Any problem in buying a house near elec. pylon?

Angua2

budget_counsellor_shaz wrote: »

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

With so much information (I sound like a Police song here!), let alone its complexity, it is understandable that we need shortcuts to decision making....

Need_More_Money_2

Angua2 wrote: »

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)....

There was an interesting article in the BMJ a few years ago about how parents react to risks in what seems like an irrational way. It is predominantly about MMR, but interesting general reading about how risks are perceived.

Need_More_Money_2

Angua2 wrote: »

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?

Power lines do not emit ionising radiation. There are well known methods about how ionising radiation can cause damage to cells. The last I read, the method by which low level non-ionising radiation could cause harm was not known. Heating at high levels is known. Various research has being going on about the mechanisms by which low level non-ionising radiation interacts with cells/tissues but this is not something I know in detail. As I understand it, it is still possible that there could be no risk at all.

franklally

Amarillo wrote: »

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 !

This interested me as this exact same situation has happened to the past 2 occupants of a house nearby over the course of the last 10 years - both have one member of the family with cancer at a young age.

I wouldn't touch a house with an electricity pylon or box in close proximity because of this.

Need_More_Money_2

franklally wrote: »

This interested me as this exact same situation has happened to the past 2 occupants of a house nearby over the course of the last 10 years - both have one member of the family with cancer at a young age.

.

The problem here is that, because cancer is so common anyway, it is very hard to show any small increased risks from such things. People remember the cases like the ones mentioned here but forget the cases where people got cancer and there was no pylon or mobile mast or whatever near by.
To analyse properly requires a detailed statistical anaysis. And even then, a correlation or association does not mean a cause has been shown.

superscaper

Need_More_Money wrote: »

The problem here is that, because cancer is so common anyway, it is very hard to show any small increased risks from such things. People remember the cases like the ones mentioned here but forget the cases where people got cancer and there was no pylon or mobile mast or whatever near by.
To analyse properly requires a detailed statistical anaysis. And even then, a correlation or association does not mean a cause has been shown.

Even the human body is radioactive so your own body is giving you a dose of ionizing radiation. The actual cause of a specific person's cancer could come from so many places that you can only show causality through statistics not anecdote. Also people think that getting clusters means that there is a pattern, but the main characteristic of something that is truly random is that you do get clusters.

wymondham

all said, it is a simple choice, and I would choose one not near a pylon, purely because it is so easy to do that - it's easy to avoid - nothing to do with me having a problem with risks etc.... so many times over the years an issue arises which we are assured we are being alarmist and there is nothing to worry about, then over time information comes out which points to this information being wrong, or not as accurate as it first appeared.

I know nothing about the science of all of this but do do recall in the past when things occured - after all, smoking was never thought to be harmful!

I'm not one for conspiracy theorys, but can see that even if a link was proved there are lots of people who would rather this information never got into the public domain. We'd be the last to hear about it, again, just as the tobaco companies fought to keep the secret, and I personally suspect the mobile phone operators are currently doing.

guppy

movilogo wrote: »

I liked a house. It is fine but very near to a electricity pylon. The base [enclosed area] of pylon is about 50 feet from the back garden.

Is it something that needs to be avoided or it is just a minor issue?

Is there any chance of haggling because of the pylon?

Just out of curiosity, does the price of the house reflect much of a discount compared to the others you've looked at?

I'm often surprised by how little difference such things make, maybe I'm too fussy!

silvercar

The risk is not just the current scientific knowledge, that you can make a decision on, but the scientific knowledge that will come about in the next few years.

Need_More_Money_2

silvercar wrote: »

The risk is not just the current scientific knowledge, that you can make a decision on, but the scientific knowledge that will come about in the next few years.

And the same goes for EVERTHING, including food and medicines. At some point you have to make a decision that the risk is low enough to not worry about it.