"Yikes! What are you even talking about? I only wanted a hybrid, not cancer!", you might be thinking to yourself after reading the headline. Well relax, it's probably nothing. But apparently in addition to being a danger to blind pedestrians, the hybrid car is now being looked at askance by some people because of the electromagnetic field (EMF) it produces. Are we serious? Well, no less than the New York Times brought it up in its Sunday edition.

Although we are reminded by the article that many of us use electric blankets and cell phones, some folks were concerned enough about the readings they took on hand-held EMF field-strength testers that they actually sold their hybrids. The maker of a particular tester defended its use for automotive purposes despite the fact that it is set up to measure alternating current (AC) fields as opposed to the direct current (DC) of car systems saying, "Generally, an A.C. meter is accurate in detecting large electromagnetic fields or microwaves." The car manufacturers, Honda and Toyota, were both quick to assure that there is absolutely no danger presented by the fields which are well beneath European guidelines. (There are currently no federal standards in the U.S.). The article didn't mention any health benefits of switching to a zero emissions vehicles. Our health suggestion? (Note: we are bloggers, not doctors) Eat well, exercise and relieve your stress by reading AutoblogGreen every morning.

[Source: New York Times]

Some studies could be stopped before they are even started. Studies like this one, where scientists used mathematical models to figure out "the wave" that is common during sporting events. Others are bound to reach a conclusion that we already knew. Take, for instance, a study on health in London, which shows that by walking and riding your bike more, you will improve your health (and don't forget about this study). We knew that already right? But, just to what extent could your health improve? Here is some real data for you to consider:

A separate paper uses London travel data to identify four archetypal car using groups in London: Claire, a 10 year old girl; Lucy, a 40 year old mother; Tom, a 50 year old man living and working in outer London; and Derek, a 78 year old man. It calculates the increases in physical activity and energy expenditure that would result if they transferred their car journeys to walking, cycling and public transport, with occasional trips by taxi. By doing so, they would expend an average of 139,300 kJ of energy a year, equivalent to an average of 4.5 kg of fat. Lucy would reduce her risk of breast cancer by 25% and increase her life expectancy by between 1 and 2 years, while Tom would enjoy a 20-40% reduction in the risk of premature mortality and around a 30% reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes.

Those are some pretty huge improvements, which is why this is a separate post from the rest of the date I found in the same source article. So, why not get out your walking shoes and take a hike down to the bike store!

[Source: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine via Scientific Blogging]