Any problem in buying a house near elec. pylon?

Need_More_Money_2

wymondham wrote: »

I personally would not buy a house by a pylon. Whatever the research who can tell the long term effects - remember the government saying no problem with BSE and beef was 100% safe to eat?? - we now all know what happend -

I wondered when that one would come up!
The government made an ar se of it. However, the scientists said the risk was very small. Still the case so far as I'm aware

Angua2

Need_More_Money wrote: »

Are you sure? My understanding was that there was NO good evidence of harm from such things.

Google :rolleyes:

Even expert opinion is deeply divided.

http://www.un.org/earthwatch/health/electromagneticradiat.html
http://www.attract.wales.nhs.uk/question_answers.cfm?question_id=1077
http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/news/articles/press_releases/2005/050603_childhood_cancer_voltage.htm

The landmark study is Gerald Draper's 2005 paper,"Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case-control study": [red emphasis not mine]
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/330/7503/1290?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=childhood+cancer+and+power+lines&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

The latest available report was produced by "SAGE" earlier this year. SAGE is an acronym of "Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs" "set up by the Department of Health to explore the implications and to make practical recommendations for a precautionary approach to power frequency electric and magnetic fields." [UK Gov. Department of Health]

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthandsocialcaretopics/DH_4089500

BTW, if you want a scare-story / conspiracy theory angle, it has been alleged that the UK gov sat on radiation & health risk evidence for 3 years....

This WHO report helps put the risks in context. However, bear in mind it is dated 2001, whereas Draper's research is dated 2004/5.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs263/en/


Like the OP, I looked at property with nearby (within 50 m) pylons. I decided against it.

Need_More_Money_2

Angua2 wrote: »

Even expert opinion is deeply divided.

http://www.un.org/earthwatch/health/electromagneticradiat.html
http://www.attract.wales.nhs.uk/question_answers.cfm?question_id=1077
http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/news/articles/press_releases/2005/050603_childhood_cancer_voltage.htm

The landmark study is Gerald Draper's 2005 paper,"Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case-control study": [red emphasis not mine]
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/330/7503/1290?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=childhood+cancer+and+power+lines&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

The latest available report was produced by "SAGE" earlier this year. SAGE is an acronym of "Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs" "set up by the Department of Health to explore the implications and to make practical recommendations for a precautionary approach to power frequency electric and magnetic fields." [UK Gov. Department of Health]

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthandsocialcaretopics/DH_4089500

BTW, if you want a scare-story / conspiracy theory angle, it has been alleged that the UK gov sat on radiation & health risk evidence for 3 years....

This WHO report helps put the risks in context. However, bear in mind it is dated 2001, whereas Draper's research is dated 2004/5.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs263/en/


Like the OP, I looked at property with nearby (within 50 m) pylons. I decided against it.

Thanks for this. Although, as I understand it, the data shows some correlation which is a long way from showing cause.

Angua2

Need_More_Money wrote: »

Thanks for this. Although, as I understand it, the data shows some correlation which is a long way from showing cause.

I read it the same way.

The quango-esque stakeholder advisory committee report is already being attacked as deeply flawed. My first impression is that as a product of a committee, it is almost inevitably rudderless, toothless and a waste of taxpayer's money.

Draper's findings were, it seems, very, very unwelcome to the government and the utilities. It appears that his study lead to the SAGE committee.

Nevertheless, over the last decade, around the world "official" recommendations have changed, with so-called safe distances increasing.

Need_More_Money_2

Angua2 wrote: »

Nevertheless, over the last decade, around the world "official" recommendations have changed, with so-called safe distances increasing.

Non-ionising radiation is not my area so I'm not sure if this is the case here, but it does seem that recommendations are increasingly based on public reactions rather than hard evidence.
I know, for example, that recommeded exposure limits to ionising radiation have been reduced over the past few years even though there is no evidence of harm at low doses. This gives the false impression that there is evidence of harm

Angua2

Need_More_Money wrote: »

Non-ionising radiation is not my area so I'm not sure if this is the case here, but it does seem that recommendations are increasingly based on public reactions rather than hard evidence.
I know, for example, that recommeded exposure limits to ionising radiation have been reduced over the past few years even though there is no evidence of harm at low doses. This gives the false impression that there is evidence of harm

If I'm understanding your points - forgive the summary - there are a number of problem areas in this arena:
1. Putting risk into context (that's why I like the WHO report).
2. Having trust in government / media / experts
3. Public accountability and responsible citizenship

With information itself being a huge, global, multi-billion-£ commodity, it's little wonder I struggle to feel informed!

And that's without beginning to delve into the intricacies and technicalities of medicine and physics!

Angua2

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it:

- Ionising radiation is emitted by radioactive substances (like nuclear power station fuel or atomic bombs); while

- Non-ionising radiation is emitted by mobile phones, microwave ovens, tv transmitting stations, etc, MRI's - even the infrared of our tv remotes. In fact, we're surrounded by natural and man-made non-ionising radiation.

guppy

MadMonkey wrote: »

Something like - 5 out of 100 kids will get leukemia, however if they are by a pylon 6 out of 100 will get it.

So not a major rise but enough of a risk to put us off.

No idea if the above figures are right or wrong. But I couldn't help thinking that living near a busy road must make kids more likely to be killed statistically speaking, or living in a polluted area or living in a rough area or living with parents who smoke on them...

As someone else said, everything has a level of risk attached, its just some risks seem more scary than others...just thinking aloud

cells

Angua2 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it:

- Ionising radiation is emitted by radioactive substances (like nuclear power station fuel or atomic bombs); while

- Non-ionising radiation is emitted by mobile phones, microwave ovens, tv transmitting stations, etc, MRI's - even the infrared of our tv remotes. In fact, we're surrounded by natural and man-made non-ionising radiation.

somewhat corrrect,


ionising radiation can be any of those things from nuclear bombs to your tv remote, it depends on what your trying to ionise.


for the human body you are about right.



and just for thought, we get a sun tan because ionising sun rays damage our skin cells, our sin darkens to protect us from it

Need_More_Money_2

Angua2 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it:

- Ionising radiation is emitted by radioactive substances (like nuclear power station fuel or atomic bombs); while

- Non-ionising radiation is emitted by mobile phones, microwave ovens, tv transmitting stations, etc, MRI's - even the infrared of our tv remotes. In fact, we're surrounded by natural and man-made non-ionising radiation.

Pretty much correct, but there are lots of natural sources of ionising radiation as well, including soil, rock, and foods.
We are surrounded by natural ionising radiation as well and it doesn't appear to do any harm - in fact it may actually do some good.