• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Radar and Cancer ... and radar chronographs

OK. Got it.

Your standard of actionable data is different from mine. I don't need indisputable data to tell me it's not a good idea to put my head forward of the radar chronograph, inside of .2 meters.

I'm fine with anecdotal evidence steering me away from certain behaviors that may negatively impact my health. I'm not saying that's the case here, that's why I started this thread, I wanted more information. I'm just saying I don't need double blind studies and whatnot as my only guide here.

Folks in their 70s may have different thresholds for what they care about than a guy in his 30s.
My apologies if I caused offense, not my intention. I'm also not claiming (nor suggesting) that anyone should ignore the possibility of a link (radiation-induced cancers are somewhat more than pure theory, and minimization of radiation exposure is always a good plan). I'm reacting to junk science presented by junk scientists as if it is actionable. We're all exposed to mountains of this stuff lately. Correlative anecdotal evidence used to be publicly ridiculed, now it is celebrated as genius.

It's a good idea not to expose yourself to microwave radiation whenever possible. Not standing directly in front of Labradars is good advice despite the fact that there has been no testing of harmful effects of this practice. As you say, you started the thread because you wanted more information. That's good, because the information provided in the news stories is GARBAGE and meaningless. I also don't rely strictly on double-blind, randomized studies before I make evidence-based decisions. The "evidence" provided in the original articles, however, ISN'T evidence of anything. My posts were intended inform evaluation of that initial information. That isn't the same as me or anyone recommending that you stand closely in the path of a microwave source.
 
Major league umpire groups rotate, only behind the plate 1 in 4 games. Slightly more than a starting pitching rotation. Of course now the pitchers have a radio receiver/speaker in their hat.
 
Here's an interesting test - if the RF shielding on a microwave is really great, it should block data going to and from your mobile phone, right?

Not necessarily. AFAIK, microwave ovens operate at 2.4GHz and their shielding is specifically designed to block those frequencies. This is done by using holes in the cage that are smaller than 1/4 of the wavelength (25mm holes in this case). So, if you're testing with your 2.4GHz WIFI, then yes, it's a good test. If you're testing with your 5GHz WIFI or with "4G/5G" cell signals, then it's not.
 
Not necessarily. AFAIK, microwave ovens operate at 2.4GHz and their shielding is specifically designed to block those frequencies. This is done by using holes in the cage that are smaller than 1/4 of the wavelength (25mm holes in this case). So, if you're testing with your 2.4GHz WIFI, then yes, it's a good test. If you're testing with your 5GHz WIFI or with "4G/5G" cell signals, then it's not.
At the risk of getting too far off topic, the attenuation testing I did was long before 5G was a thing (think standard GSM frequencies). I'm pretty sure the main source of leakage in a microwave is around the door gasket. It is difficult to make a good conductive seal on a door. What you create by closing the door is a slot antenna, that re-radiates what's inside the box (and vice-versa). This is still much better than running the microwave with the door open :)
 
What he ^^^^^ said, but it wasn't just bike cops. Older X & K band traffic radars, usually the hand-held variety didn't have an instant on feature and were always emanating radar energy. It was common practice for an officer to lay the unit in his lap between targeting oncoming vehicles and the groin area absorbed much of that energy. An Ohio trooper with testicular cancer sued, and lost, as the radar manufacturer was able to argue there was no known adverse effects of traffic radar on human tissue. There were other similar lawsuits filed on similar grounds and the manufacturers were able to prevail as there was no medical evidence of any adverse effects with the use of traffic radar at that time. When I went through instructor school in the early 90's we studied this issue and the traffic radars in general use at that time were of the instant on variety and only emanated radar energy when the officer pushed a button and sent the radar beam towards the target vehicle and that beam ceased to emanate when the target speed was locked into the unit. But, we taught students/officers to not leave the radars turned on constantly due to the above lawsuits, even though there was still no medical evidence of any adverse effects. To my knowledge, there have been no known adverse health issues due to the use of traffic radars with instant on features. To my knowledge.............
The old units had to be recalibrated every time they were turned off and back on. So they put the radar gun on their lap turned on all the time. Is radar obsolete? Seems like they al use laser now. Laser detectors are useless. Their instant on and get a reading in seconds. A baseball catcher is probably exposed the entire game. They time tennis balls also. I wouldn't play unless the radar was turned off. I would have it in my contract.
 
I don't think the Labradar is a big concern given time-weighted exposure.

One thing that does seem to be creating a lot of "turbo-cancer" cases is something that was deemed "safe and effective".

A friend one mine is no longer with is due to the above.
 
Interesting, but meaningless as presented. Classic correlation vs. causation. Incidence of brain cancer across all major leaguers where radar is used? Catchers, pitchers, and infielders all included in the "cluster",
Can chewing tobacco cause brain cancer? Just a thought.
-
 
Can chewing tobacco cause brain cancer? Just a thought.
-
Cancers typically associated with smokeless tobacco use include those of the head and neck, digestive tract, pancreas, reproductive organs, and even blood cancer. Central nervous system cancers are not typically associated with smokeless tobacco, but that isn't the same as there not being a causative relationship. So, maybe. There are also relationships associated with alcohol use, radiation, and any number of chemicals/toxin exposures.
 
The standard setup for radar (years ago) was to mount the control unit on the dashboard and the emitting unit at the rear of the passenger compartment suspended by a bracket. There were an undue number of brain cancer cases nationwide and the mounting procedure. At our SO, we had the emitting unit on the dash also shooting forward.
 
I would worry more about the microwave radiation being emitted from cell phones and hand held devices before I worry about radar waves from chronographs.

My brother had testicular cancer. No concrete proof, but he attributed it to driving with a cell phone between his legs while it wasn't in use.
 
Last edited:
I would worry more about the microwave radiation being emitted from cell phones and hand held devices before I worry about radar waves from chronographs.

My brother had testicular cancer. No concrete proof, but he attributed it to driving with a cell phone between his legs while it wasn't in use.
BINGO!!! :eek::oops:
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,968
Messages
2,207,512
Members
79,255
Latest member
Mark74
Back
Top