Pylons

Aestivalis

Pylons are going up near me, and I dont really give a **** to be honest.

Unless the pylon wires were going directly over, or within a few metres of my house...now thats a different story, and I'm sure there are lots of people who will have this.
I wouldnt be happy with that at all, and I dont think anybody would be.

It was the same issue when they were building more masts in this country. People were going mental over them, and now, there are masts in every town and village in Ireland and nobody cares.

But I suppose Pylons are a much much bigger issue. Although I dont think its going to affect tourism what so ever.

SV wrote: »

Don't mind them at all, anyway, pylons can be amazing looking..if they wanted them to be
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kxPG6y8Qctk/TJj54ZCcVjI/AAAAAAAAgJs/jCzalKCwl9U/s800/Giant+Pylon+Men+-+Land+of+Giants+(2).jpg

That looks absolutely horrible. Worse than actual original pylons.

Capt'n Midnight

WikiHow wrote: »

All food colourings have to pass strict food regulations so it is unlikely that they can cause cancer. However, although strict food regulations such as those in UK and EU, and Australia pass these colours as safe for use with food, there is a growing minority who believe the effects of colourings have not been well enough researched and consider their use an unnecessary risk.

I'd nearly argue that food colourings are there mainly for the purposes of marketing as they don't improve the taste, texture or nutritional benefit of food.

Also a lot of previously used colouring agents are now banned because they were found to be unsafe. The very fact that an organic compound is highly coloured means it's possibly biologically active.

Sweeteners on the other hand do have some benefit for those on a calorie controlled diet. Artificial flavours, especially those that are "natural identical" do add to the enjoyment of food. Apple and pear drops and pineapple cubes.

The FDA use the category GRAS = Generally Regarded As Safe to grandfather in stuff that's been used for ages without any health concerns. People worry about mobile phones, when the reality is that most of the adult population carry one and that applies even in Africa and if there was an obvious risk then it would have showed up by now given the billions of people that use them. Power cables have been around way longer.

The interesting thing is that we don't know if power cables as deployed pose a measurable health risk. (obviously climbing a pylon isn't a good thing to do) but what we do know is that when money is diverted from the economy it means there is less available for things that are proven to save lives. Stuff like funding the health service or road improvements or home improvement grants / winter fuel allowance or funding of charities. Stuff that there won't be as much money to pay for if the cost of electricity goes up because of the added expense of undergrounding cables.

Effects

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

That's not my problem.

Well it is if most people can't understand you because you don't make sense.

seamus

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_006.pdf

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html

Biased?

When you google https://www.google.ie/search?q=effect+of+electromagnetic+field+on+human+body&oq=effect+of+em+field&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.3243j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=effect+of+electromagnetic+fields+on+human+body the first 3 links are the two above, and this one:

http://www.safespaceprotection.com/harmful-effects-electromagnetic-fields.aspx

This one is from a company who make products which "protect" you from EM Fields.

Which of these 3 do you think is most likely to be biased? Yes, it's the one that claims that EMF are detrimental to your health.

What's most interesting is that despite there being zero evidence that EMF has any effect on people (after numerous studies to check it out), health authorities and building standards still insist on implementing various kinds of regulation and shielding on RF and EMF equipment, "just in case".

So it's fair to say that practically everyone, including the government agencies, are negatively biased against EMF equipment, yet they can still find no evidence of any negative effects on people.

The opposition to pylons consists of two types of people; NIMBYs and people believe that their opinion is more correct that hard facts.

Blahblah2012

Billy86 wrote: »

You still haven't answered his question. In fact it is becoming blatantly obvious that you're actively avoiding doing so.

There are also no up to date, conclusive studies to show that coloured jelly babies are safe. And yes, there are people worried about jelly babies giving them cancer. Should jelly babies be made illegal?

Eating coloured jelly babies(rediculous comparison) is a choice one makes.
Having pylons and a 400kva power line plonked on your property, for the long term, is not a choice.

micosoft

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nope.

Like the space shuttle disaster the industry has normalised near misses.
The Japanese were very lucky that other nuclear plants weren't affected.
Stuff like 4 out of 5 backup lines failing at another plant.
Another plant had it's sea wall completed that week.

But forget about safety. Look at the costs involved with having to repair nuclear plants and the downtime and how many plants have to be fixed and how often.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Korean-reactors-cleared-for-restart-0201144.html

Other nuclear news this year. IMHO nuclear isn't reliable because if you SCRAM you may be looking at 3 days before you can get back up to power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-25612308Back in August http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-23808744

http://www.examiner.com/article/beaver-valley-nuclear-reactor-shutdown-zero-degreesLOL at the last bit.
BTW Shipping port is where they used to have a Thorium reactor running.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2014/20140107en.html

Hmm. While there is a serious conversation to be had around the whole life cost of Nukes I think you overstate the safety issues there. Most of the incidents that you speak to happen in other types of plant all the time. e.g. shut down because the cooling water intake froze over. This might be because the inlet is too shallow/small from lake/river.

I'm also confused around your use of statistics? What exactly do you mean? Space Shuttle is not a good comparable example given the small quantity and the high accepted risk (putting humans on rockets is intrinsically dangerous). There are hundreds of nuclear plants globally running for decades most using decades old technology. That provides enough statistical evidence that they are safe when compared to other power generation methods. 750,000 people die prematurely in China alone every year from Coal related illness or death. That's your comparison.

That said, Nuclear is irrelevant to the Irish Debate. Even Nuclear power advocates realise that you won' get economy of scale in the Irish context outside of the difficulty of getting one built. We get our Nuclear Energy from plants in Britain through our single grid - in effect we already have Nuclear Power.

Blahblah2012

Effects wrote: »

Well it is if most people can't understand you because you don't make sense.

I don't see MOST PEOPLE thanking you in agreement. I do recognise however that you have some fellow government(or government supporting) lackies here that agree with your argument.

micosoft

seamus wrote: »

What's most interesting is that despite there being zero evidence that EMF has any effect on people (after numerous studies to check it out), health authorities and building standards still insist on implementing various kinds of regulation and shielding on RF and EMF equipment, "just in case".

Actually thats mostly because EMF does have an effect - on OTHER electronic devices. Like when you mobile phone rings beside a radio and you get interference on the radio signal. Same reason you switch off your phones on planes. That's why on the back of all your electronic devices you'll see a FCC and/or CE mark - they test interference with other electronic devices.

micosoft

Thanks very much wrote: »

I'm delighted I came upon this post so early in the thread. Please explain the alternative.

Why, charge electricity consumers BILLIONS AND BILLIONS using unproven and/or exceptionally expensive underground to allow some people retain a nice(r) view from their one off house!

What I find strange is this debate being framed "country folk" vs "Eirgrid".

Why would Eirgrid care about lines or undergrounding. Heck, if I worked for Eirgrid I'd be delighted to underground. Eirgrid would double in size and as the project will cost many billions more to do everybody involved in the project will be a winner. Heck engineer salaries will go through the roof because of demand. In fact - Eirgrid, ESB, Engineering companies, Unions all would be delighted to underground.

The ONLY loser if we underground are the ordinary joe soaps that pay their electricity bills and businesses that use electricity. Electricity bills will shoot up to cover the cost of undergrounding and businesses will move to other countries - you can kiss IDA projects like Intel etc goodbye.

Let's reframe this argument for what it is. "Nimby" vs "Everyone else".

micosoft

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I don't see MOST PEOPLE thanking you in agreement. I do recognise however that you have some fellow government(or government supporting) lackies here that agree with your argument.

Surely your tinfoil hat protects you from the EMF No?

micosoft

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

There isn't any(that I'm aware of)...no more than there's no conclusive study to show it's safe.
It is up to Eirgrid(or should be) to prove(conclusively) that it's safe. Not the other way around.

There is no conclusive evidence to show that PC use is safe. I suggest you switch off your PC and turn off your (probably wireless) internet (far greater sources of EMF given EMF is a function or proximity as much as source strength). That solves two problems.

Akrasia

Did anyone else hear that guy on the radio yesterday
He was a farmer who wrote a poem about how pylons would ruin the valley he lives in and is part of some local action group against Pylons

Guess what his name is?

Milo Power

gas

Blahblah2012

micosoft wrote: »

Surely your tinfoil hat protects you from the EMF No?

Very mature statement to make. Shows you have a similar mental capacity and lack of self respect as your paymaster Kenny

Blahblah2012

micosoft wrote: »

There is no conclusive evidence to show that PC use is safe. I suggest you switch off your PC and turn off your (probably wireless) internet (far greater sources of EMF given EMF is a function or proximity as much as source strength). That solves two problems.

I don't use a pc. And I don't use wireless. Although where is your evidence to support such an argument?

micosoft

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I don't use a pc. And I don't use wireless. Although where is your evidence to support such an argument?

You use a mainframe or a minicomputer to connect to the interwebs? I'm impressed though it seems a little excessive.

You are the one arguing that unless there is absolute evidence something is safe then it should not be allowed....

Blahblah2012

micosoft wrote: »

You use a mainframe or a minicomputer to connect to the interwebs? I'm impressed though it seems a little excessive.

You are the one arguing that unless there is absolute evidence something is safe then it should not be allowed....

There's no evidence that 400kva power lines are safe. ZERO. You fail to supply the evidence to back up your comparison with a PC and wireless connection.
You make childish smart arsed comments that deserve no reply(very much like the gob****e running the country makes on a regular basis).

The people who are affected by these pylons don't want them on their property and you and your government monkeys are trying to force them to accept them.

So you are trying to force people into complying against their will. If this was a sexual matter..it would be called RAPE.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Holy Jesus that's a fantastic leap. Pylons building being likened to rape? I nearly feel sorry for the anti pylon brigade if they have people with those types of opinions in their camp. O and I am not employed by the government so you can take your lap dog comments elsewhere thanks.

seamus

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

There's no evidence that 400kva power lines are safe. ZERO.

The lack of evidence that they're unsafe (they've been searching, can't find any) is evidence of their safety. On the other hand there is no evidence that pylons cause any ill effects. Zero.

The most dangerous thing about living near a pylon is the one-in-a-billion chance that the thing will fall on your house.

Blahblah2012

John Creamy Revenge wrote: »

Holy Jesus that's a fantastic leap. Pylons building being likened to rape? I nearly feel sorry for the anti pylon brigade if they have people with those types of opinions in their camp. O and I am not employed by the government so you can take your lap dog comments elsewhere thanks.

You can take it in whatever context u wish. Again I reiterate that these people don't want these pylons on their property. And they should have the right to refuse or at least reach a compromise.

You may not be employed by the government but that still doesn't exempt you from being their lapdog!

Blahblah2012

seamus wrote: »

The lack of evidence that they're unsafe (they've been searching, can't find any) is evidence of their safety. On the other hand there is no evidence that pylons cause any ill effects. Zero.

The most dangerous thing about living near a pylon is the one-in-a-billion chance that the thing will fall on your house.

Considering that these people will have to live with this rubbish on their property for years....places the onus on the pylons and cabling being proven to be safe..not on them being proven unsafe.

seamus

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Considering that these people will have to live with this rubbish on their property for years....places the onus on these being proved safe..not on them being proven unsafe.

They're proven safe.

You continue to claim they're not. Evidence pls.

Blahblah2012

seamus wrote: »

They're proven safe.

You continue to claim they're not. Evidence pls.

They're not proven to be safe. Where is your evidence? You don't have any.

seamus

See the links I've posted above. Decades of research has failed to find any link between EM fields and illness.

If you have evidence, show it. Otherwise you're literally just making stuff up. I'm not claiming that these things are absolutely safe, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Just that there is no evidence to show they're not.

You claim otherwise, so show me the evidence.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

You can take it in whatever context u wish. Again I reiterate that these people don't want these pylons on their property. And they should have the right to refuse or at least reach a compromise.

You may not be employed by the government but that still doesn't exempt you from being their lapdog!

Because I disagree with you I'm their lapdog? Seems to be a common theme for people who believe in chem trails and fluoride poisoning. No solid scientific evidence to back up any claim you make? That's grand just assume everyone who disagrees with you is a government agent. Its totally pathetic. By all means argue your point but those types of statements only serve to undermine your already limited credibility.

As an aside I'm not sure rape victims would be too pleased with you comparing their ordeal to having your view obscured by a pylon.

Blahblah2012

seamus wrote: »

See the links I've posted above. Decades of research has failed to find any link between EM fields and illness.

Just because they haven't found a link doesn't make it conclusive.
I take it you would love one beside your own house?

Blahblah2012

seamus wrote: »

I'm not claiming that these things are absolutely safe, beyond the shadow of a doubt. .

That's good enough reason for me as to why they shouldn't be placed beside people's property! Not that I need you to admit it

seamus

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Just because they haven't found a link doesn't make it conclusive.
I take it you would love one beside your own house?

Wouldn't bother me much. Anything inside 50m is probably a bit imposing, but outside of that I'd have no problem with it.

seamus

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

That's good enough reason for me as to why they shouldn't be placed beside people's property! Not that I need you to admit it

Walls aren't proven safe, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Presumably that's good enough reason to avoid using walls near someone's home, right?

Blahblah2012

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Because I disagree with you I'm their lapdog? Seems to be a common theme for people who believe in chem trails and fluoride poisoning. No solid scientific evidence to back up any claim you make? That's grand just assume everyone who disagrees with you is a government agent. Its totally pathetic. By all means argue your point but those types of statements only serve to undermine your already limited credibility.

As an aside I'm not sure rape victims would be too pleased with you comparing their ordeal to having your view obscured by a pylon.

Chem trails? and fluoride poisoning? Ha. Your probably well fooked already by the sound of you. Well wired up.
I called u a government lackie..that equates to a monkey...monkey see monkey do.
As for credibility..don't make me laugh.

Blahblah2012

seamus wrote: »

Walls aren't proven safe, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Presumably that's good enough reason to avoid using walls near someone's home, right?

Walls don't emit electro magnetic radiation.

Maybe they should look for a route with a cluster of people with the same mentality as yourself to run this power line through their properties..problem is they won't find a cluster of people like you. Except on boards.ie and Dáil Éireann...and even at that there aren't enough of ya's