- The next thing he links to, radar safety, is nonexistent
Posted by walter
on May 22, 2020, 2:09 pm, in reply to "For clarity, the SA article was an opinion piece by Moskowitz himself"
|
"Even at higher exposures, there is no reputable indication of carcinogenicity. Long-term studies of radar workers do not show a hint of increased cancer incidence, despite the exceptional levels of RFR to which these subjects are exposed." (Note in passing: His words have a get-out clause - "there is no reputable indication of carcinogenicity". So whatever evidence you find can be declared 'not reputable' - no doubt dismissed by a 'reputable' radar operator, CEO or professionally embedded scientist) His hyperlink doesn't link to a radar study. I had a quick look on Pubmed searching for radar and cancer. I jumped back a few years as a study with the acronym RADAR (not connected with radar itself) was dominating the results. Here ar the first two I came to. Cluster of Testicular Cancer in Police Officers Exposed to Hand-Held Radar https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8213849/?from_term=radar+cancer&from_page=10&from_pos=3 Yes that's what was found. And, Causes of Death Among Belgian Professional Military Radar Operators: A 37-year Retrospective Cohort Study All the cancers looked at were elevated, mostly statistically significantly so. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19035449/?from_term=radar+cancer&from_page=12&from_pos=2 That was what came up from my ten-minute search. |