Radar systems in cars - health hazard?

[russ_watters]

The FCC regulates the radiation emission limits of vehicular radar, and the FCC rules are based, in part, on the max permissible human exposure to RF radiation.

Do you have a reference for that last part? I'm not inclined to accept that it is true without one. The only problem I'm aware of that actually exists and is certainly regulated by the FCC is interference with other RF devices.

[edit] D'oh - necro'd

 

[russ_watters]

what caused the increased brain cancer in pilots versus the airline crew? maybe it was the stress, but i doubt it. there is something in that cockpit that leads (rarely) to brain tumors. if that is radar, and we are going to subject the entire population of the USA to intermittent radar proximity, we better know exactly what the risk is.

The article you cite isn't making that claim, you are. I would have trouble believing there is even a measurable radar exposure to airline pilots and If radar caused such a risk, airline pilots would be far, far away from the most at-risk group. Members of certain branches/jobs in the military are exposed to orders of magnitude more.

 

[wintermutt]

i am going to assume the police were not pointing their radar guns at their testicles (i know, big assumption :-)Int J Occup Environ Health. 2000 Jul-Sep;6(3):187-93.
Cancer in radar technicians exposed to radiofrequency/microwave radiation: sentinel episodes.
Richter E1, Berman T, Ben-Michael E, Laster R, Westin JB.
Author information

Abstract
Controversy exists concerning the health risks from exposures to radiofrequency/microwave irradiation (RF/MW). The authors report exposure-effect relationships in sentinel patients and their co-workers, who were technicians with high levels of exposure to RF/MW radiation. Information about exposures of patients with sentinel tumors was obtained from interviews, medical records, and technical sources. One patient was a member of a cohort of 25 workers with six tumors. The authors estimated relative risks for cancer in this group and latency periods for a larger group of self-reported individuals. Index patients with melanoma of the eye, testicular cancer, nasopharyngioma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and breast cancer were in the 20-37-year age group. Information about work conditions suggested prolonged exposures to high levels of RF/MW radiation that produced risks for the entire body. Clusters involved many different types of tumors. Latency periods were extremely brief in index patients and a larger self-reported group. The findings suggest that young persons exposed to high levels of RF/MW radiation for long periods in settings where preventive measures were lax were at increased risk for cancer. Very short latency periods suggest high risks from high-level exposures. Calculations derived from a linear model of dose-response suggest the need to prevent exposures in the range of 10-100 microw/cm(2).

PMID:

10926722

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Cluster of testicular cancer in police officers exposed to hand-held radar

1. Dr. Robert L. Davis MD1,* and
2. F. Kash Mostofi MD2

Article first published online: 19 JAN 2007

DOI: 10.1002/ajim.4700240209

Copyright © 1993 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company

Issue

American Journal of Industrial Medicine
Volume 24, Issue 2, pages 231–233, August 1993Additional Information(Show All)

How to CiteAuthor InformationPublication HistorySEARCH
Search Scope
Search String

• Advanced >
• Saved Searches >

ARTICLE TOOLS

• Get PDF (196K)
• Save to My Profile
• E-mail Link to this Article
• Export Citation for this Article
• Get Citation Alerts
• Request Permissions

Share|

• Abstract
• References
• Cited By

Get PDF (196K)
Keywords:

• occupational exposure;
• radar gun;
• cluster investigation;
• testicular cancer;
• police officers

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.

Get PDF (196K)

 

[davenn]

what caused the increased brain cancer in pilots versus the airline crew? maybe it was the stress, but i doubt it. there is something in that cockpit that leads (rarely) to brain tumors. if that is radar, and we are going to subject the entire population of the USA to intermittent radar proximity, we better know exactly what the risk is.

what you need to consider is that the aircraft radar beam is from a dish antenna and is very directive ( ahead of the aircraft. And like any microwave dish signal level behind the disk is incredibly minor. On top of that, any signal is highly unlikely to make its way to the cockpit with all the metallic shielding of the aircraft bodywork and cockpit instrumentation panels etc providing a good shield between the pilots and transmitting element.

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.

i am going to assume the police were not pointing their radar guns at their testicles (i know, big assumption :-)

Obviously ... they must have been doing something silly ...
well that's understandable and easily resolved with proper training in the use and safety of handheld units

Controversy exists concerning the health risks from exposures to radiofrequency/microwave irradiation (RF/MW). The authors report exposure-effect relationships in sentinel patients and their co-workers, who were technicians with high levels of exposure to RF/MW radiation.

And there is a valid risk there as well. When I worked with Telecom, back in New Zealand, There was stringent training of the hazards of high power microwave energy from the point to point microwave links. 5W of transmitter power into a > 30dBi gain dish can result in effective radiated power off the front of the dish in excess of 5kW ( 5 x that of your avg microwave oven).
NOTE: that this power level is when you are pretty much right in front of the antenna. The RF field level falls off very quickly with distance by the inverse square lawDave

 

[wintermutt]

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. unfortunately it will be difficult to avoid while traveling 3 MPH in a traffic jam with (soon to be federally mandated) radar guided vehicles all around me five deep. perhaps the next option for commuter vehicles will be radar protection for the passengers, the next option for homeowners who live along busy streets will be radar protection for their kids who want to play in their front yards. i think the bicyclists will be OK with the radar - they really are auto fodder.

 

[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.