Pylons

Blahblah2012

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Smoking has been proven to heighten/cause cancer yes.

Heighten/increase the risk of cancer. Just like living beside 400kva lines does.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

it's completely irrelevant and grasping at straws comparing pylons to those 2 points

It's completely relevant. The argument that pylons aren't a potential health hazard, at the very least,is very weak.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nope just saying the evidence used by the other side is never reputable and a spurious paper from either none scientist or lobby group.

Well you would say that!

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You say the EU say it increases the risk and then make a sweeping statement about not listening to EU reports ? That's not contradictory at all

I called it as I see it. I was extremely surprised to see the EU admit it considering they have a vested interest in the project.

darkpagandeath

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Heighten/increase the risk of cancer. Just like living beside 400kva lines does.




It's completely relevant. The argument that pylons aren't a potential health hazard, at the very least,is very weak.




Well you would say that!





I called it as I see it. I was extremely surprised to see the EU admit it considering they have a vested interest in the project.

So short term/no exposure to a pylon outside is dangerous you say. Long term constant exposure in your house to EMF is fine ? You cant have it both ways inside fine outside bad. As if it is really about the children surely not having electricity anywhere near them would be the safest option. And as I already said about undergrounding the EMF will be way higher as they will not put them the same distance underground at they are up on the pylons will they..... And soil does not stop EMF

Blahblah2012

darkpagandeath wrote: »

But underground is fine yes ?

If so why ? The EMF would be higher I'm guessing if undergrounded as their not going to stick them as far underground as they are up in the air on cables as they will need to be repaired.

The key word above is that you are GUESSING....come back with FACTS!!

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I think people misunderstand putting something a few feet underground will solve the EMF problem they perceive. Maybe they don't understand the Earths massive EMF comes from the earths core. And guess how far underground that is

Considering we have evolved with the earths EMF...it's no comparison.

Blahblah2012

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So short term/no exposure to a pylon outside is dangerous you say.

What are you talking about? Are you making this up?

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Long term constant exposure in you house to EMF is fine ?

I never said that but now that you did..it's not ideal..but it's not running at 400kva so again...no comparison.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You cant have it both ways inside fine outside bad.

Same answer as above.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

As if it is really about the children surely not having electricity anywhere near them would be the safest option. And as I already said about undergrounding the EMF will be way higher as they will not put them the same distance underground at they are up on the pylons will they.....

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And soil does not stop EMF

Is that a FACT? Where are you getting these facts from?

darkpagandeath

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

What are you talking about? Are you making this up?




I never said that but now that you did..it's not ideal..but it's not running at 400kva so again...no comparison.



Same answer as above.






Is that a FACT? Where are you getting these facts from?

So undergrounding is not an option in your eyes then as it wont stop the perceived health problems From EMF (there are none)

Yes its a fact soil does not stop EMF How does the Earth core EMF get from there to space ?

Blahblah2012

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes its a fact soil does not stop EMF How does the Earth core EMF get from there to space ?

So you're comparing the earths emf with the emf from 400kva cables?

And you haven't given any link or evidence to back up your claims. More GUESSING me thinks.

darkpagandeath

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

So you're comparing the earths emf with the emf from 400kva cables?

And you haven't given any link or evidence to back up your claims. More GUESSING me thinks.

What has that got to do with undergrounding the cables ? Soil will not stop the EMF Your afraid of, It will be worse with Undergrounding. I was pointing out soil does not stop EMF.

Your the one stating EMF is Bad it's up to you to prove it not me.

Blahblah2012

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What has that got to do with undergrounding the cables ?

It has everything to do with it.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Soil will not stop the EMF Your afraid of it will be worse with Undergrounding.

What are you talking about?

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I was pointing out soil does not stop EMF.

And you back up your GUESS that undergrounding 400kva cables is a waste of time(with regard to emf) with nothing!

darkpagandeath

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

It has everything to do with it.




What are you talking about?




And you back up your GUESS that undergrounding 400kva cables is a waste of time(with regard to emf) with nothing!

As before it's up to you as your saying it will lower the EMF or implying it.

Blahblah2012

darkpagandeath wrote: »

As before it's up to you as your saying it will lower the EMF or implying it.

Really. Considering most of your last few posts have been GUESSWORK..and YOU said it yourself....the onus is on you to back up your claims

darkpagandeath

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Really. Considering most of your last few posts have been GUESSWORK..and YOU said it yourself....the onus is on you to back up your claims

Do you know exactly how far they are going to underground them ? How many cables used i.e. how many backups ? Do you know what EMF shielding they may use or if they will use any at all or just put insulation protection around them for water frost and so on .

For all you know they could just be what 4ft to 6ft underground with absolutely no EMF shielding at all Due to cost concerns.

Blahblah2012

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Do you know exactly how far they are going to underground them ? How many cables used i.e. how many backups ? Do you know what EMF shielding they may use or if they will use any at all or just put insulation protection around them for water frost and so on .

You seem to know so fill us in on the details!!!

I would hope(but I expect nothing from eirgrid and esb) that all would be done to do it properly and safely. All they care about is money

darkpagandeath wrote: »

For all you know they could just be what 4ft to 6ft underground with absolutely no EMF shielding at all Due to cost concerns.

Is this the plan?

darkpagandeath

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

You seem to know so fill us in on the details!!!

I would hope(but I expect nothing from eirgrid and esb) that all would be done to do it properly and safely. All they care about is money




Is this the plan?

I would assume they would follow international practice in this area I fail to see why I have to find this information out for you. Your the one opposed to this and as such I would assume someone opposed to something would not just oppose it without any knowledge on the subject. As there is a word for that. You know e.g. “I have no idea about this subject but i oppose it ....”

Mountainsandh

darkpagandeath wrote: »

But underground is fine yes ?

If so why ? The EMF would be higher I'm guessing if undergrounded as their not going to stick them as far underground as they are up in the air on cables as they will need to be repaired. I think people misunderstand putting something a few feet underground will solve the EMF problem they perceive. Maybe they don't understand the Earths massive EMF comes from the earths core. And guess how far underground that is

I'm not hugely worried about EMF, I have said it clearly before. I would be worried to have a pylon too near my house, and same for underground cable, but what you seem to imply is that underground cables are going to be right under people's houses, or at a lesser distance (50 m ?) from people's houses than cables.

Darkpagandeath, I'm only guessing that whether under or over ground, safe distances are still going to be observed, and that underground installation itself would require a clearance anyway, so as not to damage habitations with all piping and structural work around a house.

As far as I understand too, whether tunnel or gutter style, the cables are not just laid in the ground/dirt, they are surrounded by insulation and structural work that more than likely provides as much protection as overhead cables, despite the fact that they are not an equal distance "down" as they would be "up".

But as I said, I don't think it's very relevant since imo (haven't double checked that) the cables will also have a clearance from houses.

Please remember my position too : imo the project should be down scaled, and a mixture of over and under ground upgrades would probably cover Irish needs at a decent scale that would not entirely annihilate the touristic, historical, cultural heritage of some areas. Compromises could be reached whereby pylons might follow major roads as opposed to slashing across countryside/mountains.

My own position is not to point blank demand the cancellation of all upgrades, but to show reason and perspective in the upgrade, rather than lash out with unneeded infrastructure.

edit : here is a link to simple representation of the usual set ups for underground from RTE, the company for energy transmission in France.
Also it might be interesting to some to read the following statement of their policy, on that page :

Le réseau de transport de l'électricité, ce en sont pas que des pylônes : RTE s'est en effet engagé à ne pas augmenter son réseau aérien, et même à le réduire au profit d'installation en souterrain. L'enfouissement concerne donc des lignes existantes, qui vont être modifiées pour passer de l'aérien au souterrain, et aussi de nouvelles lignes, qui vont être conçues, dès le départ, en souterrain.

The electricity transport network is not all about pylons : in fact, at RTE we have made a commitment not to increase the aerial network, and even to reduce and replace it with underground installations. Under grounding therefore applies to existing lines, which are going to be modified to turn from aerial to underground, and also new lines, which will, from the outset, be undergrounded.

What should we do in Ireland ?
Keep going aerial ?
We have less land than they have.

darkpagandeath

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I'm not hugely worried about EMF,

It was not directed at you. It was more to the poster I was Quoting. And you seem to be saying the distance from the house is the issue and not underground or over and the scale

Mountainsandh

darkpagandeath wrote: »

It was not directed at you. It was more to the poster I was Quoting. And you seem to be saying the distance from the house is the issue and not underground or over and the scale

You quoted me ?

Scale : if the global upgrades for Ireland are downscaled in relation to Irish needs only, to the exclusion of exports, there will be less pylons and underground cables needed.

and

distance from the house : in the areas where it is inevitable that a line would have to cross, then both over and under ground options should be considered, while observing safe distances. Regulatory distances will ensure that installations are safe, whether over or under. Distances may be reduced depending on efficiency and level of insulation of underground.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but I don't think my point of view is contradictory.

Capt'n Midnight

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Smoking has been proven to heighten/cause cancer yes.

Heighten/increase the risk of cancer. Just like living beside 400kva lines does.

slight difference

50% of all smokers will die from smoking related diseases
http://www.dohc.ie/issues/smoking_ban/smokekey.html

0% of people living near pylons have died because of radiation / emf / electrostatic field. You see thats the thing with scientific research just one proven counter example will scupper any number of papers and reports.

Of course having the pylon fall on you or going to near a fallen cable won't do you a lot of good. But like I've said there's gob****es with JCB's out there so I'd be more afraid of underground cables.


BTW in terms of radiation a photon from a mobile phone mast will have 18,000,000 times as much energy as one from the 50Hz mains.


At this stage I'll have to ask you to confirm that you aren't working for Eirgrid or a renewable energy company looking to expand. Because as sure as **** you aren't helping the anti-pylon side look like anything other than a bunch of ignorant self interested nimbys

SeanW

joela wrote: »

Pardon? Material interest? Pray explain......

I have a feeling you are confusing me with someone else and would ask that you reconsider that remark.

I may be in error here but I do recall some time back, I was commenting about a residents group that had succeeded in scuppering (by appealing to An Bord Pleanala, proving the developers claims were a load of crap) a monster windfarm next to them.

I made some admittedly flippant remark about how the wind farm developers had paid for an EIS or something and (despite being provable BS) how it did not surprise me that the report agreed with the group that paid for it.

Your reaction was so strong that it lead me to believe that I had insulted you personally. Or at minimum something very close to your heart (wind farms, or EIS writers, or something).

One thing that I was left in no doubt about - and have had no reason to doubt since - was your committment to wallpapering the place with these fugly, bird chomping, bat killing, subsidy guzzling, monstrosities that only produce power on an erratic, unschedulable basis and often when least needed.

king_of_inismac

I work in the area of EM dosimetry. I wouldn't reply too much on that European report.

There are so many unknowns and sources of uncertainty in the research, I wouldn't be comfortable with those pylons near me.

Mountainsandh

I found a nice illustration of Magnetic Emission around aerial line vs underground cable. (pic attached)

This is from this document, Elia is an energy transmission company for Belgium.
p. 10 of the document.

The diagram on the left shows ME from aerial lines only. The one you want to be looking at is the one on the right (purple).

The light purple colour/pink is for the aerial line transmission, the dark purple for underground.

At a distance of 0 metres form the line/cable, that is, if you were standing right over or under, emissions are higher for both, but cable's are spiking.

See for yourself how within a 10 m distance to the cable, emission is practically non existent.

A house 20 m away from a cable would be a lot safer than a house 20 m away from an aerial line (if you believe emissions are harmful).

Underground would thus offer a lot more scope for routing near houses, although of course infrastructure and access might require a greater distance than the safe 20 m.

edit : found another great page about EM, in French (the French energy transmission company RTE), but easy to understand diagram. Scroll down to the image with pylons, click on any of them to see EM emission relative to distance. For the EM, hover over the distance in meters on the ruler below pic with house.
Again, cables underground would allow a greater proximity to housing with a very safe emission record, unless you were standing right on top of the line.
http://www.clefdeschamps.info/Habitant-pres-d-une-ligne-haute

joela

SeanW wrote: »

I may be in error here but I do recall some time back, I was commenting about a residents group that had succeeded in scuppering (by appealing to An Bord Pleanala, proving the developers claims were a load of crap) a monster windfarm next to them.

I made some admittedly flippant remark about how the wind farm developers had paid for an EIS or something and (despite being provable BS) how it did not surprise me that the report agreed with the group that paid for it.

Your reaction was so strong that it lead me to believe that I had insulted you personally. Or at minimum something very close to your heart (wind farms, or EIS writers, or something).

One thing that I was left in no doubt about - and have had no reason to doubt since - was your committment to wallpapering the place with these fugly, bird chomping, bat killing, subsidy guzzling, monstrosities that only produce power on an erratic, unschedulable basis and often when least needed.

I have never denied supporting renewable energy but that is not what you said. You claimed I had a material interest in wind farms and I asked you to substantiate that claim or withdraw your remark. Can you substantiate your claim or not? *Hint* I do not own shares or have investments in wind turbines, wind farms etc.*

Blahblah2012

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I would assume they would follow international practice in this area I fail to see why I have to find this information out for you.

You need to be careful!!

between making assumptions and your fondness for guessing and your reluctance to back up what you are saying with credible sources..it leaves a lot to be desired.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Your the one opposed to this and as such I would assume someone opposed to something would not just oppose it without any knowledge on the subject.

Really? And you talk with experience and guesswork. Hmmmm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

As there is a word for that. You know e.g. “I have no idea about this subject but i oppose it ....”

No. You spend most of your time working on guess work and not backing up your statements with fact.

Blahblah2012

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

0% of people living near pylons have died because of radiation / emf / electrostatic field.

What facts do you base this on? Unbiased reports?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You see thats the thing with scientific research just one proven counter example will scupper any number of papers and reports.

Unbiased reports? Carried out by eirgrid? It's like the students examining themselves.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Of course having the pylon fall on you or going to near a fallen cable won't do you a lot of good. But like I've said there's gob****es with JCB's out there so I'd be more afraid of underground cables.

There's also gobshîtes in the esb and eirgrid

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

BTW in terms of radiation a photon from a mobile phone mast will have 18,000,000 times as much energy as one from the 50Hz mains.

Where did you dig that up? Intellectual stuff alright.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

At this stage I'll have to ask you to confirm that you aren't working for Eirgrid or a renewable energy company looking to expand. Because as sure as **** you aren't helping the anti-pylon side look like anything other than a bunch of ignorant self interested nimbys

This speaks for itself!!!

SeanW

joela wrote: »

I have never denied supporting renewable energy but that is not what you said. You claimed I had a material interest in wind farms and I asked you to substantiate that claim or withdraw your remark. Can you substantiate your claim or not? *Hint* I do not own shares or have investments in wind turbines, wind farms etc.*

I am referrring to these two posts, were older than I thought.

SeanW wrote: »

The locals knew there was a bat roost in the house nearest to the wind turbine, which BTW was only 160 metres away (that fact alone should have seen the thing rescinded.

I honestly wonder the windfarm developers are even allowed to do the Environmental Impact Assessments and whatnot at all.

This is a country where property developers were allowed to build un-insulted, un-soundproofed shoebox apartments and housing estates on flood plains. With the windfarm developer commissioning an EIA/EIS, it surely raises a conflict of interest.

I mean, if I had enough money, I could commission a report that says the sky is green.

joela wrote: »

Wind farm developers do not undertake the EIA, the competent authority e.g. LA or ABP, undertakes the EIA based on the EIS which is provided by the developer. The developer commissions the surveys to inform the EIS. In this situation it was a single turbine and did not require an EIS which is largely part of the problem as at the very least a single 80m turbine in such an area should automatically trigger an EcIA. If the proponent of the project/plan doesn't commission them then who does and who pays for them?

The existence bat roost may have been known but there are bat roosts in lots of places and no one raises an eyebrow when something happens to it or is developed beside it. Then you get a situation like this and suddenly everyone cares about the bats :rolleyes: It wasn't a wind farm developer either in this situation but a business looking to install a single, ridiculously large, turbine. He actually commissioned an excellent company from NI to review the bat work done by Conor Kelleher but when they highlighted surveys required he refused to do them. So hardly able to commission a report to say what he wants now eh?

Finally I take great offence on my behalf and on behalf of my professional colleagues who work very hard adhering to professional codes of practice, following best practice, ensuring we are up to date on literature and research. There are always bad eggs in every profession but they are the exception rather than the norm. There are also situations where people do the work but don't do it very well, again exception rather than rule I feel. Do you have the professional expertise to assess the reports you refer to?

... You may have a problem with wind farms but be honest about it and don't blame it on those carrying out survey work.

I 100% admit that my old post was somewhat off the mark - perhaps way off - but your response indicated that you had some connections to the industry, e.g. doing surveys for wind farms, or something.

SeanW

joela wrote: »

Pylons pose no major health threat to humans, says European Commission
Tuesday, February 04, 2014

Electromagnetic fields from pylons pose no major health threat to humans, according to a review by the European Commission.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pylons-pose-no-major-health-threat-to-humans-says-european-commission-257590.html

A "human audit" of a recent European Commission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSYMpuCFaQ

As far as I am concerned "the European Commission said so" is a good argument for believing the exact opposite. Not an absolute rule, by any means, but absolutely a reason for suspicion.

darkpagandeath

SeanW wrote: »

A "human audit" of a recent European Commission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSYMpuCFaQ

As far as I am concerned "the European Commission said so" is a good argument for believing the exact opposite. Not an absolute rule, by any means, but absolutely a reason for suspicion.

I'm not sure linking Nigel Farage in connection with disagreeing with Europe is a good idea. He's has no agenda at all does he ....

darkpagandeath

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

You need to be careful!!

between making assumptions and your fondness for guessing and your reluctance to back up what you are saying with credible sources..it leaves a lot to be desired.




Really? And you talk with experience and guesswork. Hmmmm




No. You spend most of your time working on guess work and not backing up your statements with fact.

From someone that only asks questions, As I have said I would assume someone would not just object to something they know nothing about.

Capt'n Midnight

darkpagandeath wrote: »

From someone that only asks questions, As I have said I would assume someone would not just object to something they know nothing about.

Some people are hard of hearing, others are hard of listening.

It takes longer to communicate with the former but usually worth it, the later are just timesinks.


Interestingly enough pylons act as lightening protectors. If you are one of the two houses within 50m of a pylon. So there is a slight but possibly measurable health benefit.

Plyons have barbed wire on the legs to keep away from the high voltage because. And yes the plinth does occupy some land - this picture shows it's about 4m2 per leg.

http://i.imgur.com/aRhOYnZ.jpg

BTW Still waiting for something other than hearsay to say that pylons affect livestock.

More pictures of Horses & Pylons
http://i.imgur.com/FJqu2is.jpg
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/28911620@N00/7227754952


And this - LOL
http://imgur.com/gallery/8ZtTxoO

Blahblah2012

darkpagandeath wrote: »

From someone that only asks questions, As I have said I would assume someone would not just object to something they know nothing about.

There's no point asking you questions because you don't have the answers.
You just puff out spoof. And that's fine. It's nice and clear.

Blahblah2012

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Some people are hard of hearing, others are hard of listening.

It takes longer to communicate with the former but usually worth it, the later are just timesinks.

More childish rubbish. Incredible that boards.ie have the likes of yourself representing them!!!!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Interestingly enough pylons act as lightening protectors.

That's great. I'll have one so.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you are one of the two houses within 50m of a pylon. So there is a slight but possibly measurable health benefit.

Classic stuff this. Keep it up.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Plyons have barbed wire on the legs to keep away from the high voltage because. And yes the plinth does occupy some land - this picture shows it's about 4m2 per leg.

Not sure what you're getting at here. It's not particularly well written to say the least.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

BTW Still waiting for something other than hearsay to say that pylons affect livestock.

And hearsay from those with a vested interest that it doesn't.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

More pictures of Horses & Pylons
http://i.imgur.com/FJqu2is.jpg
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/28911620@N00/7227754952

Any link to the vet report on their carcasses?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And this - LOL
http://imgur.com/gallery/8ZtTxoO

ah yes. Those who are easily amused!