Health Risks Associated with Living Near High-Voltage Power Lines


by Ian_Brooks
Tags: health, highvoltage, lines, living, power, risks
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#19
May29-09, 08:57 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by edward View Post
As I mentioned earlier the potential hazards of emf have been argued back and forth for years. EMF apparently does have an effect at the cellular and molecular levels.



http://www.pnas.org/content/106/14/5708.abstract

Emphasis mine
.................................... What does this mean. "Aruged back and forth". No, it hasnt. Its been discredited. The End. Stop painting a picture of something that it is not. No one is arguing back and forth. It's a matter of - "it does not exsist you have no evidence", followed by poor studies that all have "no clear link was found'' or "large statistical uncertainties" in their abstracts. Geeeeeeeeee, I wonder why.

Here, you can even use www.sciam.com

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-current-under

No Adverse Health Effects Seen from Residential Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
WASHINGTON -- No clear, convincing evidence exists to show that residential exposures to electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are a threat to human health, a committee of the National Research Council has concluded in a new report. After examining more than 500 studies spanning 17 years of research, the committee said there is no conclusive evidence that electromagnetic fields play a role in the development of cancer, reproductive and developmental abnormalities, or learning and behavioral problems.

"The findings to date do not support claims that electromagnetic fields are harmful to a person's health," said committee chair Charles F. Stevens, professor and investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute of the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Calif. "Research has not shown in any convincing way that electromagnetic fields common in homes can cause health problems, and extensive laboratory tests have not shown that EMFs can damage the cell in a way that is harmful to human health."
Can you please stop saying "its been argued back and forth". You are being dishonest by saying this over, and over again after its been shown to you otherwise.

This is junk science, and not one cent should go into it anymore.
zoobyshoe
zoobyshoe is offline
#20
May29-09, 09:28 PM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,616
Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields disrupt magnetic alignment of ruminants
Abstract

Resting and grazing cattle and deer tend to align their body axes in the geomagnetic North-South direction. The mechanism(s) that underlie this behavior remain unknown...
I have never heard this asserted. Is this some kind of well known, undisputed phenomenon, you see in evidence in any herd of grazing ruminants, or is it more obscure?

A list of ruminants from wikipedia:
cattle, goats, sheep, giraffes, American Bison, European bison, yaks, water buffalo, deer, camels, alpacas, llamas, wildebeest, antelope, pronghorn, and nilgai.
edward
edward is offline
#21
May29-09, 10:24 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 861
Quote Quote by zoobyshoe View Post
I have never heard this asserted. Is this some kind of well known, undisputed phenomenon, you's see in evidence in any herd of grazing ruminants, or is it more obscure?

A list of ruminants from wikipedia:
cattle, goats, sheep, giraffes, American Bison, European bison, yaks, water buffalo, deer, camels, alpacas, llamas, wildebeest, antelope, pronghorn, and nilgai.
The north south alignment of cattle and deer is a recently noticed phenomenon (we don't know everything about everything yet). This was never noticed from the ground for some reason? It was first noticed in satellite pictures of pasture areas once someone actually looked at them.

We demonstrate by means of simple, noninvasive methods (analysis of satellite images, field observations, and measuring “deer beds” in snow) that domestic cattle (n = 8,510 in 308 pastures) across the globe, and grazing and resting red and roe deer (n = 2,974 at 241 localities), align their body axes in roughly a north–south direction. Direct observations of roe deer revealed that animals orient their heads northward when grazing or resting. Amazingly, this ubiquitous phenomenon does not seem to have been noticed by herdsmen, ranchers, or hunters
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13451.full

It had always been thought that cattle faced into the wind and or away from the sun


It was therefore a bit of a surprise when Sabin Begall from the University of Duisberg-Essen, Germany, and her colleagues from the Czech Republic reported that Google Maps show a previously undescribed tendency in cattle: they align their bodies predominantly north–south (or, as the head is not easily distinguishable in the satellite images, perhaps south–north). It is such a surprise, in fact, that other explanations – confounding factors such as wind or sun direction – immediately spring to mind. But, when the best possible account is taken of these by considering prevalent wind directions across the world and measuring sun direction from shadows, they don't explain the observed north–south alignment bias.
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/212/1/iv
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#22
May29-09, 10:30 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Ok, so the cattle don't align north south. Is this affecting their health and giving them cancer? Obviously, not. So why did you bring this up?
TheStatutoryApe
TheStatutoryApe is offline
#23
May29-09, 10:41 PM
TheStatutoryApe's Avatar
P: 1,549
Quote Quote by edward View Post
As I mentioned earlier the potential hazards of emf have been argued back and forth for years. EMF apparently does have an effect at the cellular and molecular levels.



http://www.pnas.org/content/106/14/5708.abstract

Emphasis mine
I'm not sure why this would really lead to the conclusion that there is likely a cellular effect. Or maybe I am misinterpreting "cellular effect" to mean that it actually has the ability to change cells.

Quote Quote by Moonbear View Post
Keep in mind this is the same concept as is used in MRI. If MRIs were causing cancer, I think they'd be a lot less popular as a diagnostic tool.
Aren't X-ray machines still rather popularly in use. Its safe because exposure is brief and minor. The same could be argued for MRIs so I wouldn't really use that as an argument myself.
edward
edward is offline
#24
May29-09, 10:44 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 861
Quote Quote by Cyrus View Post
Ok, so the cattle don't align north south. Is this affecting their health and giving them cancer? Obviously, not. So why did you bring this up?
Only to show that emf can effect an animal. OK so you explain how it effects the animals. No one else seems to know, but you in your infinite wisdom must explain it.

I did not say that emf causes cancer, but I do remember that neither did cigarettes during their first 20 year period of scientific study.
misgfool
misgfool is offline
#25
May29-09, 10:50 PM
P: 95
Quote Quote by Moonbear View Post
There may be epidemiological validity to findings of higher rates of certain cancers among populations living near power lines, but that doesn't mean the power lines are the causation. Usually, because power lines are unsightly, they are undesirable locations for homes, and therefore the property values much lower near them. There are a lot of risk factors associated with low SES, including things like worse healthcare, more common tobacco and alcohol abuse, occupational exposures at blue collar jobs, more obesity, etc.
Isn't it possible to find this out by comparing the results to the general population with same living conditions?
TheStatutoryApe
TheStatutoryApe is offline
#26
May29-09, 11:00 PM
TheStatutoryApe's Avatar
P: 1,549
Quote Quote by misgfool View Post
Isn't it possible to find this out by comparing the results to the general population with same living conditions?
The living conditions will vary from person to person. You could compare to people living in similar urban areas but similar urban areas are likely criss crossed with high voltage power lines.
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#27
May29-09, 11:04 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by edward View Post
Only to show that emf can effect an animal. OK so you explain how it effects the animals. No one else seems to know, but you in your infinite wisdom must explain it.

I did not say that emf causes cancer, but I do remember that neither did cigarettes during their first 20 year period of scientific study.
No, the point of this thread is that EMF gives animals cancer. Start another thread on how animals like to stand around shooting the breeze if thats what you want to discuss. Is not standing in a North South Direction a health risk?

What do I care about cigarettes? Are we talking about them? Please, for the last time. Stop bringing up totally irrelevant points - I dont care to hear about them.
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#28
May29-09, 11:06 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by misgfool View Post
You only told that the effect had not been studied. That does not mean that the effect does not exist.
Are you sure you are reading what I posted. I never said the effect had not been studied. I said, the effect does not exist because studies showed that. Cut out the nonsense or go away.

In a previous post I asked if it was your inablity to accept what I posted. Clearly, this post demonstrates its your unwillingness to accept what I posted. You have the NIH, Bob Park, John W. Farley, and American Physical society (and more) disagreeing with you. You are out on a limb with your misinformed beliefs.
misgfool
misgfool is offline
#29
May29-09, 11:21 PM
P: 95
Quote Quote by Cyrus View Post
Are you sure you are reading what I posted. I never said the effect had not been studied. I said, the effect does not exist because studies showed that. Cut out the nonsense or go away.
I read the 65 page NIH study and it said exactly nothing about it. It should at least say that this effect does not exist. Instead it says absolutely nothing, which is why I'm not convinced.
TheStatutoryApe
TheStatutoryApe is offline
#30
May29-09, 11:49 PM
TheStatutoryApe's Avatar
P: 1,549
Quote Quote by misgfool View Post
I read the 65 page NIH study and it said exactly nothing about it. It should at least say that this effect does not exist. Instead it says absolutely nothing, which is why I'm not convinced.
They can not say that the effect does not exist. They can only relate their information. If perchance it turned out that such an effect does exist they would look rather silly.

Cyrus is simply more willing to go out on a limb and conclusively state that it does not exist. Perhaps he is mistaken and perhaps not.
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#31
May30-09, 12:03 AM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
I'm going to recap what you need to read, in the following order:

Please read this link. ALL of this link. This link is very important. Again, it is very important that you read this link.

[1]http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html

Please note the references and the author who wrote this article as you, read this link.
rootX
rootX is offline
#32
May30-09, 12:07 AM
rootX's Avatar
P: 1,295
In 1995, the American Physical Society (APS) spoke out on the question of power-line EMFs and health effects. The APS policy statement reads, in part: "The scientific literature and the reports of reviews by other panels show no consistent, significant link between cancer and power line fields. While it is impossible to prove that no deleterious health effects occur from exposure to any environmental factor, it is necessary to demonstrate a consistent, significant, and causal relationship before one can conclude that such effects do occur. From this standpoint, the conjectures relating cancer to power line fields have not been scientifically substantiated." (See APS Policy Statement 95.2.)

In 1999 the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NRC) published a review of the evidence from the EMF-RAPID program and concluded: "An earlier Research Council assessment of the available body of information on biological effects of power frequency magnetic fields (NRC 1997) led to the conclusion ‘that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human health hazard. . . .' The new, largely unpublished contributions of the EMF RAPID program are consistent with that conclusion. . . . In view of the negative outcomes of EMF RAPID replication studies, it now appears even less likely that MF's [magnetic fields] in the normal domestic or occupational environment produce important health effects, including cancer." (The NRC reports are accessible by searching for EMF at the NAS Web site.)
Quick google provided this link
http://www.hps.org/hpspublications/a...owerlines.html

I haven't gone through all the thread so someone might have posted this before/
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#33
May30-09, 12:10 AM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Once you are done, I would like you to read THIS link.

[2]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-under

This is the second article, I would like you to read. Again, read this second. Read all of it. Don't skim it - read it.

I want you to google the name of the person interviewed in the writing of this article (I took the liberty of doing this for you below).

http://www.salk.edu/faculty/stevens.html

This article isnt written by some quack. Its by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences.
misgfool
misgfool is offline
#34
May30-09, 12:11 AM
P: 95
Quote Quote by TheStatutoryApe View Post
They can not say that the effect does not exist. They can only relate their information. If perchance it turned out that such an effect does exist they would look rather silly.
Yes, but why can't they make an experiment with rats or something?

I would imagine that the experiment is fairly trivial to make.
misgfool
misgfool is offline
#35
May30-09, 12:19 AM
P: 95
Cyrus, I have read three links of yours and this is the only one even going close to the topic.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-current-under

"Houses near power lines tend to be on large, busy streets in older, poorer neighborhoods. Perhaps some environmental factor, such as pollution levels, is the causative agent, but the other possibilities have not been investigated."
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#36
May30-09, 12:20 AM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by misgfool View Post
Cyrus, I have read three links of yours and this is the only one even going close to the topic.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-current-under

"Houses near power lines tend to be on large, busy streets in older, poorer neighborhoods. Perhaps some environmental factor, such as pollution levels, is the causative agent, but the other possibilities have not been investigated."
You clearly did not read the first link I told you to. Go back and read it again. Three times, four times, five times... until it sinks in.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Wireless internet opposed due to health risks General Discussion 22
High voltage electromachinery - the key to absurdly high power to weight ratios? Mechanical Engineering 12
Cell Phone Health Risks - A New Plague? General Physics 0
Electricity from high voltage lines Electrical Engineering 2
High voltage lines Electrical Engineering 6