Health Risks Associated with Living Near High-Voltage Power Lines

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential health risks associated with living near high-voltage power lines, focusing on the relationship between electromagnetic fields (EMF) and various health outcomes, particularly cancer. Participants explore different studies, anecdotal evidence, and public perceptions regarding this issue.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the existence of conclusive evidence linking high-voltage power lines to health risks, suggesting that claims are based on misrepresentation or public misconception.
  • Others reference various studies indicating a potential association between EMF exposure and childhood leukemia, noting statistical increases in relative risk under certain conditions.
  • One participant mentions that while EMF can light fluorescent tubes, this does not imply a health risk, suggesting that the phenomenon is visually interesting but not harmful.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of living near power lines, including potential dangers from power line failures and the stigma associated with such locations affecting property values.
  • Some participants argue that more research is necessary to clarify the relationship between EMF exposure and health outcomes, acknowledging the complexity of establishing causation.
  • There is a discussion about the strength of the electromagnetic fields involved and their potential biological effects, with some participants suggesting that the fields are strong enough to warrant further investigation.
  • A participant critiques the volume of links and studies shared, labeling some claims as "crackpot science," while another defends the need for more rigorous studies to understand the potential risks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are multiple competing views regarding the health risks associated with living near high-voltage power lines, with some asserting that the risks are exaggerated while others point to studies suggesting a possible link to health issues.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on various studies with differing methodologies and conclusions, the potential for confounding factors in epidemiological research, and the challenge of establishing causation in rare diseases like leukemia.

  • #61
edward said:
Take a closer look most of them are on dirt.

That's true, but the cows are probably more interested in the grass that's growing in the dirt.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #62
edward said:
Take a closer look most of them are on dirt.

You are not serious, are you?

The "paths" you are referring to are photoshopped EMF lines. You take a closer look.
 
  • #63
edward said:
I am not serious now:redface: I've been had by a junglebeast.:smile:

If you thought everything in that pic was real, then I would have thought the shape of the 'paths' would be of much more interest than the fact the cows were using the 'paths' as you would expect them to if they were real, for the same reason a human would.
 
  • #64
edward said:
I've been had by a junglebeast.:smile:

Happens to the best... ;-)
 
  • #65
edward said:
It was meant for the person who asked for info . What part of that don't you guys understand.
The part explains how that makes it ok to spread misinformation. The person who asked wouldn't notice the misinformation, so it is ok to say it? Is that it?

Edward: you really need to address this.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
Very prevocative. But look closely. This picture is a spoof or a fraud.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1710/cowsp.jpg

There is white cow with a black spot in the direction of it's 6:30. This cow plus the spot occurs 7 times in the picture. And never without the telltale spot.

The brown cow is pasted 6 times. The black cow is pasted a dozen times.

I am shocked and offended by repetition. The artist needs more cows!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
Edward -

Try this. Science does not set out to disprove a hypothesis. Science tries to support one. The null hypothesis may be viewed as the same thing as "disproof", or not accepting the given hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is never proven by scientific methods, as the absence of evidence against the null hypothesis does not establish it. In other words, one may either reject, or not reject the null hypothesis; one cannot accept it.
 
  • #68
With regard to the 'Photoshopped' cows, note the direction of the shadows, too.
Fun pic, I think...
 
  • #69
apologies for starting such a heated debate. I only brought up this topic as we were - at that time looking for houses and came across one that was worth more than it was being sold for simply because a number of potential buyers had issues with a nearby distribution tower. Besides providing for an awful view - I wanted to know if this reasoning was substantial.
 
  • #70
No prob. What you have there is a case where perception = reality. People perceive a health effect and aesthetic issue, therefore there is a reality of a lower housing value. So for that, it doesn't really matter if the perceived problem is real or not - you still have to deal with it either way.

A similar issue exists with radon.
 
  • #71
Britney Spears must have grown up near high-voltage power lines.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K