The multimedia investigation “Exposed” found the FAA does almost nothing to protect aircrews from cosmic radiation exposure, which flight attendants and pilots encounter every time they fly. This project — jointly submitted by the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism at Arizona State University and Scripps News — is accompanied by an online radiation exposure estimator to empower flight crews and passengers to monitor their radiation exposure from air travel themselves.
This investigation found:
The FAA has known for decades cosmic radiation at cruising altitude damages DNA and increases fatal cancer risk, but has never set rules requiring airlines to warn, monitor or protect crews or passengers.
FAA scientists have estimated over a long flying career, some crew members face a measurable increased risk of dying from cancer caused by on-the-job cosmic radiation exposure.
U.S. pilots and flight attendants are exposed to more occupational radiation than nuclear weapons makers and X-ray technicians — workers legally required to be trained, monitored and protected.
Many European countries and South Korea require radiation monitoring and exposure limits for flight crews. The U.S. does not.
Airlines are not required to reroute flights to avoid radiation spikes when solar flares and geomagnetic storms are taking place.
The FAA has taken offline the only public tool that allowed travelers and crews to estimate in-flight radiation exposure. So the Howard Center built an online radiation exposure estimator based on FAA and global regulatory agency data.
The science was complex, particularly around radiation changes in the solar cycle. In May 2024, during one of the strongest solar radiation storms in decades, many long-haul flights did not reroute, even after federal alerts warned radiation levels were elevated. A Howard Center data analysis found that half the international flights analyzed crossed through a region near the poles, which is where the FAA says there is “little to no protection from solar cosmic radiation.”
In addition, this package includes two important explainers on the Exposed website, in a section called, “The Science of Radiation.” The science explainers highlight how public language around radiation can further minimize risk. One story found that government agencies, doctors and industry often compare flight exposure to a fraction of a chest X-ray, but the CDC acknowledged to the Howard Center that its comparison to “one” chest X-ray can count an exam involving two separate images. That accounting can make flight radiation appear to translate into fewer chest X-rays, obscuring the math of cumulative exposure.
Another story found that comparisons to natural background radiation can also be misleading. The commonly cited U.S. benchmark of 3.1 mSv per year includes indoor radon, a major lung-cancer risk that is often increased by human construction and can be preventable. Without radon, the baseline drops to about 1.1 mSv, making the roughly 3 mSv aircrew receive annually at work appear nearly triple a more meaningful natural-background comparison. Taken together, “Exposed” found a systemic failure by U.S. regulators and institutions to clearly communicate, measure and reduce occupational radiation risk for aircrews.
