[bumbada]

Radar data is also an assumption, way weaker than cameras.

Cars radar sensors are not the F22 ones, they are very simple, limited and it is not the sky in which metallic objects are foreign and there is empty space everywhere.

The world on earth surface is full of metallic objects with very complex shapes and reflections everywhere(and you have military safety standards, my uncle got cancer(and died) after working with military radars as an engineer and working so close to them). My uncle could not prove the connection but if thousands of people start getting cancer after those devices are common it will be much easier to prove.

With cameras you have millions of points array for cheap that lets you differentiate things much better than simple radars do.

Imagine that you integrate all the colors that go in a camera to a single color. That is what you have with radar sensors.

[kortex]

Did you mean single pixel? Even with a single color, a camera provides a wealth of information. Radar is not quite a single pixel - there is speed, phase, and timing information - but it's much closer to a single pixel than to a monochrome camera. The driving radar I mean. The kit on used in aerospace sweeps out an area so it's more like a camera in the actual output.

Side note: Sorry about your uncle, but I do wish to point out, radar is non ionizing and extremely unlikely to cause mutation. What is more likely carcinogenic is stuff like degreasers, paints, fluids, and open burn pits the military likes to use.

[firebaze]

If he was a radar technician, and worked close to the radar itself while it was operating, there's quite a chance this causes cancer.

See https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.23988