Answer to Question #12595 Submitted to "Ask the Experts"

I have been diagnosed with an angiosarcoma (cancerous tumor) and my oncologist posed a radiation question to me on diagnosis. She mentioned that years ago the only known habit that we understand from this type of cancer is when patients have been subjected to higher amounts of radiation. The example she used was breast-cancer patients using radiotherapy to cure that disease has in turn caused an angiosarcoma from the treatment.

My question, as I have seen similarly on your website, would working and sitting for long periods of time on an active military airfield subject me to heightened amounts of radiation? Working in the Royal Air Force (RAF), I have spent many hours of continuous days of solid months out on an airfield merely feet from an active runway and surrounded by navigational aids and radar equipment.

My oncologist has also asked for the figures relating to radiation emitted on airfields to work out if this is higher than what is a normal safe exposure to humans, for example they know the safety amounts from day-to-day use of microwaves, etc., but would like to compare figures based on my roles in the RAF.

You report a diagnosis for "an angiosarcoma," so we appreciate your concern and interest about possible causes.

A short answer to your question in this context is that it is unlikely that you were exposed to "heightened amounts of (radiofrequency) radiation," and even if you were, it is highly unlikely it would have caused your angiosarcoma.

While it is generally true that one cannot identify a specific cause for most cancers, it is possible to talk about the probability that a specific agent could have caused a specific cancer. In your case, you are in effect asking about the probability that radiofrequency radiation is the cause of your cancer.

You mention in your question that your oncologist discussed various types of medical radiotherapeutic techniques, such as radiation therapy to treat breast cancer that could later lead to other cancers, such as angiosarcomas. This is indeed true, but the type of radiation in those cases is ionizing radiation, such as x rays or gamma rays. The Health Physics Society (HPS) has a Frequently Asked Question paper on radiation basics for a discussion on ionizing radiation. Also see a discussion on the risks vs. benefits of medical exposures to ionizing radiation.

The type of radiation that is common at "military airfields" is nonionizing radiation, or more specifically, radiofrequency radiation. See radiofrequency radiation, its sources, and biological effects. The HPS also has a fact sheet on mobile phones and wireless local networks, which are also sources of radiofrequency radiation, to a small extent.

Both ionizing radiation (in the form of gamma rays and x rays) and radiofrequency radiation are electromagnetic radiation and differ only in their wavelengths, frequencies, and photon energies.¹ Photons of gamma rays or x rays have typical energies of much more than 10,000 times the energies of radiofrequency radiation. That very large difference in photon energies means that these two types of electromagnetic radiation have very different biological effects.

Radar and radio transmitters are common at airfields and emit radiofrequency radiation almost continuously during normal operations. In the United States, radiofrequency radiation emitters such as radar and radio transmitters must meet exposure standards published by national and international advisory bodies (ICNIRP 2002). It is safe to say that the United Kingdom RAF probably met the same standards during your employment. Usually the advisory bodies set exposure limits to levels that are at least 10 times smaller than the smallest level that has shown in research to produce a biological effect.

The biological effects of radiofrequency radiation are virtually limited to effects caused by heating, like the heating that occurs to food when you place it in a microwave oven. To date, despite numerous studies looking for links between human cancers and exposures to radiofrequency radiation, no one has found such a definitive cause-and-effect link. We have physical reasons to believe that no link is likely to be found.

I hope this has been helpful.

Robert Cherry, PhD, CHP

___________________________