean Air and Asiana Airlines have been using the program CARI-6M (Carrie Sixe) developed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) since 2006. However, this program does not reflect some of the cosmic radiation. Cosmic radiation (A + B) consists of galactic cosmic radiation (A) and solar cosmic radiation (B) due to solar activity such as a black spot explosion. CARI-6M reflects only galactic cosmic radiation, . That is, it should be A + B, but only A. This is a scientifically recognized fact.

A further step in raising such technical problems is the "underestimation". It is argued that because the program used by Korean Air and Asiana does not reflect the effect of solar radiation, the program measurement value that the airline side uses as a reference will be lower than the measured value measured by actual equipment. This allegation is aimed directly at the airline claim that 'crew radiation doses are managed at an annual reference level of less than 6mSv'. This is because there is a premise that 'if you measure properly, you will exceed the standard.' Some experts in Korea and Korean aviation pilots have been insisting on the new union.

The airline strongly refutes this claim. According to SBS's response to an official inquiry by Korean Air and Asiana, the airline said, "CARI-6M is recommended by the US Federal Aviation Administration and is widely used worldwide." In addition, regarding the point that it does not reflect solar radiation, "Even if there are exact numerical differences, the difference is acceptable level" and above all. "The program was compared with actual measured value of Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute "We have concluded that the result of CARI-6M is reliable." There is no problem with the reliability of the program.

I have tried to check the facts with the help of experts from Korea Astronomy and Space Research Institute of Korea. First, in the case of "hypocritical measurement," it is close to "half is right and half is wrong". It is true that the program (CARI-6M) does not reflect the effects of solar radiation, but it is "only when solar activity is active when it causes meaningful differences in results". Also, in a survey conducted several years ago by a domestic institution, the program produced results that were higher than the actual values ​​at some routes and low latitudes. Strictly speaking, experts say that there are "errors and technical limitations, but reliability is not low."

But there is also a loophole in the airline claims. First, "The CARI-6M is recommended by the US Federal Aviation Administration and is widely used internationally." The airline's claim is "That's right, now it's wrong." CARI-6M was developed in 2006. It has been 10 years since I came out. Since then, the limitations and errors that have been pointed out have been revealed, and now the US is adopting the follow up program CARI 7 or alternative program. If you compare it roughly, you wrote Windows 7, but Windows 10 came out.

In relation to solar radiation, the claim that "even if there are exact differences, the difference is acceptable" is far from true. When the difference is tolerated, it is about when the solar activity is small. Experts explain that there is up to two to three times the energy difference when solar activity is most active (peak) and not (minimal).

In sum, "the reliability of the program itself does not fall, but it has been used for a long time, and various technological limitations and problems have been revealed." Dr. Lee Jae-jin, who heads the Korea Astronomy and Space Science and Space Agency, said, "CARI-6M sometimes shows big errors when analyzing SBS.

The new union allegation, which has raised suspicions about underestimation, is also more recent than the nuance that "the airline is deceiving the radiation dose." There are limitations to the programs currently being used. Apply conservative values. " This is also the opinion of domestic experts who have conducted related research. Some argue that the airline is too defensive considering the cost of replacing the program.

For reference, SBS officially proposed open verification of such allegations to Korean Air and Asiana Airlines last November. In order to make sure there is no controversy about fairness and objectivity, the President of the National Assembly Science and Technology Broadcasting Communication Commission (in addition, Democratic Party lawmaker Woong Rae) has hosted the meeting. As well. "The main reason was that the measurement of 'purpose of coverage' is burdensome."

● Lack of regulation, handed government

As mentioned above, the airline responds to the fact that our airlines are still looking at the issue at a level of cost rather than the right to health of workers, or at the level of indiscreet suspicion. If you have a problem, you should seriously listen to other opinions, browse related materials, and make improvements if necessary.

And the consciousness of these airlines is a result of the government's poor management and supervision. The airline's radiation-related measures and ground rules are based on 100% government regulations. Although our government has made a similar system after the precedent of other countries, it is hard to see that the bishop has been thoroughly done. Even when it is reported to the media, it tends to go back to its original point after a while, after a while.

First of all, the regulation itself is poor. A typical example is the aerospace radiation record management regulations of flight crews. As we have seen before, the global trend for this problem is to thoroughly manage radiation exposure and to keep records for long term risks. It is in accordance with the International Recommendation that the data should be stored for a long time so that the cause can be clearly identified and compensated for later when the crew is caught in a cancer or a rare disease. Most countries, including Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom, require crews to keep data after 75 years of age or 30 years after retirement. In Denmark, it is stored permanently in the national database. In comparison, the Republic of Korea is only five years old. It is also designated as the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport notification.
It is pointed out that even though the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs is aware of the various problems mentioned above, Regarding cosmic radiation safety standards, the Korean government has also ordered several research services with hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes since 2009, but it is not much that has been improved. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOEHRC) ordered the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KSTAR) to carry out several related studies and to develop a radiation measurement program that airlines can use. As a result, in 2016, the Korea Astronomy Observatory and the Korea Meteorological Administration succeeded in developing KREAM, a domestic program.

However, this program, which has hundreds of millions of dollars in tax, has only been commissioned for more than two years. This is because the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs has accepted the airline claim that "the current program is no problem". It is also pointed out that the Ministry of Land, A researcher who participated in research and development at the time said in SBS 's conversation, "I only pay attention when issues arise.

In other countries, they are writing their own programs in accordance with their weather conditions and airline conditions, and they are exporting them to other countries. The United States, Germany, Russia, France, Austria and neighboring countries as well as Japan. In fact, we have a good technology to make a domestic program, we are also joking.

This is partly due to the low interest of our society in radiation issues. The Ministry of Land, the Nuclear Safety Commission and other ministries are also moving forward when the issues are highlighted recently. At first, we decided to examine the radiation measurement program, which has been controversial, several times this year and next year. The National Assembly also proposed several amendments to related laws. In addition, Democratic Party lawmaker Byun Jae-il proposed an amendment that would significantly increase fines for unauthorized use of cosmic radiation and cancel license of the largest airline operator. In addition, Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Chul-min is also preparing an amendment plan to extend the radiation recording period of the crew.

● The crew can be recognized ... "Second Samsung Semiconductor Leakage Could Happen"

I have been looking forward to this problem, but it is not easy. There is a controversy surrounding scientific facts and above all, the positions of the subjects are sharply cut. Furthermore, in our modern history, it has been difficult to find the cases in which the rights of citizens, such as workers and consumers, were protected preferentially to corporations. Samsung semiconductor leukemia and humidifier disinfectant cases are typical.

However, there is a possibility that the thread is easily released unexpectedly. If a recent application for industrial accidents is recognized. In June, there was a first application for an industrialist who suffered from acute myeloid leukemia, and two additional applications for the same background were added. Three in five months. This is the right thing to say, 'there are successions'. Considering that it can take a long time, even if only one person is recognized for industrial accidents, it is expected that the wavelength will be tough.

The prospects are not bad either.In the case of Samsung semiconductor leukemia and humidifier disinfectant (not industrial accidents), it took a long time from the first step to finding the etiological factors. It took many years to find the cause, and the measures and the compensation were inevitably delayed. On the other hand, in this case, the apparent cause of 'cosmic radiation' (ionizing radiation) has already been revealed. Ionizing radiation is a Group 1 carcinogen recognized by the International Cancer Institute. It is the opinion of the labor union that it can work as a positive factor, even though it is controversial that there is a scientific debate on the incidence of cancer among the crew. In the case of K, who applied for the first industrial accident, the Work Welfare Corporation has already started an epidemiological investigation, which is an explanation of Kim Seung-hyun, a representative of the agent.

It is also positive that the medical staff who judged that "the crew may have been infected with rare diseases due to unexploded cosmic radiation during flight" is also a positive factor. Kang, who applied for the first industrial accident, admitted that the relationship between cancer development, radiation, and work was related to the possibility that the disease could be caused by exposed ionizing radiation during work. Yonsei University Severance Hospital also judged that "Choi has a job-related relationship between occupational exposures and blood cancer," according to a work-related evaluation by Choi, who has recently submitted an industrial accident application. This 'work relevance assessment report' is different from a simple report and has significant significance in applying for industrial accidents. "In particular, the medical implications that researchers have looked at as rare diseases or anomalies are the basis for judging the relevance of work," said Professor of Occupational Environment, Yonsei University College of Medicine.
It is also noteworthy that our courts and labor authorities have recently shown a tendency to recognize occupational diseases more widely than in the past. In the past, our courts and the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation (KWWC) were very skeptical of recognizing environmental factors as occupational diseases, but in recent years, there has been indirect correlation (causality) in consideration of health condition and work environment at the time of recruitment, Is recognized as an occupational disease. The reason for the recognition of occupational diseases (industrial accidents) is that it is not a science but a legal judgment area, and that industrial accident compensation insurance itself is a kind of social insurance system. A typical example is an electrician who died of acute myelogenous leukemia in February was admitted for occupational diseases. It was the first case in Korea where electromagnetic waves were recognized as a cause of occupational disease.

Of course, given the social welfare of industrial accidents, it still takes a long time to reach the final approval, and it is still dominant that obstacles are not easy. The number of domestic airline crews is estimated to be 5,000, because similar applications are expected to surge if industrial accidents are recognized. Kim Seung-hyun, a lawyer representing the first industrial accident application process, said, "Since the first case has been known, there are dozens of cases of inquiries about industrial accidents." For this reason, some of the labor unions say that the incident could be the second Samsung Semiconductor Leukemia incident in the long term.

● Crew and Cosmic Radiation Must Be

Accurate and Accurate The crew and cosmic radiation issues are virtually entirely new issues in our society. Therefore, social debate should be continued in order to clarify and prepare properly. Exposure to cosmic radiation does not mean that all crew members are cancerous. However, you should actively take measures to know and manage for yourself.

Most importantly, workers' right to know and health right should be given priority. In the meantime, it is true that our society tended to be relatively stingy in these areas. There is a need to improve the system and raise awareness in preparation for the possibility of unfortunate victims, even if the interests of the corporation and the convenience of the government are present.

** References
<aircrew to cosmic radiation should know the story>, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety Foundation, 2016
<Arctic Passage cosmic radiation safety standards and management policies> hwangjeongah, Lee, Jae - Jin, jogyeongseok (Solar Space Environment Group, Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute), 2010
< A Report on Survey Results of Surrounding Radiation Safety Management in 2017>, Nuclear Safety Commission
<Development of Space Radiation Impact Assessment Technology at International Aircraft Operation Height>, Lee Jae-jin, 2016
<Materials for Debate for Improving Safety Management of Crew Space Radiation Exposure> Kim Cheol-Min