Any problem in buying a house near elec. pylon?

Need_More_Money_2

Angua2 wrote: »

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).

This is something I feel that people in general have a problem being able to do. One of the riskiest things we do for our children is take them in the car. Yet most people don't worry about that. Yet they worry about the non-existent risks from MMR or the tiny risks of BSE.

Need_More_Money_2

cells wrote: »

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

I thought sun tanning was a result of exposure to ultra-violet rays, which are non-ionising.

Amarillo

I wouldn't personally and I would worry about the re-sale. I especially wouldn't after a friend of mine had an electricity board box in their back garden. The gentleman who lived there before them died of cancer just before they bought it, now her husband has been diagnosed with it as well.

I'm sure is the reality is that it is nothing to do with the box, but there's that emotive, unrational side of me that thinks it might be a factor. And I think that if I did buy a house near a pylon and any member of the family became ill, I would always blame myself and I couldn't live with that, therefore houses near pylons etc are out for me. But that is just me.

I know that is nothing to do with research and facts but that is how I am. If you have read the research and you are satisfied in your own mind that there is no risk, have evaluated how you would feel if someone became ill (ie. you would take the view it's a sad fact of life, nothing to do with the pylon and wouldn't blame yourself) then go for it.

As an aside, during the BSE crisis I was working in a University medical department. The vast majority of scientists working there were all very definitely not eating beef !

wymondham

Given the choice of a house near a pylon and one not, why would anyone even consider the one next to one?

In my view, 'no scientific evidence to suggest ...' or 'insufficient evidence ...' usually means they just have not found it yet - scientists are like solicitors in that things could come back and hit them in the face, so answers are vague and open to interpratation... Who do you trust with a decision on this scale??

Where have you ever seen a scientist catagorically stating that there is no risk from Mobile Phone masts, or the MMR jab is 100% safe - they can't and won't do it, as the discovery could be round the corner (if you ever read their reports there are always doubts in them, but these often don't go in the headlines)

It's a decision only you can make, but I know I would treat research with a very light pinch of salt!!

Need_More_Money_2

wymondham wrote: »

In my view, 'no scientific evidence to suggest ...' or 'insufficient evidence ...' usually means they just have not found it yet - scientists are like solicitors in that things could come back and hit them in the face, so answers are vague and open to interpratation... Who do you trust with a decision on this scale??
Where have you ever seen a scientist catagorically stating that there is no risk from Mobile Phone masts, or the MMR jab is 100% safe - they can't and won't do it, as the discovery could be round the corner (if you ever read their reports there are always doubts in them, but these often don't go in the headlines)

I'm sorry but you are completely misunderstanding science here. It is impossible to show anything is 100% safe. If you are going to take that approach then you better worry about everything. No food or medicine can be shown to be 100% safe. Many things we all do are certainly far from 100% safe, yet we accept the risks.
The current trend to want absolute safety is a very worrying development.

wymondham wrote: »

It's a decision only you can make, but I know I would treat research with a very light pinch of salt!!

So if you don't trust research, what can you trust? Anecodote and lay person opinion?

budget_counsellor_shaz

I wouldn't buy a house near a pylon. I do not think it would be easy to sell it at a later date. I would be worried......although I do believe that media hype makes some people believe what they tell them to believe.

Shaz

Angua2

cells wrote: »

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

Thanks, Cells - was just trying to give a basis for understanding in broad terms. I'm a non-science person, but very interested in physics in a low-level kinda way.

Angua2

Need_More_Money wrote: »

This is something I feel that people in general have a problem being able to do. One of the riskiest things we do for our children is take them in the car. Yet most people don't worry about that. Yet they worry about the non-existent risks from MMR or the tiny risks of BSE.

How we respond to risks - either real or perceived - seems to have a relation to what we can choose (MMR jab), what we can easily avoid (living near pylons) and what we feel we have little choice but to do (travel by car)....

Angua2

Need_More_Money wrote: »

I thought sun tanning was a result of exposure to ultra-violet rays, which are non-ionising.

Isn't the ionising/non-ionising aspect just one of the factors concerning ELF?

What are the issues - if any - surrounding of the magnetic fields themselves?

Angua2

wymondham wrote: »

Given the choice of a house near a pylon and one not, why would anyone even consider the one next to one?

In my view, 'no scientific evidence to suggest ...' or 'insufficient evidence ...' usually means they just have not found it yet - scientists are like solicitors in that things could come back and hit them in the face, so answers are vague and open to interpratation... Who do you trust with a decision on this scale??

Where have you ever seen a scientist catagorically stating that there is no risk from Mobile Phone masts, or the MMR jab is 100% safe - they can't and won't do it, as the discovery could be round the corner (if you ever read their reports there are always doubts in them, but these often don't go in the headlines)

It's a decision only you can make, but I know I would treat research with a very light pinch of salt!!

I think you hit on some fundamentals here.

a) causality yet to be established leaves doubt and anxiety
b) science does include interpretation
c) we need/want science to be absolute when it can't be - it's historically, politically and economically driven
d) our own sense of skepticism, which is - perhaps ironically - a scientific point of view