Radar systems in cars - health hazard?

[Skier]

Many modern cars now employ radar systems for intelligent cruise control as well as blind spot monitoring. Can the radar waves that are reflected back to the vehicle for these applications pose a health hazard to the vehicle occupants?

 

[jedishrfu]

I'd say no. The wattage is extremely low. The referenced article may allay your fears.

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs226/en/

 

[Drakkith]

As Jedi said, no. The only way radio and microwaves can harm you is by transferring enough energy over a short enough period of time to burn you. This requires very high power outputs, much higher than the radar in a car puts out. For example, a car radar requires about 10 milliwatts of power to detect a man-sized object at 200 meters. These 10 mW's are not concentrated, but spread out over the entired area that the radar covers. In comparison, my microwave concentrates 1,000 watts of power (1,000,000 milliwatts) into a small volume to cook food. So you'd need about 10,000 to 100,000 times more power output from a car radar to pose a threat to a person.

http://www.path.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/publications/PRR-97-19.pdf (Page 15)

 

[Skier]

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. But isn't there continuing research and debate about the low-level effects of RF radiation? I am far from an expert on this topic. It's why I posed the question to the forum. Was wondering whether anyone with specific knowledge could address whether the current exposure limits set by the FCC might be too high. I have the option of including a radar based automatic braking system on a new car that I'm considering. I love the idea of additional safety on the roads. But not at the expense of possible health damage from the excess RF radiation. Just not sure what to do here. Thanks.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You do realize the same FCC limits govern the four radio transmitters in your tires, don't you?

 

[Dale]

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. But isn't there continuing research and debate about the low-level effects of RF radiation?

There is debate about the risk of RF exposure. There is not debate about the risk of automobile accidents. It makes sense to accept a risk which is so small that it may not even exist in order to mitigate one of the largest risks of modern life. That holds even if you take a very alarmist stance on the risks of RF.

 

[DrewD]

From a physics standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the low frequency EM waves in radar will hurt a person except the way that Drakkith mentioned. The frequency determines the energy per photon and low energy photons cannot do the sort of tissue damage that causes cancer.

It is possible, since human beings are such strange, complicated collections of particles that maybe certain groups of cells behave in a way that we can't model with our current understanding of the human body. There is no reason to think that this would be true, but you can't really 100% be sure that it is false. The only way to test this is to get very large samples and see if there is a correlation between more low frequency EM waves and cancer or other health issues.

So far, studies using large samples regularly conclude that there is no risk. There have been some recent studies that have said increased cancer risk couldn't be ruled out. I only know about one and it had a small sample size. My recollection (I could be completely wrong about this, check it if you are interested) of the recent study that caused the WHO to change its wording is that they were concerned with cell phones increasing the growth rate of tumors for people who already had a tumor.

So, to the question do radio frequency (specifically cell phone frequency, even though that's not your question, it has been studied a lot) EM waves negatively impact your health:

Physics says "not in anyway that we can imagine"

Medical research say "not in most of the ways that we have tested, but maybe a little bit. Plus we will never be done testing all of the possible ways"

Personally, I am much more worried about dying in a car accident.

 

[Drakkith]

But isn't there continuing research and debate about the low-level effects of RF radiation?

Not really. The debate is mostly from people who claim that a few studies show a link between RF radiation and health risks. The problem is that these studies are typically ambiguous in their findings and narrowing down a health risk to a specific cause is extraordinarily difficult. There's simply too many variables. Still, it's always possible that RF radiation is having an effect, so the FCC regulations are necessarily well on the conservative side.

 

[Skier]

DrewD, thank you in particular for your detailed response. Quick follow-up, seeing that you raised the issue of cell phones. If you know, how does the radiated energy levels compare between a cell phone and the energy or reflected energy of a car based radar system, all of which operate in the 76-77 ghz band?

 

[davenn]

From a physics standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the low frequency EM waves in radar will hurt a person except the way that Drakkith mentioned. The frequency determines the energy per photon and low energy photons cannot do the sort of tissue damage that causes cancer....

Drew

76GHz isn't exactly low freq
Cancer isn't the main risk from non-ionising radiation such as RF
Tissue heating is much more of a concern. Also some parts of the body, eg. the eyes, are
quite susceptible to low but concentrated power levels eg. from the end of a waveguide

I have had personal and a painful lesson with that

but that said earlier posts answered the original question adequately
The resulting few microWatts from a widely dispersed signal isn't going to be of any concern

Dave

 

[Drakkith]

DrewD, thank you in particular for your detailed response. Quick follow-up, seeing that you raised the issue of cell phones. If you know, how does the radiated energy levels compare between a cell phone and the energy or reflected energy of a car based radar system, all of which operate in the 76-77 ghz band?

A cell phone typically transmits from 100 milliwatts up to a few watts. I'd guess that the reflected signal from a car radar is going to be in the micro to nanowatt range.

 

[Skier]

FYI - The FCC rules allow for a peak power density of 279 µW/cm² at 3 meters (peak EIRP of 55
dBm) for vehicular radar systems regardless of the direction of illumination. Davenn (and others), I'm assuming that your answer would be the same with this specific power information.

 

[Dale]

You are completely missing the most important point.

All of life is risky. There is nothing that you do that does not carry some risk, including doing nothing. The question is to evaluate the risks compared to the rewards. Here we are comparing between the risks of increased RF exposure and rewards of decreased automobile accident exposure. That comparison is so extraordinarily one sided that the conclusion is obvious.

 

[davenn]

You are completely missing the most important point.

All of life is risky. There is nothing that you do that does not carry some risk, including doing nothing. The question is to evaluate the risks compared to the rewards. Here we are comparing between the risks of increased RF exposure and rewards of decreased automobile accident exposure. That comparison is so extraordinarily one sided that the conclusion is obvious.

couldn't agree more !

Dave

 

[DrewD]

Drew

76GHz isn't exactly low freq

Dave

*lower frequency than the EM radiation being emitted by a cat

 

[DrewD]

You are completely missing the most important point.

All of life is risky. There is nothing that you do that does not carry some risk, including doing nothing. The question is to evaluate the risks compared to the rewards. Here we are comparing between the risks of increased RF exposure and rewards of decreased automobile accident exposure. That comparison is so extraordinarily one sided that the conclusion is obvious.

And it is possible that one of those risks doesn't even exist.

 

[A.T.]

...rewards of decreased automobile accident exposure.

Has this been shown already?

 

[davenn]

*lower frequency than the EM radiation being emitted by a cat

HUH ?

have no idea what that is even supposed to mean ??

 

[jbriggs444]

HUH ?

have no idea what that is even supposed to mean ??

Presumably infrared radiation in the neighborhood of 30 Thz.

 

[Skier]

Also less dangerous than owning a dog? Ok, ok, I get it.

All kidding aside, because the radar emanates horizontally from the front and rear bumpers of the car, wouldn't only a tiny fraction of that energy make it back to the car anyway, with the majority of it being dispersed in other directions at the speed of light? If so, the theoretical RF risk is to those outside of the car rather than inside of the car anyway. Is this an accurate description of the way radar waves propagate and are reflected?

 

[DrewD]

HUH ?

have no idea what that is even supposed to mean ??

76GHz is radio frequency which is lower frequency than far infrared. I meant it as a joke. It is high frequency compared to other radio frequencies, but it is still much lower than ionizing radiation.

 

[Dale]

Has this been shown already?

Not that I am aware of. I think that it will take some time "in the field" to establish. My statements are based on my personal "prior probability".

 

[Drakkith]

All kidding aside, because the radar emanates horizontally from the front and rear bumpers of the car, wouldn't only a tiny fraction of that energy make it back to the car anyway, with the majority of it being dispersed in other directions at the speed of light? If so, the theoretical RF risk is to those outside of the car rather than inside of the car anyway. Is this an accurate description of the way radar waves propagate and are reflected?

Yes, I believe that is correct.

 

[wintermutt]

i am also concerned about health hazards of radar in cars. (reasons for personal concerns to follow).
the only known risk factor for glioblastoma/astrocytoma (inoperable brain tumor FYI) is to be an airplane pilot. the theory behind this association is that
planes have radar generally in the nose of the plane, and the radar is thought to be associated with astrocytomas. in a large study of air pilots in Canada two cancers were increased - brain cancer and leukemia as follows //. Monitoring of inflight radiation exposure as well as long-term follow-up of cohorts of civil aviation crew members is needed to further assess cancer incidence, particularly brain cancer (8, 10) and leukemia risk, in this special occupational group// http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/143/2/137.full.pdf
since my father (Air Force) died of a glioblastoma this subject is of concern to me. it does make sense to me that the benefits may exceed the risks of radar in cars, however since there are apparently alternate systems available, it also makes sense to consider if there are safer effective systems available with less theoretical cancer risks than radar. for example, optical and laser systems.

 

[Drakkith]

the only known risk factor for glioblastoma/astrocytoma (inoperable brain tumor FYI) is to be an airplane pilot. the theory behind this association is that

I'm curious as to how much the increased ambient radiation from being at high altitudes contributes to this.

 

[wintermutt]

I'm curious as to how much the increased ambient radiation from being at high altitudes contributes to this.

only the pilots get it. pilots are closest to the nose of the plane where the radar is emitted.

 

[Drakkith]

only the pilots get it. pilots are closest to the nose of the plane where the radar is emitted.

I was going to ask for a reference, but I think this is a discussion for another thread.

 

[wintermutt]

I was going to ask for a reference, but I think this is a discussion for another thread.

Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2009 Oct;136(4):232-9. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncp125. Epub 2009 Jul 16.
Epidemiological studies of cancer in aircrew.
Hammer GP1, Blettner M, Zeeb H.
Author information

Abstract
Exposure to cosmic ionising radiation, in addition to other specific occupational risks, is of concern to aircrew members. Epidemiological studies provide an objective way to assess the health of this occupational group. We systematically reviewed the epidemiological literature on health of aircrew members since 1990, focusing on cancer as the endpoint of interest. Sixty-five relevant publications were identified and reviewed. Whereas overall cancer incidence and mortality was generally lower than in the comparison population, consistently elevated risks were reported for breast cancer incidence in female aircrew members and for melanoma in both male and female aircrew members. Brain cancer was increased in some studies among pilots. Occasionally trends of increasing cancer mortality or incidence with increasing estimated radiation dose were reported. 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.

PMID:

19608578

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Publication Types, MeSH Terms

LinkOut - more resources

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons/

 

[davenn]

Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2009 Oct;136(4):232-9. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncp125. Epub 2009 Jul 16.
Epidemiological studies of cancer in aircrew.
Hammer GP1, Blettner M, Zeeb H.
Author information

Abstract
Exposure to cosmic ionising radiation, in addition to other specific occupational risks, is of concern to aircrew members. Epidemiological studies provide an objective way to assess the health of this occupational group. We systematically reviewed the epidemiological literature on health of aircrew members since 1990, focusing on cancer as the endpoint of interest. Sixty-five relevant publications were identified and reviewed. Whereas overall cancer incidence and mortality was generally lower than in the comparison population, consistently elevated risks were reported for breast cancer incidence in female aircrew members and for melanoma in both male and female aircrew members. Brain cancer was increased in some studies among pilots. Occasionally trends of increasing cancer mortality or incidence with increasing estimated radiation dose were reported. 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.

PMID:

19608578

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Publication Types, MeSH Terms

LinkOut - more resources

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons/

and that has nothing to do with the aircraft radar !
and apart from that microwave radiation is non-ionising Dave

 

[wintermutt]

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.

 

[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.