Value chain · CLM-1345
Low confidence
The evidence behind this statement is thin, indirect or second-hand. Read it as a lead to check, not as a settled finding.
In plain terms
A 1972 medical paper says sailors on a warship's signal bridge could stand in radar fields up to about five times the US limit of the day. Under the thinking of the time, they would still be below the level expected to harm the eye.
The claim as recorded
A 1972 University of Rochester preventive-medicine paper reports that shipboard and fixed-site surveys found the signal bridge of a ship to be the worst place for exposure above the US standard. It cites measured "exposure opportunities" of 5-15 mW/cm2 from search radars and 23-48 mW/cm2 at the periphery of missile director radars, against the 10 mW/cm2 US standard. It says shore facilities and aircraft have no counterpart. It also states the working assumption that the only effect then expected was lens opacity or cataract, and only for exposure over 100 mW/cm2 for over one hour.
Evidence behind this: T5, a 1972 student course paper. The shipboard figures are cited from two references that the copy does not include, so they are second-hand.
Scope and limits
The measurements are second-hand. References 8 and 9 are not in the copy, so the frequency, duration, averaging and survey method are unknown. "Exposure opportunities" are levels at positions, not doses received. 48 / 10 = 4.8 times the standard is our arithmetic. The 100 mW/cm2 for one hour is the paper's working assumption, not a measured result. A student paper, not peer reviewed. The paper also says Soviet and East European limits are seemingly a factor of 1000 lower than the West (PDF p.5); this is already held at CLM-0150 and CLM-1297 and is not repeated here.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
PDF p.12 / printed -7- (render): "Exposure opportunities have been measured at from 5-15 mW/cm2 for search radars, and from 23-48 mW/cm2 for director radars (8, 9)" (superscript 2 written as 2); the signal bridge is the worst place for "potential exposure above the standard" (paraphrase outside the quote). PDF p.11 / printed -6- (render): cataracts only if exposure is intense and long enough, "(over 100 mW/cm2 for over one hour)"; "We have a standard that is 10 mW/cm2".
Basis: mW/cm2 at personnel positions near shipboard radars
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1345
CLM-1345, Energy Aperture, as of 1972-05.