Effects of Active Radar (radiation) on the human body?
929316
acute hazard associated w/ microwave radiation (radiation for RADAR transmitter) is heating the water in your cells.
1023911
Electromagneticradiation
148430
A ultra-high frequency radio signal is generated by a magnitron transmitter tube.  A burst of signal is transmitted to a parabolic antenna which focuses the signal in one direction, through a hollow tube called a waveguide.  Just like a light is focused in a flashlight!\nFollowing the transmission the radar set goes into receive mode and receives the reflection of the transmitted signal.  The time delay represents the distance away from the transmitting / receiving antenna. The further away the longer it takes the signal to travel.  Now something will only be visable to radar if it is larger than a quarter wavelenth.  What this means to you in practical terms is this something can be so small that it cannot return a signal on some frequency!  So Radars that search for enemy aircraft have multiple frequencies so that they can detect multi-sized targets.  Aircraft when they come at you present a small target, although they are large.  Anyway Hope I have been of some use.\n\nHave a good day.\nIf you need more detail ask in additional details I can answer any specific.\n\nAPS
170484
It would certainly have to be a special one.  Standard audio equipment typlically has a frequency response of up to 20 KHz.  The Ultrasound frequencies range from 1 to 20 MHz - much higher frequency.\n\nUltrasound generally works on the same principles - just at a much higher frequency.  The sensitivity is part of the difficult part - there is a lot of noise.\n\nSonar uses lower frequency ranges - anything from audible (meaning in the ~ 1-2 KHz range - to 50 KHz and 200 Khz (two standard frequencies used).\n\nUltrasound is much more "delicate", using lower amplitude waves as compared to sonar.  Some sonar systems could actually cause hearing damage if you were under water close to the system.  The ultrasound is believed to be 100% safe because of the low amplitudes used.  This also means that ultrasound would be more prone to "noise" as compared to sonar, which can blast long distances and reflect of distant surfaces much like RADAR.  \n\nFinally, on a side note, RADAR works the same way as SONAR, except Radio Waves bouncing off objects are used instead of Sound Waves.
397942
Air and Spaceborne Radar Systems - An Introduction \nBy: Lacomme, P.; Hardange, J-P.; Marchais, J-C.; Normant, E. © 2001 William Andrew Publishing/Noyes; This book focuses on the history, main principles, functions, modes, properties, and specific nature of modern airborne radar.\nhttp://www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID=262\n\n\nRADAR SYSTEMS\nENGINEERING HANDBOOK\nhttps://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/
146474
I checked out those links.  It looks like a bunch of BS to me.  (FWIW, I have a BS in Physics with 33 graduate hours in Physics and a Masters in Science Ed.)\n\nFirst, the facts:  Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) are produced whenever electric charges are in motion, i.e. in all electrical devices.  Light rays are one form of EMF's.  We already know how to protect against those: Wear sunblock.  \n\nBut the EMF's that we're talking about here are radio frequency EMF's, which are much lower on the spectrum, and thus have much less energy.  The EMF's that have caused concern in the medical field are Extremely Low Frequency radio waves such as those produced by power lines.  When electricity is moving down the lines, oscillating back and forth 60 times a second, it sends off these low frequency radio waves.  Some epidemiological studies have associated long term exposure to these ELF radio waves with childhood leukemia.  This is still controversial, however, and the US EPA has not issued any official position about EMF exposure.\nIn any event, with power lines we're talking about constant exposure to relatively high (1 mG) EMF's.  You wouldn't get that from your home computer unless you parked yourself within 4 inches of it for 24 hours a day.  Remember, EMF's drop off in intensity as the square of the distance, e.g. doubling your distance reduces them by a factor of four, tripling the distance reduces them by a factor of nine.\n\nAnyway, the only real way to shield something from low frequency EMF's is to completely enclose it in a metal box or wire mesh.  These things are essentially versions of what physicists call a Faraday Cage.  The idea is that the metallic condutors absorb the EMF's so they don't penetrate the cage.  Radio engineers protect sensitive radio equipment this way.  Security experts do the same thing the other way around.  Radios, TV's and even computers and electric typewriters produce minute radio waves that can be picked up by very sensitive receivers, so to prevent spies from finding out what's going on in sensitive government sites, they shield them in metallic conductors.\n\nThe device your links show clearly does not surround you, so it can't be effective in shielding from EMFs.  All the talk about sympathetic oscillations is true but meaningless.  Any piece of metal does that; that's how antennas work.  An antenna is just a piece of metal; when a vibrating EMF hits the antenna, the electons start to vibrate in synch with it.  IOW, you could get the same result as these devices claim by just wearing a piece of metal on your chest.  The claims about blood flow, "healthy energy states", etc. are just nonsense.
461697
Depends on what sort of electromagnetic waves you mean...\n\nMicrowaves, X-rays etc\n\nStudies are being conducted all the time to test this, but most electromagnetic radiation found in the home has to have been judged safe by govermental bodies, otherwise it wouldn't be sold!!\n\nJust be wary of getting too close to microwaves if you have a heart pacemaker.
276003
i think no because if waves did effect the body then you should use wireless phones or t v antennas or radio
1038725
i once read an article on weapons using noise to cause feelings of nausea and lightheadedness, along with extreme confusion.  theres the flashbang grenade, which doesnt explode but uses  ultrasound to violently shake the water in the eardrum, causing dizziness.  Then theres the highly experimental ring-vortex cannon, which fires a circular sound wave extrememly fast,knocking back adults, but can break bones and cause complete deafness.  But lethal, other than the cannon, i dont think there is anything like that yet.
678624
The greatest threat of radioactivity to life as we know it is damage to the gene pool, the genetic make-up of all living species. Genetic damage from radiation exposure is cumulative over lifetimes and generations.\n\n     Some biomedical effects of radiation are well known. If the exposure is great enough, as it was for 200,000 people in Japan in 1945 and for the clean-up crew in Chernobyl, death can occur immediately or within days.\n\n     Even low-dose exposures are carcinogenic after extended exposure (Gofman 1990). The current generation, the one in utero, and all that follow may suffer cancers, immune system damage, leukemias, miscarriages, stillbirths, deformities, and fertility problems. While many of these health problems are on the rise, individuals cannot prove either increase in "background" radiation or specific exposure as the cause. Only epidemiological evidence is scientifically acceptable to impute cause. Perhaps the most extreme outcome over time would be simply the wholesale cessation of the ability to reproduce. Radiation is a known cause of sterility (Gofman 1981).\n\n     The quality of life of vast numbers of us may be affected by the increased burden of radioactivity we all bear. Many victims of radiation sickness do not show up in the statistics because the kind of symptoms experienced, while disabling, are not as significant as childhood leukemia, or stillbirths, or cancer, or birth defects. Nevertheless, lives of countless people have been affected by radiation exposure.\n\n     Beyond the physiological effects, the mental and emotional consequences of the trauma of exposure to invisible environmental contaminants in general, and radioactivity in particular, has been documented (Vyner 1988). One can only speculate about the spiritual consequences (Schell 1982; Lynch 1995).\n\n     "Background radiation" is a measurement of the accumulated radioactivity in the atmosphere from all sources combined: the sun, the earth, and all man-made explosions, leaks, accidents, purposeful ventings, and dumpings. The term, however, implies naturally occurring radiation is of no real concern. But before the Atomic Age there were no comprehensive measurements of naturally occurring radiation, so the use of this term obscures the reality that we already live in a contaminated world, and that radiation's effects are cumulative and irreversible.
160512
Its no more dangerous than using your home computer.  There are microwaves emmitting from everything from your monitor to your tv to your microwave oven to portable phones.  If you use those things and have no reactions then you will have no reactions to wifi either.
849164
Most often, especially for low speed applications, it is a matrix of carbon fibers in a foam substrate.  At higher speeds, carbon fiber composites can be used, but radar waves can even be reflected from insulating materials (due to the change in dielectric constant between air and the material).  Many of these things reflect very poorly, though.  Coating the front of your car would not likely help with the local police radar -- however.
509957
Electromagnetic radiations or waves are propagating in space. Electromagnetic waves have electric and magnetic components, the electric field and the magnetic field oscillate at right angles to each other and to the direction of propagation.\nAs any other waves e.m. waves are characterized with  frequency (number of vibrations in one second), wavelenght (the distance from one crest to the next crest in the sinus wave) and radiant energy. \nThe range of the e.m. waves is called the electromagnetic spectrum. The highest frecvency and energy / the lowest wavelenght e.m. radiations are gamma rays (are shorter than the size of the nucleus in the atom) then X rays, ultraviolet radiations, visible light, infrared radiation (heat radiation), microwaves, and radiowaves which has the lowest frequency and longest wavelenght (can be several km long). We can see only the visible light, the other e.m. radiations are invisible to us. But they can have an effect on our organism. They have a lot of technical, medical and other use.\n\nfor more see >>\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
250073
According to this site info...there is no need to worry.  You get way more radiation from everything else around you on a daily basis.\n\nhttp://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/healthycomputing/vdt14.html
565906
Electromagnetic radiation travels (propagates) by means of oscillating electromagnetic fields that pass through the air and the vacuum of space equally well, and does not require a medium of transport (such as the aether). When radio waves pass an electrical conductor, the oscillating electric or magnetic field (depending on the shape of the conductor) induces an alternating current and voltage in the conductor. This can be transformed into audio or other signals that carry information. The word 'radio' is used to describe this phenomenon, and television, radio, radar, and cell phone transmissions are all classed as radio frequency emissions.
723047
The "Active Denial System" is pretty cool, and I heard/read somewhere that it may be deployed in Iraq.  It looks like a square radar dish mounted on a HUMVEE and it sends out an electromagnetic beam that penetrates the skin just deep enough to stimulate the pain receptors.  I imagine it feels like you're wearing a full-body TASER suit.  One of it's proposed uses is for riot and crowd control.\n\nYou might look at all those cell phone towers a bit differently now.  ;-P
382319
"You really should not be worried about using a computer because you are pregnant, as long as you are comfortable working, that is, you are not developing physical problems. The computer emits midrange microwave radiation, not x rays. Microwave radiation is nonionizing and, at the exposure that you receive from a computer, is not a risk for birth defects or miscarriage. If you are young and healthy and have no reproductive problems or a family history of reproductive problems, your risk for birth defects is 3% and for miscarriage is 15%. Neither you nor I can change these risks. This is the background risk for women with normal pregnancies and negative family histories."\n\nhttp://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1408.html\n\nAND:\n\n"In the case of a computer monitor (a television), the individual is sitting much closer to the screen. Although no studies have revealed increased health risks from radiation, one should be aware of the possibility of eye strain, back problems, etc from sitting in front of the screen for long periods. In my view, anyone working with computers, whether pregnant or not, should take periodic breaks from the work station."\n\nhttp://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q548.html