Lightning-produced radiation a potential health concern for air travelers

December 7, 2009,
Image: Wikimedia Commons

New information about lightning-emitted X-rays, gamma rays and high-energy electrons during thunderstorms is prompting scientists to raise concerns about the potential for airline passengers and crews to be exposed to harmful levels of radiation.

Scientists at the Florida Institute of Technology, University of California, Santa Cruz and the University of Florida have estimated that airplane passengers could be exposed to a dose equal to that from 400 chest X-rays if their airplane happens to be near the start of a lightning discharge or related phenomena known as a terrestrial gamma ray flash.

The big unknown: how often — if ever — commercial airliners are exposed to these thunderstorm events, because the bursts of radiation occur only over extremely brief periods and extend just a few hundred feet in the clouds.

"We know that commercial airplanes are typically struck by lightning once or twice a year," said Joe Dwyer, professor of physics and space sciences at Florida Tech. "What we don't know is how often planes happen to be in just the right place or right time to receive a high radiation dose. We believe it is very rare, but more research is needed to answer the question definitively."

Dwyer is the lead author of a paper about the research set to appear in the Journal for Geophysical Research — Atmospheres. Seven researchers from Florida Tech, UC Santa Cruz and UF contributed to the paper. "Estimation of the fluence of high-energy electron bursts produced by thunderclouds and the resulting radiation doses received in aircraft." It is free and downloadable online from the journal's "papers in press" page. The link is .

The authors did not measure high radiation doses directly with airplanes. Instead, they estimated radiation based on satellite and ground-based observations of X-rays and gamma rays.

The authors "combined observations of lightning-produced X-rays and gamma rays with computer models of the movement of high-energy particles to estimate the amount of radiation that could be produced within, or very near, thunderclouds during lightning storms," said Hamid Rassoul, a co-author and senior researcher from Florida Tech.

The observations included those made from orbiting satellites of "terrestrial gamma-ray flashes," or TGFs, mysterious phenomena that appear to originate within thunderstorms at the same altitudes used by jet airliners. They also included measurements of X-rays and gamma rays from natural lightning on the ground, as well as artificial lightning triggered with wire-trailing rockets fired into storm clouds. Researchers believe the phenomena are linked, because both produce high levels of and X-rays and occur along with the actual lightning flash.

The scientists concluded the radiation in a football field-sized space around these lightning events could reach "biologically significant levels," up to 10 rem, according to their paper.

"If an aircraft happened to be in or near the high-field region when either a lightning discharge or a TGF event is occurring, then the radiation dose received by passengers and crew members inside the aircraft could potentially approach 10 rem in less than one millisecond," the paper says.

Ten rem is considered the maximum safe radiation exposure over a person's lifetime. It is equal to 400 chest X-rays, three CAT scans or 7,500 hours of flight time in normal conditions. All airplane passengers are exposed to slightly elevated radiation levels due to cosmic rays.

While the research raises obvious concerns, the scientists stressed that they don't know how often the high-radiation events occur — or how often planes are nearby enough to expose passengers and flight crews to potential danger.

David Smith, an associate professor of physics at UC-Santa Cruz, said recent airborne research suggests the incidents are rare. Flying aboard a National Science Foundation/National Center for Atmospheric Research aircraft this past summer in Florida, Smith and several of the other researchers used a highly sophisticated instrument to measure gamma ray flashes from thunderstorms. Over the course of several flights, they were only able to detect one such flash, at a safe distance from the plane.

"These observations show that although thunderstorms do occasionally create intense gamma-ray flashes, the chance of accidently being directly hit by one is small," Smith said.

Martin Uman, another author and a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at UF, noted that airline pilots typically seek to avoid flying through storms.

However, he said, the fact that commercial planes are struck once or twice a year suggests more inquiry is needed. He said he would recommend to the Federal Aviation Administration that it place detectors aboard planes capable of measuring the storm-related, brief and intense radiation bursts to determine how often they occur. He also said more research on the phenomena that generates the bursts is clearly needed.

"What we need to do is supply the right kind of detectors to a lot of planes, and see if this ever happens," he said. "We also need to spend more time looking at gamma and x-ray radiation from lightning and thunderstorms and trying to understand how it works."

The paper drew on data from numerous observations and experiments, including experiments involving artificial "triggered" lightning at UF/Florida Tech International Center for Research and Testing at the Camp Blanding Army National Guard Base near Starke, Florida. UF and Florida Tech researchers at the center were the first to identify X-ray emissions from triggered .

Source: University of Florida (news : web)

Explore further: Scientists close in on source of X-rays in lightning

Related Stories

Scientists close in on source of X-rays in lightning

July 15, 2008

University of Florida and Florida Institute of Technology engineering researchers have narrowed the search for the source of X-rays emitted by lightning, a feat that could one day help predict where lightning will strike.

Lightning research sparks new discovery

November 1, 2005

Lightning, a high-voltage discharge that strikes quickly and sometimes fatally, is very difficult to study. A new and surprising finding by Florida Institute of Technology's Dr. Joseph Dwyer and his team brings the study ...

NASA Satellite Observes Mysterious Earth Energy

February 23, 2005

Scientists using observations from NASA's Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI) satellite detected flashes of gamma ray energy in Earth's upper atmosphere in greater detail than ever before. RHESSI ...

Gamma rays from thunderstorms?

May 3, 2005

Duke University engineers have led the most detailed analyses of links between some lightning events and mysterious gamma ray emissions that emanate from earth's own atmosphere. Their study suggests that this gamma radiation ...

Recommended for you

Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?

February 15, 2019

Astronomers have spent decades looking for something that sounds like it would be hard to miss: about a third of the "normal" matter in the Universe. New results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may have helped them ...

What rising seas mean for local economies

February 15, 2019

Impacts from climate change are not always easy to see. But for many local businesses in coastal communities across the United States, the evidence is right outside their doors—or in their parking lots.

Tiny particles can switch back and forth between phases

February 15, 2019

Three years ago, when Richard Robinson, associate professor of materials science and engineering, was on sabbatical at Hebrew University in Israel, he asked a graduate student to send him some nanoparticles of a specific ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2009
"What we need to do is supply the right kind of detectors to a lot of planes, and see if this ever happens,"

I think I would have done this before publishing the paper. All the current one amounts to is "Bad things might happen in planes, but we really have no idea and haven't tested anything yet. But get worried anyway."
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2009
danman5000, there's a reason for that, it's called fishing for grant money. ^_^
5 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2009
Well, since I can't get to the paper they quote without paying for the paper, I have to take their word that they are repeating the numbers correctly. However they state that 10 rem is the maximum exposure allowed in a person's lifetime. The NRC says that those exposed to 10 rem (10,000 mrem) per year have no indicated adverse effects but they limit those handling radioactive material to 5 rem per year. I suspect they expect those working with radioactive materials to last more than 2 years. I think there is something wrong with the numbers reported above.


I also looked up CAT scans (because I get too many of them) and they seem to be in the 500 mrem to 950 mrem area. That would mean 10 - 20 to equal the 10 rem limit, not 3 (I would probably be dead by now if the numbers in the article were correct).
5 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2009
thermodynamics, they probably meant 10 rem per year, not per lifetime. However, 10 rem per year is still not quite the same thing as 10 rem in 1 millisecond. That's compressing a year's worth of gradual exposure, into a single concentrated blast. While the body's repair mechanisms might be able to cope with low-level continuous damage up to a point, they might get overloaded when slammed with such a huge avalanche of damage all at once...

Consider the analogy of passing 10 KW of electrical current through your body over the course of 1 year, vs. the course of 1 second. You can easily survive the former; the latter will kill a whale.
not rated yet Dec 08, 2009
PE: I completely agree. The flash of 10 rem in a millisecond would probably damage too many cells for the body to clean out. Some would be dead cells which the body probably could handle but some would be damaged cells that could become cancers. Enough to probably raise your cancer risk much more than the same dose over a year. And, possibly enough to make you sick. I had chemotherapy for lymphoma recently and they used a monoclonal antibody to attack the CD20 receptor on my B cells. With the first dose I got realy sick because the antibody killed the cells so fast that my pancrease and liver couldn't metabolize them fast enough. They had to slow down the infusion. I think that is a similar perspective on the blast of radiation possibly overwhelming the ability of the body to clean up after itself. Food for thought. Thanks for pointing it out.
5 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2009
Yes, REM is a unit of damage that includes the duration of exposure as one of its contributing factors. However, there should still be a difference between gradually absorbing a certain cumulative amount of DNA damage over a year, vs. absorbing that amount of damage in 1 millisecond.

I don't think it's a controversial notion that human cells (as well as the cells of any modern organism) possess certain DNA repair mechanisms. As long as those mechanisms are not overwhelmed, ongoing damage can be repaired with high probability and consistency. However, if those repair mechanisms are overwhelmed, then it must be expected that some portion of the damage will go unrepaired. I think this issue would only be "controversial" among nuclear industry evangelists, in the same way as global warming is controversial among representatives of American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil, and Saudi Arabia.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.