Radar systems in cars - health hazard?

[davenn]

Knowing that there could be risks to radar and that there are alternative automobile guidance systems available (optical and laser) is enough for me to avoid radar guided automobiles for myself

again, the signal is very low level, and it is beamed forward of the vehicle, and the metal shielding of the vehicle protects you
your concerns are unwarranted considering the huge natural EM transmitter you are being exposed to during daytime travel ...

The health issues you WILL suffer from the sun shining in the windows of the car and on to your unprotected skin and eyes is 1000's of times worse.
UV light damage to skin and eyes being top of the list
everything from mild to severe sunburn which can eventually result in skin cancers ( melanoma)Dave

 

[wintermutt]

suggestion - keep your windows up.
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2003 Aug;19(4):175-81.
UV exposure in cars.
Moehrle M1, Soballa M, Korn M.
Author information

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
There is increasing knowledge about the hazards of solar and ultraviolet (UV) radiation to humans. Although people spend a significant time in cars, data on UV exposure during traveling are lacking. The aim of this study was to obtain basic information on personal UV exposure in cars.

METHODS:
UV transmission of car glass samples, windscreen, side and back windows and sunroof, was determined. UV exposure of passengers was evaluated in seven German middle-class cars, fitted with three different types of car windows. UV doses were measured with open or closed windows/sunroof of Mercedes-Benz E 220 T, E 320, and S 500, and in an open convertible car (Mercedes-Benz CLK). Bacillus subtilis spore film dosimeters (Viospor) were attached to the front, vertex, cheeks, upper arms, forearms and thighs of 'adult' and 'child' dummies.

RESULTS:
UV wavelengths longer than >335 nm were transmitted through car windows, and UV irradiation >380 nm was transmitted through compound glass windscreens. There was some variation in the spectral transmission of side windows according to the type of glass. On the arms, UV exposure was 3-4% of ambient radiation when the car windows were shut, and 25-31% of ambient radiation when the windows were open. In the open convertible car, the relative personal doses reached 62% of ambient radiation.

CONCLUSIONS:
The car glass types examined offer substantial protection against short-wave UV radiation. Professional drivers should keep car windows closed on sunny days to reduce occupational UV exposure. In individuals with polymorphic light eruption, produced by long-wave UVA, additional protection by plastic films, clothes or sunscreens appears necessary.

PMID:

12925188

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[russ_watters]

Abstract
Within a cohort of 340 police officers, six incident cases of testicular cancer occurred between 1979 and 1991 (O/E 6.9; p<0.001, Poisson distribution). Occupational use of hand-held radar was the only shared risk factor among all six officers, and all routinely held the radar gun directly in close proximity to their testicles. Health effects of occupational radar use have not been widely studied, and further research into a possible association with testicular cancer is warranted. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The article is behind a paywall, so I can't analyze it in any detail, but I find it very hard to believe that use of radar guns was the only thing the author could think of that 6 police officers might have in common.

Knowing that there could be risks to radar...

"Knowing...could be..." That's an empty/contradictory statement.

Regardless, yes, people are researching it and that's fine. But don't mistake these for a consensus view that the risk exists. The consensus view is that it probably does not. And again, even if it did, it is worth weighing the potential risk here against the known risk of car accidents. Active braking is well proven to reduce accident rates:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv20/07-0103-O.pdf

 

[russ_watters]

RESULTS:
UV wavelengths longer than >335 nm were transmitted through car windows, and UV irradiation >380 nm was transmitted through compound glass windscreens. There was some variation in the spectral transmission of side windows according to the type of glass. On the arms, UV exposure was 3-4% of ambient radiation when the car windows were shut, and 25-31% of ambient radiation when the windows were open. In the open convertible car, the relative personal doses reached 62% of ambient radiation.

CONCLUSIONS:
The car glass types examined offer substantial protection against short-wave UV radiation. Professional drivers should keep car windows closed on sunny days to reduce occupational UV exposure. In individuals with polymorphic light eruption, produced by long-wave UVA, additional protection by plastic films, clothes or sunscreens appears necessary.

Nice to hear, but I get sunburned on long car rides, so 3-4% seems low. Looking into it a bit, it appears they used radiation in the UVA range (>320nm), whereas most of the sunburn risk and it is believed more of the skin cancer risk is in the UVB range. Pity they didn't test that.

 

[Evo]

Ionising radiation is considered to contribute little if at all to the elevated risks for cancers among aircrew, whereas excess ultraviolet radiation is a probable cause of the increased melanoma risk.

I think your answer lies in your own source.

 

[Drakkith]

Thread has been moved to the biology/medical forum.

 

[wintermutt]

I think your answer lies in your own source.

if you read the studies carefully, you find that there is an unexplained increase in brain tumors amongst pilots of planes but not the crew.
this implies something is going on in the cockpit that is not going on in the rest of the plane. the altitude is the same. one possibility is the
radar in the nose of the plane. similar to radar in the "nose" of a car. i understand that radar reduces auto collisions, as does laser and optical accident reduction systems. i suppose the laser systems have risks also (to the retina). but in all seriousness, i do not want to be in a car the emits radar, and i do not want to be 2 feet away from a car the emits radar behind me and to the side of me. i took care of my Dad as he died of brain cancer. he probably figured it was better than flying into a mountain. i am certain there are benefits to radar in cars. but is it worth the risks when there are alternatives?

 

[Evo]

if you read the studies carefully, you find that there is an unexplained increase in brain tumors amongst pilots of planes but not the crew.
this implies something is going on in the cockpit that is not going on in the rest of the plane. the altitude is the same. one possibility is the
radar in the nose of the plane. similar to radar in the "nose" of a car. i understand that radar reduces auto collisions, as does laser and optical accident reduction systems. i suppose the laser systems have risks also (to the retina). but in all seriousness, i do not want to be in a car the emits radar, and i do not want to be 2 feet away from a car the emits radar behind me and to the side of me. i took care of my Dad as he died of brain cancer. he probably figured it was better than flying into a mountain. i am certain there are benefits to radar in cars. but is it worth the risks when there are alternatives?

Do you have any recent studies on the radar in cars, otherwise, you're it would seem that you are jumping the gun., the ones I've seen on planes are old and it appeared that UV exposure was the cause.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm with Evo. It appears you're already fairly convinced that radar causes cancer.

i am certain there are benefits to radar in cars. but is it worth the risks when there are alternatives?

Well, yes, it is worth the risks if there are no risks.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

if you read the studies carefully, you find that there is an unexplained increase in brain tumors amongst pilots of planes but not the crew.
this implies something is going on in the cockpit that is not going on in the rest of the plane. the altitude is the same. one possibility is the
radar in the nose of the plane. similar to radar in the "nose" of a car. i understand that radar reduces auto collisions, as does laser and optical accident reduction systems. i suppose the laser systems have risks also (to the retina). but in all seriousness, i do not want to be in a car the emits radar, and i do not want to be 2 feet away from a car the emits radar behind me and to the side of me. i took care of my Dad as he died of brain cancer. he probably figured it was better than flying into a mountain. i am certain there are benefits to radar in cars. but is it worth the risks when there are alternatives?

If you carefully read the Hammer et al study that you cited you'll see that although one meta-analysis found an increased risk for brain cancer among male pilots, that increase was not statistically significant (see table 3 of the paper). Therefore, it is not clear that such a relationship exists. Furthermore, when others have studied the incidence of cancer among others who receive high doses of RF radiation in their work, they have found no clear increases in cancer risk and laboratory studies have failed to find evidence of increased risk of cancer with exposure to RF radiation (see this fact sheet from the American Cancer Society). Thus, even if such a relationship exists, it is not clear that it would be due to RF radiation than some other factor (such as exposure to jet engine exhaust or other pollutants associated with airplanes or disrupted sleep patterns). The authors of the Hammer et al. study suggest the socioeconomic status of the pilots (vs the crew) as a potential factor influencing the potential increased risk of brain cancer among pilots.

 

[Vanadium 50]

particularly brain cancer (8, 10) and leukemia risk, in this special occupational group// http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/143/2/137.full.pdf

That paper claims that the overall cancer mortality is lower. If that's the case, shouldn't we be basking in radar's healthful rays?

 

[wintermutt]

Do you have any recent studies on the radar in cars, otherwise, you're it would seem that you are jumping the gun., the ones I've seen on planes are old and it appeared that UV exposure was the cause.

UV exposure does not cause brain cancer. the studies on cars will be done on us - we are the study. sort of like smoking and lung cancer. took everyone 40 years to figure that relationship.

 

[wintermutt]

That paper claims that the overall cancer mortality is lower. If that's the case, shouldn't we be basking in radar's healthful rays?

it all depends on the group being studied. . since overall cancer mortality is lower in this group, it makes the increased brain cancer even more striking.
it would probably be less striking in a group of obese elderly smokers.

 

[Evo]

With the great input we got, thread closed.