Are Volvo S60s safe?

I believe that Volvo's official response (see below, from their Swedish web site) is reasonable and rational. The magnetic fields reported are but a small fraction of what is considered safe by recognized authorities. Also, they are not at the more dangerous high frequencies used by cell phones and microwave ovens.

There are plenty of real, high-risk concerns related to automobile safety. We must especially pay attention to known major risks such as automobile crash safety. We have an obligation to ourselves to ignore tiny and purely hypothetical risks. While I understand the apparent need of the mass media to make money out of spreading irrational fears, it's important to separate such things from scientifically based and reasonable concerns.

A lot of money has been diverted from useful health research into investigating fears of electromagnetic fields. The extremely low-level magnetic fields reported for Volvos are not worthy of further attention, IMHO. (I have a Ph.D. in radiological physics and own a 2002 S60 AWD.)

Best wishes,

Phil

I do believe that this report is being dismissed too readily. Volvo should consider two important inter-related issues before it retires this situation; safety and reputation.

I feel safe driving my S60 (and my S70) because I understand what the Volvo brand represents. Its clarity of purpose is more defined than almost any other automotive brand in the world. Volvo has developed an obsessive reputation to engineer the safest vehicles on the road. This is not blind customer devotion to a marketing campaign, the way some brands claim to be performance oriented, however the performance engineering is developed in an advertising meeting after the vehicle is produced. It is a reputation that was engineered, marketed and then proven in real life scenarios.

Volvo's reputation has now been challenged and whether the report is true or false, its response must consist of more than text on a website and a press release. It must take steps to re-validate the purchase decision of all S60, V70 and S80 owners. At this stage I do not feel they have done that. I do not feel as secure in my S60 as I did last week. Although I still feel safe in the event of an accident, I now have second thoughts every time I enter into my S60.

I am a reasonable, educated person and I understand scientific findings and research, however, scientific research has been proven wrong in the past and since it is not infallible, we should not be expected to put the lives of our families at risk, or even at the very least we should not have to second guess our purchase decision.

As an owner of two Volvos, I challenge Volvo to rise up to this challenge and invest some time and money in alleviating our fears, because what they fail to invest now, they may very well lose within the next 3 to 4 years. One dollar spent in the present may save millions in future law suits and may guarantee high levels of future sales. My intention was to purchase or lease another Volvo in 3 ½ years, however I am now having second thoughts about that. I do not believe that I am the only one to feel this way.

In conclusion, I do not feel as comfortable in my car as I did last week and while some of you may say that's my problem, I say that my problem will be Volvo's problem. If only 5% of their current owner base feels that way, what does that amount to in lost sales, especially in an ultra-competitive market segment where alternative vehicles are being introduced at record rate? I challenge Volvo to keep me, as a customer by showing me how much they care about me and that will show how much they care about their reputation!

quote:

Originally posted by e_rpm:
I do believe that this report is being dismissed too readily. Volvo should consider two important inter-related issues before it retires this situation; safety and reputation.

I feel safe driving my S60 (and my S70) because I understand what the Volvo brand represents. Its clarity of purpose is more defined than almost any other automotive brand in the world. Volvo has developed an obsessive reputation to engineer the safest vehicles on the road. This is not blind customer devotion to a marketing campaign, the way some brands claim to be performance oriented, however the performance engineering is developed in an advertising meeting after the vehicle is produced. It is a reputation that was engineered, marketed and then proven in real life scenarios.

Volvo's reputation has now been challenged and whether the report is true or false, its response must consist of more than text on a website and a press release. It must take steps to re-validate the purchase decision of all S60, V70 and S80 owners. At this stage I do not feel they have done that. I do not feel as secure in my S60 as I did last week. Although I still feel safe in the event of an accident, I now have second thoughts every time I enter into my S60.

I am a reasonable, educated person and I understand scientific findings and research, however, scientific research has been proven wrong in the past and since it is not infallible, we should not be expected to put the lives of our families at risk, or even at the very least we should not have to second guess our purchase decision.

As an owner of two Volvos, I challenge Volvo to rise up to this challenge and invest some time and money in alleviating our fears, because what they fail to invest now, they may very well lose within the next 3 to 4 years. One dollar spent in the present may save millions in future law suits and may guarantee high levels of future sales. My intention was to purchase or lease another Volvo in 3 ½ years, however I am now having second thoughts about that. I do not believe that I am the only one to feel this way.

In conclusion, I do not feel as comfortable in my car as I did last week and while some of you may say that's my problem, I say that my problem will be Volvo's problem. If only 5% of their current owner base feels that way, what does that amount to in lost sales, especially in an ultra-competitive market segment where alternative vehicles are being introduced at record rate? I challenge Volvo to keep me, as a customer by showing me how much they care about me and that will show how much they care about their reputation!

Click to expand...

Oh good grief. What makes you think the magnetic fields are any less in any other car? Every time the engine is started, current passes through the starter motor and that generates magentic fields. After the starter motor stops, the current stops and presto--no more magnetic field!

Want an eco-friendly electric car? Guess what--the fields will be much stronger because an electric motor is used continuously!!

I find it hard to believe that magnetic fields cause harm. As a matter of fact, when an MRI is done the entire body is subject to huge DC magnetic fields to align the electron spin vectors on all the body's molecules--and by pulsing them one can read out and determine the true 3-D nature of the internal workings of the body (like finding and mapping cancers).

But the mag fields are generated by huge DC solenoids that are then permanently set in a superconducting magnet. Your credit cards are wiped out just walking into the MRI room. Any metal in your pocket is almost ripped through the fabric as it wants to latch onto the MRI machine. The field is so strong the machine has to be placed in a faraday cage to prevent the mag field from interfering with the earth's magnetic field that airliners use to set course headings.

So if the cancer patient is subjected to such intense mag fields using the MRI, then one would expect, from this convoluted logic, that there'd be even more cancer induced into the patients because of the sheer intensity of the mag fields--and that's just not the case.

This is Volvo's version of the "Face on Mars" nightmare for NASA. Every time the orbital data proves it's just a pile of rocks, the naysayers yell "Conspiracy!" and revive the whole thing. It'll never go away, even if someone lands there and takes pictures.

I pity Volvo. This is where the marketing guys earn their keep. But to lose market share on something stupid like this is just a nightmare.

quote:

Originally posted by T5 Dave:
Oh good grief. What makes you think the magnetic fields are any less in any other car? Every time the engine is started, current passes through the starter motor and that generates magentic fields. After the starter motor stops, the current stops and presto--no more magnetic field!

Want an eco-friendly electric car? Guess what--the fields will be much stronger because an electric motor is used continuously!!

I find it hard to believe that magnetic fields cause harm. As a matter of fact, when an MRI is done the entire body is subject to huge DC magnetic fields to align the electron spin vectors on all the body's molecules--and by pulsing them one can read out and determine the true 3-D nature of the internal workings of the body (like finding and mapping cancers).

But the mag fields are generated by huge DC solenoids that are then permanently set in a superconducting magnet. Your credit cards are wiped out just walking into the MRI room. Any metal in your pocket is almost ripped through the fabric as it wants to latch onto the MRI machine. The field is so strong the machine has to be placed in a faraday cage to prevent the mag field from interfering with the earth's magnetic field that airliners use to set course headings.

So if the cancer patient is subjected to such intense mag fields using the MRI, then one would expect, from this convoluted logic, that there'd be even more cancer induced into the patients because of the sheer intensity of the mag fields--and that's just not the case.

This is Volvo's version of the "Face on Mars" nightmare for NASA. Every time the orbital data proves it's just a pile of rocks, the naysayers yell "Conspiracy!" and revive the whole thing. It'll never go away, even if someone lands there and takes pictures.

I pity Volvo. This is where the marketing guys earn their keep. But to lose market share on something stupid like this is just a nightmare.

Click to expand...

Your explanation may be correct and I hope that it is, however despite your knowledge of electromagnetic physics you have forgotten the fundamental axiom that consumer perception is often consumer truth. Just ask Audi about their inadvertent throttles from the 1980s. You will have to forgive us lay people that do not understand the intricacies of electromagnetic physics, but Volvo should not because it is a statistical probability that we comprise a larger segment of the ownership base than you do. Fact must be reconciled with perception and at this stage it is not. As a customer who is not versed in physics, I am not completely satisfied with the method in which Volvo has attempted to alleviate my concerns.

I am not willing to fully trust a company because companies have proven that they do not necessarily put the consumer's safety ahead of the profits, especially when it becomes an inconvenience. I want Volvo to be proactive about this, not reactive.

As a consumer, I expect maximum value for every dollar that I spend, and if I have purchased something that I believe has put my family in danger then it is permissible for me to question the company from which I have purchased the product, and it is its ethical responsibility to satisfy my inquiry - if it want to retain me as a client. By the way, consumer loyalty happens to be very important to all automotive companies. If you ask Volvo how many current customers they want to lose, they would tell you zero. Well if they lose me, then they have not met that goal.

You may continue to state your technical expertise, however all Volvo owners deserve a full and satisfactory explanation and a little more assurance. Others have stated that they have had difficultly finding the Volvo response - not very consumer friendly is it? Let the marketing guys earn their keep!

[This message has been edited by e_rpm (edited 02-20-2002).]

I disagree with this research report. I also feel that Volvo has done enough to rebut the researchers findings. If I am to believe the research, I would like to see some comparison charts with other vehicles they have studied. Why just Volvo? Doesn't Audi put their battery in the back? Haven't they been doing this for a long time? Lets compare the other risks of driving another brand of car to driving a Volvo. And what's with this quote...

'With simple, cheap rectifications, such as placing the battery in the front of the car ... Volvo could have reduced the voltage field. Despite the fact that the company has known about this since 1997, nothing has been done,'

...Okay, 1997! How did the researchers get their hands on an S60 in 1997? I bought a '99 S70 3 years ago. The battery is in front. My 2001 S60, has the battery in the rear. Hmm... I am surprised to see Volvo put their safety conscious reputation up against balancing and heat issues 2 years after they knew health would be an issue.

Well, let's see. How often are our other everyday habits and materials challenged? Don't eat fruits and veggies. The pesticides are carcinogens. What about the latest milk controversy? I'd stay away from it. Oh, and your cell phone is going to kill you anyway, why worry about your car? Hey, no need to respond to this post, the electromagnetic field emitted by your 1Ghz PC will overload your body with harmful waves of radiation. That air you breath, Ha! How much of that cancer causing pollution is caused from gas burning automobiles?

How is Volvo going to disprove such a finding in less time than it took for the research to be carried out anyway? Heck, how can you disprove the unproven. By the time they find something, we might be 2 car generations removed from our S60's. We may be in an electric vehicle, which makes the electromagnetic emissions from our old S60's seem irrelevant.

I hope that this research report doesn't effect any future Volvo customer's decisions to stay with Volvo. Volvo shouldn't have to confute such an irresponsible report. How can you attack one car company and not the other? Something smells fishy to me. Let's cut Volvo some slack. They have earned it. Until they can confirm these findings, I'll take my chances in a Volvo in a heartbeat. Anyway, happy driving. JMHO.

Yaffin

Consumer paranoia is incredible, and it shows the sad state of fear many people live in. Most of this is easily touched off by the media. If they reported that Volvo alloy wheels shattered more often than any other make (even if it only happens once in 10 million wheels) some portion of the population would stop buying Volvos unless Volvo spent lots of money to prove this absurdity wrong. Most "scientific" reports today, even from Universities, are paid for by foundations and corporations. The ability to damage your competitors with this rubbish is incredible. Is there a larger magnetic field generated with a battery in the trunk -- yes! Is this significant -- think of raising the ocean level with a raindrop.

There are inherent risks in everything we do. By sheilding this tiny tiny magnetic field, they will probably increase the risk (ever so slightly) of something on the undercarriage catching fire. By putting the battery up front, they will change the weight balance of the car thus increasing the likelyhood (ever so slightly) of causing an accident during evasive manuevers. There is no such thing as no risk. The risk of 10 microTesla (for those of us who know) is so small I wouldn't trade it for any other risk I can think of.

Volvo's marketing department has to water down their responses to attempt to not offend anyone, but seeing as how I'm not officially tied in with Volvo, let me ask a question:

Did it ever dawn on you that electricity and magnetic fields have been around us for over 100 years? Did you know you can't have one without the other? When current flows, a magnetic field is produced around the wire. When magentic lines cut through a wire winding, current is produced (That's how a generator works.)

If there was a correlation between magnetic fields and cancers don't you think it would have manifested itself a long time ago in the industries that rely on intense mag fields, like power generation plants? Wouldn't those workers have had massive health problems by now?

Look at Johns Manville, the company that made asbestos products. They went bankrupt because the product they mined was harmful and caused its workers harm, specifically lung cancers and diseases. OK, there was a direct correlation between the mining of the asbestos fiber (aerating the fiber) and the disease as the fiber was breathed into the miner's lungs.

Why has there been no such equivalent in the industries that use high density magnetic fields? If the correlation between mag fields and cancer is true, then the nurses working around the MRI machines day in and day out for the last 15 years should have 100 bowling-ball sized tumors over their entire bodies by now. Guess what--I haven't heard of any--have you?

Could it be that mag fields really are harmless? Could it be the Swedish tabloids were just bored and drummed up a bogus story about magnetic just to scare folks and sell newspapers?

I tell you what--sell your car and walk. Don't even bother to buy another because all the cars have magnetic fields--every time you start the car the starter motor generates magnetic fields--and GASP-- current flows through the ignition wires and generates magnetic fields{Oh my God you're gonna die!!!}

To the guy who wants to dump his S60 because his wife is pregnant--tell her you're going to sell the car and have her walk to the hospital when she's due--and better hope she never has an ectopic pregnacy because she'll be in a lot worse shape by the time they get her to the hospital in their little red wagon because they were too afraid to take a car for fear of the mag fields.

Hey, it's your choice. You can take your bike or walk, or even take a horse. (Word of advice on the horse, though--get a good trail animal because I had one that would spook at every gnat-sized spider it saw--and believe me, being exposed to mag fields is a lot tamer than a concussion after you've been thrown!!)

[This message has been edited by T5 Dave (edited 02-19-2002).]

[This message has been edited by T5 Dave (edited 02-19-2002).]

To the guy T5 Dave,
Who do not know we live in magnetic field?
We all know we live in the magnetic field.
Have you ever talked to anyone at volvo?
Did you even read the article?
I talked to a guy at the customer service.
Guess what!
He could not even answer whether this car is safe for pregnant woman.
When I asked him that question, he cauld not say "yes".
He could not even tell me, the car is okay to drive.
In addition, if this was problem at all, it wouldn't be on the newspaper.
Hey dude,
Before you right something, think about why this is an issue. PLEASE, think before you right.
You stay with your volvo, if anything happened to your wife or your kids, you made that decision. DO NOT BLAME VOLVO! Again, it would happen because of your decision. I am gonna buy Mercedes, why?
At least, Mercdes PASSED.
I think you bought T5. If you know anything about the car, why did you buy T5?
2.4T is a lot better than T5. Why? ask your salesman. If you drive 2.4T, you will know why it is better than T5.

[This message has been edited by ypark (edited 02-19-2002).]

ypark

I respect your opinion but... First of all, the gentleman in customer service you talked to, he is just that, in customer service. I don't know about you, or anyone else on this board, but I sure wouldn't take my wife to customer service for questions about pregnancy. Maybe you can ask him if he can guarantee you won't get skin cancer from stepping out in the sun for a few minutes each day.

Second of all, your salesman is absolutely correct, the 2.4T is the better engine. Why? Because it offers the most value for the money. But if a customer wants a fast car...well, I'd put either of my stock T5's against a standard 2.4T any day. Why did I get the T5? Not because I don't know anything about cars. But, because I wanted it, and I had the money. Am I happy? Absolutely!!!

Third, I hope you don't put too much confidence in your car salesman. He is just that, a salesman. Perhaps he thought it might be easier for you to get into a 2.4T. Thus making a sale. Isn't that the point?

Fourth, think about what you write. Maybe you should stop short of criticizing others in this forum for their opinions. Your post didn't offer an opinion; it attacked another person's.

I have plenty of confidence in Volvo. If the problem turns out to have basis, then they will fix it. In the meantime enjoy your Mercedes. It is a wonderful car. I am still very fond of my old one. Oh, and ask your Mercedes salesman if he can guarantee the proper functionality of the seatbelt (shoulder harness) in a 1998 CLK Cabriolet. Or, maybe he can guarantee your 2000 SL or C class won't catch fire. Can you say, "Recall"? Cars are marvels of engineering, large complex machines, and they can all be dangerous. Just because it passed one test doesn't make it fail-safe.

Have a nice day.

Yaffin

Yaffin,

I'm ypark's wife.
He didn't mean to attack someone.
He and I am not American, so we can't explain ourselves enough.
Anyway, If his post seemed to attack someone, that may be wrong.
However, when I read someone's opinion against myhusband in here, I also feel like...he is attacked.
We got the fact my husband's friends from our country.
The friends knew the fact from news and newspaper.
Even though they don't have Volvo, they could knew the fact before us.

While we were driving the car, we loved it.
However, suddenly we found out that the car isn't safe.
First when We knew the fact, We were worried about Volvo.
However, after we called Volvo, we could not help being upset because of their response.
They didn't give us any information about the fact, and Just said, "wait."
If there is considered uncertainly around the issue, we can't help being threatened by the fact that high microtesla's level could cause child miscarriages and leukemia.
I think that when we called Volvo, they had to show us something like a little respect or their effort.
However, they didn't.
That's why we are disappionted in the car and Volvo.
As you said, I hope we don't need to post anything in here anymore.
I have to say just one more.
You can get misunderstanding from my husband's post.
My husband, he does not put too much confidence in any car salesman.
Whenever he get a car, he makes his own decision after he does test driving and research about the car.

I found a related article in www.autonews.com that discusses Volvo's action relating to the safety issues with the magnetic fields. Note that the article refers to the exact issue that I have been discussing in this forum. Although Volvo maintains that the fields are not harmful, they state that; "For us this is not a safety-related question, we act on customers' worries... we don't want to be mixed in a discussion like this,"

This is precisely how a company that want to retain loyal customers should respond.

__________

Volvo plans model changes due to health worries

Reuters / February 20, 2002

STOCKHOLM -- Volvo Car Corp., known for its safety-conscious luxury sedans, plans technical changes in three of its models due to worries that the electromagnetic fields in these cars may pose a health hazard.

Volvo Car, owned by U.S. Ford Motor Corp., said on Wednesday it had been contacted by a couple of hundred owners of its S60, V70 and S80 models after Sweden's biggest car magazine Vi Bilagare last week published a study showing the electromagnetic fields in these cares were exceptionally high.

Volvo Car said there was no evidence that the electromagnetic fields, which subjected the driver to up to 12-18 microtesla, were harmful. But in three months it would devise a way to build the models to reduce these fields to a 10 times lower level.

A microtesla is a unit measuring magnetic field strength. A normal level in Swedish apartments is 0.1 microtesla, but at the workplace the level may be twice that due to electronic appliances such as computers, according to Vi Bilagare.

The magazine said levels above 0.2 microtesla may possibly be harmful especially to children and pregnant women.

"We will investigate as quickly as possible about what we can do in production," Volvo Car spokesman Lennart Strom told Reuters, adding changes would be made in factories in Sweden and Belgium.

While Volvo disputed that the fields were harmful, it was nonetheless concerned about owners' worries.

"For us this is not a safety-related question, we act on customers' worries... we don't want to be mixed in a discussion like this," he said.

FIELDS NOT HARMFUL

Current owners of the three models would have to pay a couple of thousand Swedish crowns (around $190) for modifying their cars, but prices of new autos would not rise due to the changes made in the manufacturing process, Strom said.

Volvo did not dispute the findings of the Vi Bilagare study but said the magnetic fields in its cars were clearly below the safety levels which the European Union is currently setting for cars.

More than half a million S60, V70 and S80 models have been sold worldwide to date.

Volvo cars are considered a potential engine for growth for Ford, the world's second-biggest car maker.

Sweden's Volvo AB sold the car business to Ford in 1999, and now focuses on truck manufacturing.

Copyright 2002 Reuters Limited. Click HERE for restrictions