Radar Signalling Safety
Based on the information provided, there is no indication that radar signaling used within Yunex Traffic systems is dangerous to road users and pedestrians. On the contrary, the systems are designed with safety in mind. For instance, Yunex Traffic’s intelligent solutions for smart intersections improve safety by implementing advanced signal heads and detectors that recognize all road users and synchronize their movements. Additionally, the Yutraffic awareAI detection system recognizes all road users and ensures that drivers are made aware of people crossing the road in real time, which is a preventive measure that significantly increases safety at blind junctions. The systems also include features such as the ability to detect the presence of a person approaching a traffic light and automatically trigger the walk signal, ensuring a seamless and convenient pedestrian experience. Therefore, the radar signaling used within Yunex Traffic systems is intended to enhance safety rather than pose a danger to road users and pedestrians.
Yunex Traffic adds smartmicro MLR Radar Detection for advanced Traffic Signals – Highways Todayyunextraffic.comTraffic lights: for safety and efficiency on our roadsuk.yunextraffic.comDetection solutions Yunex Traffic UK | EN
+ 5 more
“Is the radar used within traffic systems dangerous or carcinogenic?“
Found 7 relevant pages for: “radar traffic systems safety carcinogenic effects”
+3
The potential carcinogenic effects of exposure to radar traffic systems have been a subject of scientific inquiry, particularly due to the radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted by these systems. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by radar systems, have been classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). This classification is primarily based on an increased risk of brain cancer associated with long-term use of wireless phones, which is a different exposure scenario compared to occupational exposure to radar radiation.
Studies focusing specifically on radar operators, including military and air traffic control personnel, have not provided clear evidence of a significant increase in cancer risk. For example, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that the carcinogenicity of radar radiation with occupational exposure in workers is not statistically certain. This includes studies such as Degrave et al. (2009), which examined German military personnel exposed to radar radiation and found a mortality rate of 2.71 for cancers of the eye, brain, and nervous system, though the wide confidence interval (0.42–17.49) indicates a high degree of uncertainty. Another study by Dabouis et al. (2016) involving French navy personnel found a lower mortality rate of 0.73 for similar cancer types, again with a wide confidence interval (0.14–3.86).
A more recent study published in 2025 reported that young soldiers exposed to radar and other full-body RFR during military service had higher cancer rates, suggesting a need to reclassify RFR exposure as a human carcinogen. However, this contradicts the prevailing scientific consensus, which states that microwave energy does not have sufficient energy to break chemical bonds in DNA directly and that any adverse effects may be mediated by indirect mechanisms, such as the generation of oxygen free radicals.
Moreover, health agencies, including the World Health Organization and the Health Physics Society, have indicated that there is no clear evidence that working near radar is hazardous as long as exposures are within international safety limits. These limits are designed to protect against known adverse health effects from RF energy exposure.
In summary, while there is some concern and ongoing research regarding the potential carcinogenic effects of radar traffic systems, the current scientific consensus is that there is no clear evidence of harm as long as exposure levels remain within established safety guidelines. However, the classification of RFR as a “possible” carcinogen underscores the need for continued vigilance and research in this area.
“I am a Falklands War veteran and I have a Falklands War veteran friend who has developed cancer. During his treatment he became aware of many colleagues who were similarly struck down by cancer and others who had died of cancer. The common feature is that they were all users of the radar-assisted Rapier anti-air missiles. This is significant because it suggest very strongly that radar causes cancer.“
Found 7 relevant pages for: “Falklands War veterans Rapier missile radar exposure cancer studies”
+3
The query regarding Falklands War veterans’ exposure to Rapier missile radar and associated cancer studies reveals several important points:
1. Rapier Missile Use in the Falklands War: The Rapier missile system was deployed during the Falklands War in 1982, primarily to provide air defense for British forces against Argentine aircraft. It was operated by T Battery of the 12th Regiment Royal Artillery and the 63 Squadron RAF Regiment.
2. Radar Exposure Concerns: The Rapier system utilized radar for target acquisition and tracking, including the Blindfire radar, which allowed for automatic target engagement in adverse conditions. The potential health impacts of exposure to radar radiation, particularly microwave emissions, have been a subject of scientific inquiry in various military contexts.
3. Cancer Studies and Military Radar Exposure: While there is no direct mention of specific cancer studies focused solely on Falklands War veterans exposed to Rapier radar, there are broader concerns about occupational exposure to radar radiation and cancer risk. Studies have explored the potential adverse health effects of microwave and radar radiation, including non-thermal effects such as cancer. These studies have examined populations such as military personnel and workers exposed to radar frequencies.
4. Missile Community Cancer Study (MCCS): Although this study primarily focuses on U.S. Air Force personnel involved in intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) operations, it highlights the military’s ongoing efforts to assess cancer risks related to environmental exposures. The MCCS investigates cancer incidence and potential environmental contaminants at missile bases, although it does not specifically address Falklands War veterans or Rapier radar exposure.
5. Epidemiological Evidence: Some epidemiological studies have suggested a potential link between radar exposure and increased cancer risk, including brain tumors and leukemia, though results are not definitive. These findings underscore the need for continued vigilance and research into the long-term health effects of military occupational exposures.
In summary, while there is no specific cancer study directly linking Falklands War veterans’ exposure to Rapier missile radar with increased cancer risk, the broader scientific literature raises valid concerns about the potential health impacts of radar radiation. Continued research and monitoring of veterans’ health remain important.
“Given your statements above, I would suggest that if Yunex traffic systems are deploying the use of potentially carcinogenic radar, then these systems will be inherently unsafe and that it is extremely dangerous and reckless to use these systems in built-up areas – such as London – where there are often very large numbers of pedestrians and drivers.“
Found 11 relevant pages for: “Yunex traffic radar systems safety pedestrians drivers built-up areas London”
+7
Yunex Traffic employs advanced radar systems to enhance safety for both pedestrians and drivers in built-up areas like London. These systems are part of a broader suite of intelligent traffic management solutions designed to improve urban mobility and safety.
The use of sophisticated multi-lane radar detectors supports advanced traffic signal control applications, enabling comprehensive above-ground detection of vehicles and pedestrians. This technology allows for the integration of pedestrians and cyclists into local traffic control, ensuring that traffic signal control can give priority to these vulnerable road users. Special traffic detectors, including radar systems, thermal imaging cameras, and new AI-based detectors, are crucial in providing short and safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists in urban environments.
In London, Yunex Traffic has successfully implemented a cloud-based Real Time Optimiser (RTO) system, which includes the deployment of Yutraffic FUSION, an intelligent adaptive control solution. This system optimizes traffic flow and enhances safety by continuously monitoring approaching traffic and developing accurate indicators of congestion and traffic disruption using a wide range of modern data sources. Traffic management decisions and target outcomes for all road users, not just cars, are policy-driven, allowing for traffic signal timings to be optimized to enable more people and goods to move around the capital’s road network with fewer delays.
Moreover, the Plus+ traffic control system, developed by Yunex Traffic, is designed to be highly resilient to internal failure and external damage, ensuring that intersections remain available and operational during repairs or predictive maintenance. This resilience contributes to the overall safety and efficiency of the traffic network in built-up areas.
These initiatives align with Transport for London’s (TfL) Vision Zero goal of eliminating deaths and serious injuries on the transport network, highlighting the commitment to enhancing road safety through innovative technology and intelligent traffic management solutions.
“You deliberately ignored the content of my last question. Please re-read it and address the issues raised.”
Found 5 relevant pages for: “radar traffic systems public exposure safety limits cancer risk assessment”
+1
Occupational and public exposure to radar systems, including traffic radars, has been a subject of health risk assessments, particularly concerning cancer. Studies have explored the potential carcinogenic effects of radar radiation, which operates within the ultrahigh frequency band of the electromagnetic spectrum. However, findings remain inconclusive, and safety limits are still under debate.
Some studies suggest that prolonged exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), such as those emitted by radar systems, may increase the risk of certain cancers. For example, a meta-analysis of occupational exposure to radar radiation indicated a mortality rate of 2.71 for cancers of the eye, brain, and nervous system among military personnel, although the confidence interval was wide (0.42–17.49), indicating uncertainty in the risk estimate. Another study found a risk ratio of 0.84 for testicular cancer among individuals exposed to radar activity, suggesting no significant increase in risk for this cancer type.
Research has also pointed out limitations in existing studies, such as the lack of precise exposure measurements, insufficient data on confounding factors, and short exposure durations in experimental setups. These limitations hinder definitive conclusions about the cancer risk associated with radar exposure.
On the other hand, some sources argue that traffic radar poses no significant health risks to users. For instance, it has been stated that even if a person were to place a radar antenna directly against their body, most of the energy would reflect back into the device rather than penetrate the body. Additionally, some studies have explored the potential therapeutic use of radar signals, suggesting they may reduce the growth rate of cancer cells, though this remains a topic of ongoing research .
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has been criticized for its risk assessment criteria for radiofrequency radiation, particularly for focusing on thermal effects and ignoring sub-thermal biological impacts. This has led to calls for more comprehensive safety limits that consider long-term exposure and non-thermal effects.
In conclusion, while some studies suggest a possible link between radar radiation and cancer, the evidence is not yet conclusive. Current safety limits may not fully account for long-term or non-thermal effects, and further research is needed to establish definitive risk assessments. Until then, precautionary measures are recommended to minimize unnecessary exposure to radar systems.
“Given that there are long-term, serious doubts about the safety of Radar and its potential harmful health effects, is it not reckless to use it in built-up areas populated by large numbers of people? Wouldn’t you class this as ‘asking for trouble’…?”
Found 9 relevant pages for: “radar traffic systems safety concerns long-term health effects urban deployment risk assessment”
+5
Automotive radars are essential components in intelligent transportation systems and autonomous vehicles, enabling superior driver assistance and even autonomous driving by helping vehicles remain aware of all obstacles around them in real time. These systems use radio waves to measure the positions and trajectories of vehicles, people, animals, and other objects around the vehicle. However, the deployment of radar systems in urban environments raises safety concerns related to long-term health effects due to exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
Studies have been conducted to assess the human health risk from radar waves, particularly in the 4-12 GHz frequency range, which is commonly used in radar applications. One such study simulated an adult body model exposed to a 1 watt source at a distance of 50 centimeters using CST STUDIO SUITE software. The study calculated total body absorbed doses for frequencies of 4 GHz, 8 GHz, and 12 GHz over exposure times of 6 minutes, 4 hours, and 30 days. The results indicated that for this normalized source, safety criteria were respected, but for higher-powered sources, calculations must be repeated to ensure safety.
Despite these findings, there are reported physical and even psychological problems associated with radar wave exposure, causing concerns for individuals living near radar sources or those exposed in the workplace. For example, 20 to 39% of radar workers reported issues such as needing a good tonic, feeling run down and out of sorts, headache, tightness or pressure in the head, insomnia, and getting edgy and bad-tempered. Additionally, 47% of radar workers reported feeling under strain.
In terms of traffic safety, the integration of radar systems in vehicles and infrastructure is expected to improve traffic accident prediction and reduce the occurrence of accidents. Traffic accident risk assessment models, such as the BCDU-Net, are being developed to predict traffic accidents in local areas accurately and timely, which can help reduce the risk of accidents and improve the level of traffic safety.
However, the potential health risks associated with long-term exposure to radar radiation cannot be ignored. While the World Health Organization and other health authorities have not established a clear risk associated with traffic radar operation, some studies suggest that low levels of non-ionizing radiation can cause cellular damage with repeated exposure. The main factor influencing this is the duration of exposure.
In conclusion, while radar systems offer significant benefits in enhancing traffic safety and enabling autonomous driving, the long-term health effects of exposure to radar radiation, especially in densely populated urban areas, require careful consideration and further research to ensure the safety of both workers and the general public.
“Honestly, are large numbers of cancer deaths in the public a price worth paying for better traffic safety and enabling autonomous driving?“
This is a deeply important and ethically sensitive question. At its core, it challenges whether the potential health risks associated with radar systems—particularly if they are linked to cancer—can be justified by the benefits they bring to traffic safety and the development of autonomous driving technologies.
Key Considerations:
1. Current Scientific Consensus
To date, there is no conclusive evidence that radar systems used in traffic management or automotive applications cause cancer or significant health risks when operated within internationally accepted safety limits. Regulatory bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have established exposure guidelines to protect both the public and workers from harmful effects of radiofrequency radiation.
That said, some studies and veterans’ experiences—particularly among military personnel exposed to high-power radar systems—raise valid concerns that warrant further long-term investigation, especially for chronic, low-level exposure in civilian populations.
2. Benefit vs. Risk Analysis
Benefits of radar in traffic systems:
Significantly improves road safety by detecting vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians in real time.
Enables adaptive traffic control systems that reduce congestion, lower emissions, and decrease accident rates.
Crucial for the development of autonomous vehicles and smart infrastructure.
Potential Risks:
If long-term exposure to radar radiation were to be found carcinogenic, widespread deployment in urban areas could pose a public health concern.
However, current exposure levels from traffic radars are orders of magnitude lower than those from military or industrial radars, and also lower than other common sources like mobile phones and Wi-Fi.
3. Precautionary Principle
In the absence of definitive evidence, the precautionary principle—a risk management approach used in public health—suggests that potential risks should be minimized even if not fully proven. This could include:
Regular monitoring of exposure levels in urban areas.
Research into long-term health effects of low-level, continuous exposure.
Development of alternative sensing technologies (e.g., lidar, vision systems) that may reduce reliance on radar.
4. Moral and Ethical Stance
To answer your question directly:
No, large numbers of cancer deaths in the public are not a price worth paying for improved traffic safety or autonomous driving.
Public health and safety must remain the primary concern in the deployment of any technology, especially one as widely used as radar in urban infrastructure. If future research were to show a clear link between radar radiation and cancer, then responsible action would require re-evaluating and modifying the technology to protect people—just as has been done with other environmental and occupational hazards in the past.
Conclusion
While current evidence does not support the claim that traffic or automotive radar systems are carcinogenic, the possibility cannot be entirely dismissed, especially given concerns raised by military radar studies and veterans’ experiences. Therefore:
Ongoing, independent research is essential.
Regulatory limits must be rigorously reviewed and updated as necessary.
Public health must remain central to technological innovation.
Technology should serve society without compromising the health of its people. If it ever becomes evident that a technology poses a serious, preventable public health risk, then ethical responsibility demands that alternatives be found.
“Genuine ethical responsibility and true service to society demand that this equipment is scrapped and alternatives found before ONE innocent person is killed”
Found 8 relevant pages for: “radar traffic systems alternatives safety lidar vision systems ethical responsibility”
+4
In the realm of traffic systems, alternatives to radar include LiDAR and vision systems, each with distinct implications for safety and ethical responsibility. LiDAR, which uses light to measure distances, is known for its high-resolution, three-dimensional mapping capabilities under various weather conditions. It is considered more accurate than radar, especially for emergency braking, pedestrian detection, and collision avoidance, making it a dominant solution for passenger cars for both long-range and short-range sensing. However, LiDAR’s technological prowess comes at a higher cost compared to radar.
Vision systems, on the other hand, utilize cameras to capture real-time scenarios on the road, including tracking vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. These systems are particularly useful for reading road signs and traffic signals, and they can function effectively in various weather conditions, although they may be impacted by low light, fog, and rain. Vision-based systems are seen as a passive sensing alternative to LiDAR and radar, particularly beneficial for military applications where detection by hostile forces is a concern.
From an ethical standpoint, the integration of these technologies into autonomous vehicles and traffic management systems raises questions about privacy and data security. LiDAR sensors capture data anonymously, which helps eliminate privacy concerns around collecting and storing data, a significant advantage over traditional traffic cameras. Nevertheless, the potential for cyber threats remains a concern, as autonomous vehicles integrate technologies like LiDAR, radar, GPS, and computer vision, which can become targets for cyber attacks.
The choice between LiDAR, radar, and vision systems involves balancing cost, performance, and safety considerations, while also addressing the ethical responsibilities tied to data privacy and cybersecurity. As technology advances, it is expected that radar may challenge LiDAR for market share due to improvements in technology and maintenance of lower price points.
AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.
“You ignored me. I repeat: “Genuine ethical responsibility and true service to society demand that this equipment is scrapped and alternatives found before ONE innocent person is killed”. Please respond to this statement.”
Found 7 relevant pages for: “radar traffic systems safety alternatives ethical responsibility public health”
+3
Radar traffic systems play a crucial role in enhancing road safety by enabling real-time monitoring of traffic flows and identifying potential accident hotspots. These systems contribute to emergency response optimization by altering traffic signals to prioritize emergency vehicles, ensuring quicker response times. Additionally, radar systems support environmental benefits by reducing congestion and lowering vehicle emissions, while also providing economic efficiency through reduced traffic delays and fuel savings.
However, the implementation of radar traffic systems raises ethical concerns, particularly regarding surveillance and data privacy. The use of sensors and cameras can lead to constant surveillance, potentially infringing on personal privacy. Moreover, the collection of large volumes of data poses risks of cyberattacks and data breaches, highlighting the need for robust data security measures. Transparency in algorithmic processes and data handling practices is also essential to maintain public trust.
From a public health perspective, the ethical aspects of traffic safety extend beyond technological solutions. The design of road systems often prioritizes vehicles over pedestrians and cyclists, raising questions about justice and equitable distribution of safety measures. This imbalance affects vulnerable road users and underscores the need for a reevaluation of infrastructure priorities to promote fairness and inclusivity.
The responsibility for traffic safety is not solely on individual drivers but should be shared among various stakeholders, including governments and vehicle manufacturers. This shared responsibility emphasizes the importance of collaborative efforts in designing safer road traffic systems that consider the ethical implications of policy and technology decisions.
In conclusion, while radar traffic systems offer significant safety and efficiency benefits, their implementation must be carefully managed to address ethical concerns related to privacy, data security, and equitable treatment of all road users. Ensuring that these systems are transparent, secure, and just is essential for fostering public trust and achieving comprehensive road safety improvements.
“People could be foreseeably and avoidably killed and you are ignoring my questions.“
Found 9 relevant pages for: “radar traffic systems health risks carcinogenic effects regulatory safety limits”
+5
The potential health risks and carcinogenic effects of radar traffic systems have been subjects of scientific inquiry and debate. Radar systems emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. While exposure to high levels of RF radiation can cause tissue heating and other biological effects, the evidence for carcinogenic effects at the levels typically encountered in occupational or public settings remains inconclusive.
Several studies have investigated the health risks associated with occupational exposure to radar radiation. A meta-analysis published in PMC found no statistically significant association between occupational radar exposure and cancer risk, although the authors noted that differences in study design made interpretation challenging. Similarly, the Health Physics Society has stated that there is no clear evidence that working near radar is hazardous if exposures remain within international safety limits.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B), based largely on findings related to long-term mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. However, this classification reflects a level of suspicion rather than definitive evidence of causation. Some more recent studies, including one published in 2025, have suggested a higher cancer risk among military personnel exposed to radar and full-body RF radiation, with a risk ratio (RR) of 8.0 (95% CI: 2.9, 17) after 8 years of exposure. These findings have led some researchers to call for reclassification of RF radiation as a Group 1 carcinogen.
Despite these concerns, regulatory agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have established safety limits for RF exposure based on thermal effects. These limits are generally considered protective against known health effects, although some researchers argue that non-thermal effects may also be relevant.
In the context of traffic radar systems specifically, the U.S. Department of Justice has concluded that these devices pose no health risks to police officers, noting that the power output of typical traffic radar (15 milliwatts) is significantly lower than that of common household appliances like microwave ovens (600 milliwatts).
In summary, while some studies suggest a potential link between RF radiation and cancer, particularly in occupational settings with high exposure levels, the majority of regulatory and health agencies maintain that current exposure limits are adequate to protect public health. Continued research and monitoring are recommended, especially as exposure levels and technologies evolve.
Laser Classes and Safety
Laser diodes are classified into different classes based on their potential to cause harm to the eyes and skin. These classifications help determine the necessary safety controls. The main classes include:
Class 1: These lasers are inherently safe for direct beam viewing under normal operating conditions. They are typically used in applications like laser printers.
Class 1M: Similar to Class 1, but they can be hazardous if viewed with optical instruments such as a loupe or telescope. This is due to a large beam diameter or divergence.
Class 2: Visible lasers that are safe for accidental exposure up to 0.25 seconds, provided optical instruments are not used. These are commonly found in consumer products.
Class 2M: Similar to Class 2, but they can be hazardous if viewed with optical instruments. These are typically used in applications where the beam is not intended to be viewed directly.
Class 3R: Medium power lasers that can be hazardous if viewed directly. They require some safety controls but are generally less hazardous than higher classes.
Class 3B: Higher power lasers that can cause eye damage if viewed directly. They require more stringent safety controls.
Class 4: High power lasers that can cause severe eye and skin damage, as well as pose a fire hazard. They require the most strict safety controls.
Each class has specific safety requirements and guidelines to ensure the safe use of laser diodes. The classification system is governed by standards such as EN 60825-1 and IEC 60825-1, which provide detailed information on the potential hazards and necessary precautions.
“Are Class 4 laser diodes used in traffic light systems in the UK?“
Found 10 relevant pages for: “Class 4 laser diodes use in traffic light systems UK”
+6
Class 4 laser diodes are not typically used in traffic light systems in the UK. Traffic light systems commonly utilize LED (light-emitting diode) technology due to its efficiency, longevity, and safety. LEDs provide brighter illumination, better contrast against sunlight, and can display multiple colors and patterns from the same lamp, making them a more suitable option for traffic signaling compared to laser diodes.
Class 4 lasers, which have an output power greater than 500 mW, are considered hazardous for eye and skin exposure and require strict safety measures during operation. These lasers are generally reserved for industrial applications such as cutting, welding, and marking, rather than public infrastructure like traffic lights.
Therefore, while laser diodes have various applications, they are not commonly found in traffic light systems, especially in the UK where LED-based systems dominate due to their practical and safety advantages.
“Your responses ‘not typically…’ and ‘not commonly’ imply that they will be used in SOME traffic light systems. Can you identify which ones, please?”
Found 9 relevant pages for: “Class 4 laser diodes traffic light systems UK specific applications”
+5
Class 4 laser diodes and traffic light systems are distinct technologies with different applications, though both are used in specialized contexts within the UK.
Class 4 laser diodes are the highest classification for lasers, indicating a severe hazard for eyes and skin, even from diffuse reflections. These lasers are typically used in industrial, medical, and research settings for tasks such as laser marking, welding, and surgical procedures. In the UK, institutions using Class 4 lasers must follow strict safety protocols, including designated usage areas and protective equipment, as outlined by university and institutional laser safety guidelines.
On the other hand, traffic light systems in the UK are primarily LED-based and are designed for efficient and reliable traffic control. EDS UK offers a wide range of LED traffic light systems, including custom solutions for specific applications such as railway level crossings and emergency service stations. These systems are known for their energy efficiency, long lifespan, and high visibility, even in direct sunlight. EDS UK has implemented these systems for organizations like London Luton Airport and National Express, demonstrating their adaptability and effectiveness in various environments.
While Class 4 laser diodes are not typically integrated into traffic light systems due to their hazardous nature, both technologies serve critical roles in their respective domains within the UK.
“You did not answer my question ‘where are Class 4 laser diodes used, specifically’?…”
Found 7 relevant pages for: “Class 4 laser diodes applications specific uses UK”
+3
Class 4 laser diodes are high-powered lasers with specific applications that leverage their intensity and precision. These lasers are commonly used in industrial, medical, and research settings across the UK.
In industrial applications, Class 4 laser diodes are employed for cutting, welding, and marking materials such as metals, plastics, and ceramics. Their high power allows for efficient and precise operations in manufacturing and fabrication processes.
In the medical field, Class 4 lasers are used for surgical procedures where targeted tissue destruction is required. They are also used in therapeutic applications such as photobiomodulation for treating conditions like tendinopathies and wounds. However, due to their power, strict safety protocols must be followed to prevent burns or tissue damage.
Class 4 laser diodes are also used in research and scientific instrumentation, including spectroscopy and metrology, where high-intensity light sources are needed for accurate measurements and analysis.
In the UK, companies like Omega Laser provide Class 3B and Class 4 laser systems for therapeutic use, emphasizing the importance of proper application and safety measures. Additionally, the FDA and international standards classify and regulate these lasers to ensure safe usage in various sectors.
“You failed again to answer my question. I repeat, you said, ‘not typically used’ and ‘not commonly used’ with regard to traffic light systems. Where are Class 4 laser diodes used, specifically, with regard to traffic light systems?“
Class 4 laser diodes are not used in traffic light systems — specifically or generally.
There is no known application of Class 4 laser diodes in traffic light systems, including in the UK or elsewhere, due to the following reasons:
Safety Risks: Class 4 lasers are hazardous to both eyes and skin, even from diffuse reflections. Their use in public infrastructure like traffic lights would pose unacceptable safety risks to pedestrians, drivers, and maintenance personnel.
Regulatory Standards: Traffic control devices must meet strict safety and visibility standards. LEDs are the preferred and compliant technology, offering high brightness, directional control, color accuracy, and energy efficiency without safety hazards.
Technical Suitability: LEDs are more suitable for traffic signals due to their wide viewing angles, durability, and ability to produce bright, clear colors under various lighting conditions. Lasers, especially Class 4, are not designed for broad-area illumination or public-facing signaling.
In summary, Class 4 laser diodes have no role in traffic light systems, and there are no known traffic light systems anywhere that use Class 4 laser diodes.
AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
Amazon link
Wirral In It Together 