Michael Higlett

Measurements of pilots' occupational solar UV exposure.

It is known that ultraviolet radiation (UVR) increases by 10–12% every 1000 m altitude; UVR at the 10 000 m of typical cruise altitude for commercial aircraft may be 2–3 times higher than at ground level. Information on the levels of solar UV exposures is essential for the assessment of the occupational risk of pilots developing sun‐related eye disorders and skin cancers. The aim of the study was to investigate how UV hazard exposures can be measured during flights so that the occupational dose can be ascertained and compared with international guidance. This article describes the development of instrumentation for automated time‐stamped spectral measurements which were collected using bespoke automation software. The software enables the advanced acquisition techniques of automated dark signal capture and multiband integration control optimizing the dynamic performance of the spectrometer over the full spectral range. The equipment was successfully tested in a number of aircraft and helicopter flights during 2012–2013 and illustrated in this article on an example of a Gatwick‐Alicante flight.

Estimating Sun Exposure of Children in Day Care Nurseries in South Oxfordshire, UK

Exposure to ultraviolet radiation and sunburn during childhood and adolescence is linked to increased risks of melanoma and basal cell carcinoma later in life. Infants and toddlers are thought to be unusually vulnerable to UVR because of lower levels of melanin, a thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body mass ratio. The aim of this study was to assess variations in the available erythema effective radiant doses to young children in day care nurseries in South Oxfordshire, UK over 7 years between 2008 and 2014. The data were analyzed in three distinct seasons according to a series of realistic exposure scenarios taking into account nursery routines. The results indicate the time of year when high doses are to be expected and provide strong support for arguments in favor of raising public awareness of sun protection earlier in the year.

Occupational Ocular UV Exposure in Civilian Aircrew

INTRODUCTION Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) increases with altitude; however, there are a number of other factors which may influence ocular exposure during flight. The aim of this study was to assess ocular UVR exposure of pilots in airline and off-shore helicopter operations on different aircraft types and to compare with exposure in a typical office environment. METHOD In-flight data were captured on equipment including a CCD array spectroradiometer on five return sector European airline flights and one transatlantic flight from London Gatwick in addition to four helicopter flights from Aberdeen Dyce airport. Further data were collected in an office environment from three workstations during summer and winter months. RESULTS A wide variation in ocular UVA dose was found during flights. The main factor influencing exposure was the UVR transmission of the windshield, which fell into two distinct profile types. In an aircraft with good UVA blocking properties, ocular exposure was found to be equivalent to office exposure and did not exceed international guideline limits regardless of external conditions or flight time. Most aircraft assessed had poor UVA blocking windshields which resulted in an ocular exposure to the unprotected eye in excess of international guideline limits (up to between 4.5 to 6.5 times greater during one flight). No significant UVB dose was found. DISCUSSION Pilots should be warned of the potential high UVA exposure during flight and advised on the use of sunglasses. A windshield labeling system would allow the pilot to tailor their eye protection practices to that particular aircraft.

Laser product assessment for Lancashire county council trading standards service

The Health Protection Agency was requested by Lancashire County Council Trading Standards Service to assess a range of hand-held laser pointers which had been seized from the premises of an internet trader in Preston, England. The samples included one test purchase laser and 40 evidence bags containing batches of 245 lasers of different types, instruction leaflets, stickers and batteries.Apart from the test purchase, it was not possible to determine how the laser pointers would have been shipped to customers. Some were complete units, but others were kits of parts. Many of the laser pointers were not labelled. Laser warning labels were obtained on sheets with laser starburst symbols of different colours. This suggested that the colour of the starburst would have matched to the colour of the laser beam. Some of the instruction leaflets matched the description of the lasers; it was assumed that these would accompany the lasers.The laser products, including instruction leaflets and labels, were assessed against BS EN 60825-1: 2007, incorporating corrigendum August 2008, “Safety of laser products – Part 1: Equipment classification and requirements”. Findings of the evaluation of the handheld laser pointers are presented, including a summary of the measurements and classification; most of the laser pointers were classified as Class 3B or Class 4. A discussion of the labels and information leaflets is also included.The Health Protection Agency was requested by Lancashire County Council Trading Standards Service to assess a range of hand-held laser pointers which had been seized from the premises of an internet trader in Preston, England. The samples included one test purchase laser and 40 evidence bags containing batches of 245 lasers of different types, instruction leaflets, stickers and batteries.Apart from the test purchase, it was not possible to determine how the laser pointers would have been shipped to customers. Some were complete units, but others were kits of parts. Many of the laser pointers were not labelled. Laser warning labels were obtained on sheets with laser starburst symbols of different colours. This suggested that the colour of the starburst would have matched to the colour of the laser beam. Some of the instruction leaflets matched the description of the lasers; it was assumed that these would accompany the lasers.The laser products, including instruction leaflets and labels, were assessed agai...

Laser display systems: Do we see everything?

Today, laser display systems can be bought very cheaply. Whereas not so long ago, the only “affordable” laser displays (>£200/

Sunglass Filter Transmission and Its Operational Effect in Solar Protection for Civilian Pilots.

300) would typically be purchased by an amateur Disc Jockey for parties, today £40/

The changes in attitude of students following laser safety training

50 systems are readily available to the general public. These systems can be purchased from a range of local shops or over the internet, especially around holiday times such as Halloween, Christmas, and New Year. When buying such a product, users expect it to comply with the appropriate laser safety product/safe use standards, either IEC 60825-1:2014 [Safety of Laser Products—Part 1: Equipment Classification, and Requirements (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 2007)] or ANZI Z136.1:2014 [American National Standard for Safe Use of Lasers (Laser Institute of America, Orlando, FL, 2014)]; however, as the authors are all aware from experience with laser pointers, this might not always be the case. So, can the authors assume that low cost laser displays always meet the standards? Or do the authors get more than the authors expect—not only for power and emitted wavelengths but also strobing of the laser patterns displayed. This paper considers a number of low-cost laser display systems and compares measured parameters with the information provided by the manufacturer.Today, laser display systems can be bought very cheaply. Whereas not so long ago, the only “affordable” laser displays (>£200/

Development of a detector system to assess audience and occupational exposures at laser shows

300) would typically be purchased by an amateur Disc Jockey for parties, today £40/

Temporary visual impairment from leds in toys

50 systems are readily available to the general public. These systems can be purchased from a range of local shops or over the internet, especially around holiday times such as Halloween, Christmas, and New Year. When buying such a product, users expect it to comply with the appropriate laser safety product/safe use standards, either IEC 60825-1:2014 [Safety of Laser Products—Part 1: Equipment Classification, and Requirements (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 2007)] or ANZI Z136.1:2014 [American National Standard for Safe Use of Lasers (Laser Institute of America, Orlando, FL, 2014)]; however, as the authors are all aware from experience with laser pointers, this might not always be the case. So, can the authors assume that low cost laser displays always meet the standards? Or do ...

Improving interaction on laser safety training courses

INTRODUCTION The ocular effects of excess solar radiation exposure are well documented. Recent evidence suggests that ocular ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure to professional pilots may fall outside international guideline limits unless eye protection is used. Nonprescription sunglasses should be manufactured to meet either international or national standards. The mean increase in UVR and blue light hazards at altitude has been quantified and the aim of this research was to assess the effectiveness of typical pilot sunglasses in reducing UVR and blue light hazard exposure in flight. METHOD A series of sunglass filter transmittance measurements were taken from personal sunglasses (N = 20) used by pilots together with a series of new sunglasses (N = 18). RESULTS All nonprescription sunglasses measured conformed to international standards for UVR transmittance and offered sufficient UVR protection for pilots. There was no difference between right and left lenses or between new and used sunglasses. All sunglasses offered sufficient attenuation to counter the mean increase in blue light exposure that pilots experience at altitude, although used sunglasses with scratched lenses were marginally less effective. One pair of prescription sunglasses offered insufficient UVR attenuation for some flights, but would have met requirements of international and national standards for UV-A transmittance. This was likely due to insufficient UVR blocking properties of the lens material. CONCLUSIONS Lenses manufactured to minimally comply with standards for UVR transmittance could result in excess UVR exposure to a pilot based on in-flight irradiance data; an additional requirement of less than 10% transmittance at 380 nm is recommended.