Walking in front of weather radar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: GREECE
Age: 46
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walking in front of weather radar
In two occasions I have walked in front of the weather radar of a B737 (EFIS) when it was left on. Both occasions lasted about 20 seconds and my head was about 10 cm (4inches) away. Is there any cancer risk?
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do it every day for the next 50 years and you may develop some risk of headaches.
Seriously though, why was it switched on, on the ground? If it was for maintenance you shouldn't have been in front of it and if so why did you walk so close to it? It just seems a very silly thing to do.
On a one off basis there is little or no chance of anything happening to you, but on a very regular basis you would be asking for trouble.
Seriously though, why was it switched on, on the ground? If it was for maintenance you shouldn't have been in front of it and if so why did you walk so close to it? It just seems a very silly thing to do.
On a one off basis there is little or no chance of anything happening to you, but on a very regular basis you would be asking for trouble.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: GREECE
Age: 46
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, I was doing walk around when it happend. The previous flight crew forgot to turn it off.
If you stand one meter away from the radar. How many percent is the radiation above the acceptable limits?
If you stand one meter away from the radar. How many percent is the radiation above the acceptable limits?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Between CJ610-8As turbojet
Posts: 5,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did your head switched on like a light bulb?
Joke apart, for only one time, I think you have to stay quiete, no problem, but for more informations you can also ask to doctor who makes X-ray plates reporting the power of radar (if you know it).
Joke apart, for only one time, I think you have to stay quiete, no problem, but for more informations you can also ask to doctor who makes X-ray plates reporting the power of radar (if you know it).
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Land of the Raj
Age: 69
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to see how much power is radiating from the scanner, take a neon tube in one hand and stand in front of the scanner in transmit, a real eye opener. Used to do this in the hangar when I was an engineer, always made the arabs run like the clappers...
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no danger at all with modern, low powered radars. See Radiation Hazards at
http://kmtrainingteam.com/_pdf%20fil...%20Rev%201.pdf
http://kmtrainingteam.com/_pdf%20fil...%20Rev%201.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Land of the Raj
Age: 69
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was rumoured that you could get the benefit of temporary sterilization by standing in front of the radar in transmit for 10 to 20 minutes, I do know of a few line guys who would do this on a Friday to make the weekend "rubber free" so to speak. I seem to remember some research that was carried out near where I live in Texas, below is the abstract from the tests.
Abstract
As a follow-up to the pilot study of semen quality of soldiers with various military assignments a larger, more complete study was conducted. Soldiers were recruited at Fort Hood, Texas. Thirty-three men were exposed to radar as part of their duty assignment in the Signal Corps, 57 men were involved with firing the 155 mm howitzer (potential lead exposure), and 103 soldiers had neither lead nor radar exposure and served as the comparison control group. Both serum and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone and serum, salivary, and urine testosterone levels were determined in all men. A complete semen analysis was conducted on each soldier. For statistical analysis, the primary study variables were: sperm concentration, sperm/ejaculate, semen volume, percent normal morphology, percent motile, percent viable (both vital stain and hypoosmotic swelling), curvilinear velocity, straight-line velocity, linearity, sperm head length, width, area, and perimeter. Variables were adjusted for significant confounders (e.g., abstinence, sample age, race). No statistical differences (P < 0.05) were observed in any measurement. While these results are in agreement with two previous studies assessing soldiers firing the 155-mm howitzer, they contradict our previous report indicating that radar exposure caused a significant decrease in sperm numbers. A possible explanation is that the radar exposure in this study was that used in Signal Corps operations while the men in the previous study were using different radar as part of military intelligence operations. The data presented here in men firing the 155-mm howitzer combined with the results from the previous studies confirms that there are no deficits in semen quality in these men. The contradiction between the results of the radar exposure studies indicates that more data are needed to evaluate the relationship of military radar and male reproductive health.
Abstract
As a follow-up to the pilot study of semen quality of soldiers with various military assignments a larger, more complete study was conducted. Soldiers were recruited at Fort Hood, Texas. Thirty-three men were exposed to radar as part of their duty assignment in the Signal Corps, 57 men were involved with firing the 155 mm howitzer (potential lead exposure), and 103 soldiers had neither lead nor radar exposure and served as the comparison control group. Both serum and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone and serum, salivary, and urine testosterone levels were determined in all men. A complete semen analysis was conducted on each soldier. For statistical analysis, the primary study variables were: sperm concentration, sperm/ejaculate, semen volume, percent normal morphology, percent motile, percent viable (both vital stain and hypoosmotic swelling), curvilinear velocity, straight-line velocity, linearity, sperm head length, width, area, and perimeter. Variables were adjusted for significant confounders (e.g., abstinence, sample age, race). No statistical differences (P < 0.05) were observed in any measurement. While these results are in agreement with two previous studies assessing soldiers firing the 155-mm howitzer, they contradict our previous report indicating that radar exposure caused a significant decrease in sperm numbers. A possible explanation is that the radar exposure in this study was that used in Signal Corps operations while the men in the previous study were using different radar as part of military intelligence operations. The data presented here in men firing the 155-mm howitzer combined with the results from the previous studies confirms that there are no deficits in semen quality in these men. The contradiction between the results of the radar exposure studies indicates that more data are needed to evaluate the relationship of military radar and male reproductive health.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Land of the Raj
Age: 69
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right Mr Hat, I never did partake although lost my right lung to cancer later on in life. We used to laugh about it at the time but always had a doubt about long term effects, once saw the effects of a radiation burn in the lab and always stood back after that. The neon tube trick is so funny though...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The radar produces a narrow pencil-like beam that sweeps side to side (as I'm sure you're aware). If you were physically standing below the radar head most of the radiation may have missed you altogether.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Land of the Raj
Age: 69
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true 250 of some of today's modern radars, but the ARI 23 I am familiar with had a fan mode which could be scanned vertically or horizontally as well as a pencil beam.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: GREECE
Age: 46
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, and I am 6`7 (197cm) tall so I believe that the radar did nuke my brain. Anyway my head is not glowing in the dark and my nuts did not fall off....yet 
I found out who forgot the radar on ground and I am going to have a talk with him.
I found out who forgot the radar on ground and I am going to have a talk with him.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if it makes you feel any better although your head was only 10cm from the radome, the radar itself is further back inside so you weren't quite so close in reality. Also, for some of those 20 seconds you were standing infront it may have been looking in the opposite direction left/right. Often the radar is tiled up on the ground which may have helped too.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Know quite a few pilots that have been diagnosed with testicular cancer. Anyone got any info or stats?
Can a wx radar on a baron if poorly maintained radiate the pilot in the cockpit?
Can a wx radar on a baron if poorly maintained radiate the pilot in the cockpit?
