I am scared we are all being bombarded by a lot of different things in "small" doses that can potentially add up.

I'm not a scientist tho, so I can't really say if it's a detriment to my long term health.

Hasn’t been shown to be so far, at least.

Self driving cars use Lidar or laser in combination with computer vision systems that use the cameras as sensors or eyes as part of their combined awareness system. I'm not aware of radio or microwave transmissions from electric cars except for wirless lock features?

The vision sensors bounce light particles at your car and count how long it takes for them to make the round trip. It determines distance and speed based on keeping the rate of time to return from dispersion as even as possible to safe time of return. If it returns way too quick, braking is needed.

AFAIK Radar is not used for cruise control, its just a speed/throttle lock.

Glad I put the "AFAIK"... TIL. Thanks

Cell phone radiation is a concern because of the close proximity of the radiation source to your body. With automotive radar, it's less of a concern because it's further away from your body, your car will act as a partial shield and the waves directed at you are going to be of a shorter time duration than the typical phone call. Basically radiation becomes more of a threat the closer it is to you, the less shielding there is between you and the source and the longer time duration that you're subjected to it.

Its possible automotive radar is harmful in a significant way, but I'm not aware of any studies of the health impacts.

Cell phone radiation is a concern to people who don't understand it. It is not anywhere powerful enough wattage to have negative effects on the human body. On top of that, it's not ionizing. A banana has more ionizing radiation than a cell phone.

So what about all the studies involving people that have tumours specifically in the side of the head where phones are generally held?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5XkhUGzBs](Easily and readily debunked.)

Saying the experiment is too difficult/practically impossible for us to do a fully scientific standard isn't the same as debunking. The guy literally says that if we'd been using phones for X amount of time then we'd expect to see brain cancer rates go up (to which he states the haven't). They have. Studies in the UK, for example have shown that they've doubled. This video literally studied nothing and just copy pasta'd a bit of government standard talking points, so yeah, not convincing. Its mostly obfuscation and conspiritard patronising for dem easy YouTube $$

You said head tumors, not cancer in general. The video did not address cancer in general, it addressed head tumors. Who's obfuscating things now? If you can point me to a study that claims rising cancer rates are because of cell phone use then I'm all ears.

It debunked usage of the study to support your viewpoint.

I misspoke. The UK study was to do with head tumors. Cancer is a catch all term for tumours. If you need to be that pedantic off the bat though, I don't think I need to have this conversation.

I misread your post and deleted mine. Link to the UK study please.

I don't usually link normie news but I can't be arsed digging deeper right now, so the telegraph will have to do. The general jist of the article is tumour rates have doubled and all the research is in chaos as to the cause. Many studies all contradict each other and most aren't any more or less reliable than the others, as far as I can tell.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/02/mobile-phone-cancer-warning-malignant-brain-tumours-double/

If you want to see the actual study; https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2018/7910754/ However, I does state in the preface that it is only a study into the phenomenon and NOT its causes

Yeah I found this and just wanted to make sure it was the same one.

This doesn't pass the sniff test for me. The rates doubled for the UK since 1995... but cell phone usage and ownership has WAY MORE than doubled since then. In addition, many other developed countries are seeing stable or decreasing brain cancer rates. Example: "New study: no increase in brain cancer across 29 years of mobile use in Australia." If there was a link to cell use then it would have to be something completely unique the UK is doing with regards to cell.

Neither of those studies are close to enough to make any kind of evaluation, so I don't know what makes you so confident, aside from inherent biases you have. Also note that the one you just posted doesn't pass the test put forward in the "debunking" video you just posted. There's not enough data to make any kind of assertion one way or another, the most that can be said is that there are problems that might be connected and we need to figure it the fuck out before its too late. I think its smarter to err on the side of caution in cases like this until you know the actual facts, especially when there are also correlations that back the worries up, albeit only slightly. The universe is an unforgiving bitch the the unwary.

Side note, all of the stuff you've referenced so far are 3-4 years old. Its usually better to use current up to date info with this stuff because science can flip on its ass pretty quickly when new information becomes available. What we believed to be true half a decade ago may not be any more.

Side note, all of the stuff you've referenced so far are 3-4 years old. Its usually better to use current up to date info with this stuff because science can flip on its ass pretty quickly when new information becomes available. What we believed to be true half a decade ago may not be any more.

Side note, all of the stuff you've referenced so far are 3-4 years old. Its usually better to use current up to date info with this stuff because science can flip on its ass pretty quickly when new information becomes available. What we believed to be true half a decade ago may not be any more.

Sorry, reddit 'sperged out for some reason and triple posted that lol

I don't know what makes you so confident, aside from inherent biases you have

I'm an electrical engineer and understand how electromagnetic waves and non-ionizing radiation works.

Yeah, exactly, inherent biases. You work WITH this stuff. You don't study it on a quantum, or even an atomic level. Your bias leads you to believe that you know more than you actually do. Neither one of us are even remotely qualified to have that level of confidence in the subject matter.

No one who studies this stuff on a quantum or atomic level believe that anything with a wave larger than visible light can cause cancer.

You're a little stuck on a singular factor here. There a quite a few variables that could be causing the problems, not just wavelength and ionizing capabilities. Funnily enough, this stuff is a lot more complicated than a basic high school science education (or even college) can work out.

And the people studying those factors have not concluded anything that could support your argument.

Because their findings are mostly inconclusive. It doesn't back you up, either

Funny how the cancer rates of people who live directly under powerlines have also been shown to be higher than those who don't

Source it please. I'm a power engineer and this is utter bullshit.

I'm really not interesting in carrying on a conversation where the other person already has their mind made up on an inconclusive topic

You have a degree in physics or engineering?

But distance, shielding & time....

Phones can go up to 2W (with poor reception).

distance, inverse square.

It depends on the frequency of the radiation.

The microwave radiation emitted by cars isn't trivial. A good radar detector will pick it up.

I misread your post and deleted mine. Link to the UK study please.

Source it please. I'm a power engineer and this is utter bullshit.