Sensor Damage In Flight?

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There have been studies that suggested a triple chance of brain tumours for airstaff on the transpolar run. Later studies indicated that there was no elevated risk. Still later studies again suggested there was a double chance. So like many things in medicine : inconclusive, but a serious consideration. Deuterium will absorb Neutrinos, I think.

Neutrinos are omnipresent & pretty much invisible. They go through earth as if it was not there and are very, very difficult to detect. Basically a naked spin, no charge, nearly no mass, pretty much nothing.

 

Neutrons are a totally different kettle of fish - mass, spin, etc. They can not be stopped too easily but can be 'moderated' (i.e. cooled down) e.g. via collisions with D2O (heavy water) & graphite.

 

Re. brain ailments & flight staff, possibly this is related to their former state of mind? Alternatively there might be the problem that 3x nearly zero is still nearly zero, this requires Bayesian statistics to sort out & which still is controversial.

[jaapv]

Cancer mortality among German aircrew... [Radiat Environ Biophys. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[SJP]

Qoute 1: "For cabin crew, cancer mortality is generally close to population rates."

 

Quote 2:: "However, cancers associated with radiation exposure are not raised in the cohort. It is concluded that among cockpit crew cancer mortality is low, particularly for lung cancer."

 

Re. quote no.1. This makes all further analysis very difficult. This type of ailment should be according to Poisson statistics so the margin of error is roughly the square root of the number of cases x2. Example Dutch traffic deaths/p.a. = circa 900, so the statistical fluctuations are sqrt(900)x2 = +/- 60. I.e. if it increases to 960 or decreases to 840 is not significant from a statistics point of view. I do not think any politician knows this. The victims & family involved may have a different opinion, but that is a totally different matter.

 

No.2 presumably because cockpit crew is normally not allowed to smoke anymore (during flight).

 

Furthermore it would be safe to lump cabin and cockpit crew together, possibly slightly improving the reliability if any of the results.

[jaapv]

You leave out one point- for crew of thirty years service the risk is significantly higher. Not surprising as the effect is cumulative. Anyway researchers in exact sciences are always horrified at the wooliness of medical research. Understandable, but it comes with the territory.

[SJP]

Among male cockpit crew, the resulting all-cancer standardized mortality ratio (SMR) (n = 127) is 0.6 (95% CI 0.5-0.8), while for brain tumors it is 2.1 (95% CI 1.0-3.9). The cancer risk is significantly raised (RR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1) among cockpit crew members employed 30 years or more compared to those employed less than 10 years. Among both female and male cabin crew, the all-cancer SMR and that for most individual cancers are close to 1. The SMR for breast cancer among female crew is 1.2 (95% CI 0.8-1.8). Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma among male cabin crew is increased (SMR 4.2; 95% CI 1.3-10.8).

So lets do some homework:

male cockpit crew: 0.6 (95% CI 0.5-0.8)

while for brain tumors it is 2.1 (95% CI 1.0-3.9)

Presumably "brain tumor" is a subset of "all tumors" so 2.1 is smaller than 0.6?

 

The cancer risk is significantly raised (RR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1) among cockpit crew

members employed 30 years or more compared to those employed less than 10 years.

What is RR? Not SMR apparently.

 

Lets take the n=127 as a further snippet of knowledge (they tested only 127 persons it seems), then one might assume that less than 10 years and more than 30 years employment is about 40 persons. If two are ill in such a group then that is about 5% so SMR = 5? One patient would be 2.5 (and indeed the square root of 2.5 gives roughly the margins indicated). Less than one patient (a fractional disease) is required to get below that incidence.

 

So it it is not even close to being scientific, based on the abstract. I cannot see the whole article unless I am mistaken & I do not really have the inclination or desire to find out.

[jdlaing]

Well.......

 

Being a Cancer Survivor I can relate to studies and tests.

I got 591 doses of X and Gamma Rays to the neck over 35 days.

Three or four times I had a digital changeable lens camera sitting on a chair in the treatment room with me and it still works fine with no side effects. And it is Cancer free.

 

I wonder how all the digital cameras they have taken into outer space on the Shuttle survived?

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wonder how all the digital cameras they have taken into outer space on the Shuttle survived?

As I recall NASA was quoted as saying their Nikons averaged 3 missions for usable sensor lifetime.

I hope all goes well for you as a cancer survivor. My daughter went through 4 cancers over 8 years, with each of the last three caused by the treatments needed to cure the previous; but she would not have survived without the treatments. Her battles ended last October.

Edited February 25, 2012 by TomB_tx

[jdlaing]

As I recall NASA was quoted as saying their Nikons averaged 3 missions for usable sensor lifetime.

I hope all goes well for you as a cancer survivor. My daughter went through 4 cancers over 8 years, with each of the last three caused by the treatments needed to cure the previous; but she would not have survived without the treatments. Her battles ended last October.

 

Thanks for the wishes.....

I also dropped 100 pounds.

The side effects are a hoot.

When I get near an X-Ray room all the machinery genuflects to me.

I spent 46 years avoiding heavy metals in my system and they mainlined me with it for chemo treatments. I was a stage four.

 

Back to the sensor issues......I'm around a lot of radiation and have never (knock wood) had a problem with anything except film.....back in the day. It didn't totally ruin it but it was definitely a screwy look on the images.

[SJP]

<snip> My daughter went through 4 cancers over 8 years, with each of the last three caused by the treatments needed to cure the previous; but she would not have survived without the treatments. Her battles ended last October.

Condolences are still appropriate I hope.

 

This is what makes this forum for me somewhat more interesting than many, some might call it a certain "level", while not wishing to exclude anyone. Here you are sitting and thinking about camera sensors &.suddenly a whole new dimension emerges. Close to life, surprising and unexpected.

[Messsucherkamera]

TomB_tx -

 

I am sorry to hear about the loss of your daughter. Please accept my condolences. Cancer is an insidious disease, as you well know.

 

My wife of 20 years just lost a kidney to cancer and is presently recovering at home. We were very fortunate, as the tumor was discovered early and chances are high for a full recovery.

[jaapv]

Condolences are still appropriate I hope.

 

This is what makes this forum for me somewhat more interesting than many, some might call it a certain "level", while not wishing to exclude anyone. Here you are sitting and thinking about camera sensors &.suddenly a whole new dimension emerges. Close to life, surprising and unexpected.

Of course I add my condolences.

 

Well-yes My best friend died of renal cancer two weeks ago despite doctors assuring him that they could keep him going for ten years, and a cousin was diagnosed for a 30% survival chance this week. It makes one see the relativity of a forum like this.

[davidbaddley]

(Apparently this whole debate started only last year after Kodak had uploaded a talk given by Rob Hummel. Hummel claimed that levels of radiation sustained on transcontinental flights would regularly damage image sensors and that manufacturers wouldn’t ship cameras by plane because of that. I tend to believe he was just pulling our leg. His story bears the hallmark of an urban legend.)

 

My awareness of this issue began not with the Hummel talk, but with the warning in my M9 owner's manual. Apparently I'm one of the few who actually reads the owner's manual. With this issue in mind, I checked my sensor immediately before and after a northern flight from Salt Lake City to Paris and back. The result: 3 new dead pixels. I don't know for sure if this was caused by radiation on the flight, or if it was just a coincidence.

 

I've also noticed that when I open RAW files in Photoshop (and probably other RAW processors as well), it automatically maps out the dead pixels (in that shot). I can only locate them by shooting/opening JPEGs. Maybe some claim to have no bad pixels because they always open only RAWs and have never seen them before they're automatically mapped out?

Edited February 25, 2012 by davidbaddley
Misquote

[CalArts 99]

 

I've also noticed that when I open RAW files in Photoshop (and probably other RAW processors as well), it automatically maps out the dead pixels (in that shot). I can only locate them by shooting/opening JPEGs. Maybe some claim to have no bad pixels because they always open only RAWs and have never seen them before they're automatically mapped out?

 

ACR (in both LR and PS) along with Phase One will do this. But unfortunately for me one of the bad pixels (I have two) makes an artifact in the form of a bright red vertical line down 3/4s of the image.

 

I'm got tired of fixing it in post and so the camera went off to Leica yesterday. I realize their service is good and I'm sure they'll take care of it, but the cost of shipping via FedEx w/insurance across the continental US cost me 80 USD. I hope I don't have to do this too many more times.

 

My condolences, too, to TomB_tx and his family.

[Bert N]

According to this article, the Nikon D2X cameras NASA used are sometimes replaced after each mission.

 

 

Well.......

I wonder how all the digital cameras they have taken into outer space on the Shuttle survived?

[A Sfeir]

Best protection is to store the camera with the sensor in a vertical position. This way radiation reaching sensor is more attenuated having to cross a thicker atmospheric layer.

[jaapv]

Now that makes sense - reduce the target.

[SJP]

If you wiggle the sensor intelligently you can reduce the damage to 0:D

 

A bit like a tried & trusted recipe against rabies, where the procedure was to take the medicine 2 weeks before being bitten by the rabid dog. From mrs. Beeton's IIRC, it involved the use of mercury, sulfur and similarly wholesome ingredients.

[jaapv]

I think it was for Syphilis...

[SJP]

No that was with arsenic (obviously) - also contrary to common belief catching that ailment is slightly more predictable:D

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[batmobile]

So between film no longer being available and digital cameras being assassinated by wiggly particles from outer space, there is no hope

 

Time to take up painting. Oh, but aren't paints poisonous, or bad for the environment?