Electromagnetic radiation exposure from underground cables can be 5x as high

Impetus

Underground cables can produce a magnetic field of 25 micro Tesla in the region immediately above them. In contrast, an overhead cable’s magnetic field is about 6 micro Tesla in the region immediately below the cable.

Thus if one had the choice, it would be much safer to live in the immediate vicinity of an overhead power cable rather than an underground power cable (approximately five times safer). The only space where there is a marginal advantage (lower radiation exposure) from underground cables is for people living between 20 and 40 metres from the cable. The EMF exposure beyond 40m from the centre line of the cable is close to zero.

In well planned countries such as France, Germany and Switzerland, one often comes across corridors of countryside which accommodate high speed rail, autobahnen/autoroutes, overhead power cables and wind turbines. These tend to be flat, otherwise boring, pieces of countryside. This leaves the interesting, generally hilly/mountainous interesting parts of the country free of large scale manmade obstacles. It also provides a win-win in terms of having high tension grid cables in the immediate vicinity of wind turbines, electrified rail tracks and high speed car charging points in motorway service areas.

Successive powers that be have done an awful job (a) in the planning process and (b) educating the public to the benefits and risks associated with these choices. This vacuum of intelligence has not unsurprisingly caused a hysterical reaction from many members of the public.



Source: http://www.emfs.info/Sources+of+EMFs/Underground/

Oldtree

So what you are saying is that it would be safer not to live under or above cables. I do not find flat countryside boring, nor do I consider the reaction from many members of the public as hysterical, but I must agree with you on your assessment of the planning powers that be - awful and untrustworthy (based on actual experience).

This was interesting on the magnetic field from a Gas Insulated underground Line @ 400kv being a lot less than that of overhead cables.

http://www.emfs.info/Sources+of+EMFs/Underground/GIL.htm

Impetus

Oldtree wrote: »

So what you are saying is that it would be safer not to live under or above cables. I do not find flat countryside boring, nor do I consider the reaction from many members of the public as hysterical, but I must agree with you on your assessment of the planning powers that be - awful and untrustworthy (based on actual experience).

This was interesting on the magnetic field from a Gas Insulated underground Line @ 400kv being a lot less than that of overhead cables.

http://www.emfs.info/Sources+of+EMFs/Underground/GIL.htm

Aside from one's perception of boring countryside (ie most of the E20/E201 Cork Dublin motorway in my opinion, by way of example), one question might be, is it worth gas insulating the lines or routing them 30 to 50m away from human habitation?

Not forgetting the total use costs/benefits of connections to wind turbines, rail electrification and car charging points.

Impetus

There are other options too including the “T” pylon which when carrying 400 kV has about 3.5 micro Teslas of radiation within 20m of the pylon, a figure which rapidly drops off the further one gets away. This compares with about twice that using a conventional pylon.

The “T” shaped pylons also look nicer in my view.

http://www.emfs.info/Sources+of+EMFs/Overhead+power+lines/specific/tpylon/

TheChizler

Given the lack of understanding of a mechanism for power line induced health effects, there is a major assumption here that a larger magnetic flux density is more harmful than a lower one. It 'may' turn out that there is a beneficial range of exposure, meaning a lower 'dose' could for certain values be more harmful than a higher dose. In a similar way to electromagnetic radiation in the 10 to 400 nm range being beneficial in humans at a certain exposure for the production of vitamin D, but harmful when exposed to lower amounts, due to the risk of developing a deficiency, or higher amounts, due to the risk of developing skin cancer.

Impetus

TheChizler wrote: »

Given the lack of understanding of a mechanism for power line induced health effects, there is a major assumption here that a larger magnetic flux density is more harmful than a lower one. It 'may' turn out that there is a beneficial range of exposure, meaning a lower 'dose' could for certain values be more harmful than a higher dose. In a similar way to electromagnetic radiation in the 10 to 400 nm range being beneficial in humans at a certain exposure for the production of vitamin D, but harmful when exposed to lower amounts, due to the risk of developing a deficiency, or higher amounts, due to the risk of developing skin cancer.

Neither water companies (eg fluoridating water) not electric grids (using magnetism) should be in the business of mass medication of the public.

Macha

Impetus wrote: »

Neither water companies (eg fluoridating water) not electric grids (using magnetism) should be in the business of mass medication of the public.

These two issues are completely different but does your comment mean that we should get rid of all existing pylons?

My understanding is the WHO puts electric grids at the same level of possible carcinogenic risk as cancer. There are also plenty of other every-day objects that emit EMF, including hairdryers, vacuum cleaners, microwaves and mobile phones. Should these be subject to a risk analysis and potentially outlawed?

Impetus

Macha wrote: »

These two issues are completely different but does your comment mean that we should get rid of all existing pylons?

My understanding is the WHO puts electric grids at the same level of possible carcinogenic risk as cancer. There are also plenty of other every-day objects that emit EMF, including hairdryers, vacuum cleaners, microwaves and mobile phones. Should these be subject to a risk analysis and potentially outlawed?

It is down to distance from the source and length of exposure. Perhaps it is a matter of labeling of appliances and a distance rule for high tension power cables. Good planning basically. (And allowing for the realities that someone isn't going to dry their hair for a million hours etc)

There are many pylons in Ireland as it stands. Has an increased incidence of cancer been reported in their vicinity? If so, at what distances. New installations should be beyond placed beyond "the cause line" in terms of human habitation.

Macha

Impetus wrote: »

It is down to distance from the source and length of exposure. Perhaps it is a matter of labeling of appliances and a distance rule for high tension power cables. Good planning basically. (And allowing for the realities that someone isn't going to dry their hair for a million hours etc)

There are many pylons in Ireland as it stands. Has an increased incidence of cancer been reported in their vicinity? If so, at what distances. New installations should be beyond placed beyond "the cause line" in terms of human habitation.

Sure, but people do spend a lot of time on their mobiles. I guess my point is that a more useful approach would be for the discussion to focus on the level of risk we are willing to accept and how we can best reduce the risks associated with overhead cables and any other item or technology.

And what are the implications for Ireland's grid system if they all have to be beyond this 'cause line'? What about existing pylons that are within this 'cause line'?

TheChizler

Impetus wrote: »

Neither water companies (eg fluoridating water) not electric grids (using magnetism) should be in the business of mass medication of the public.

I don't think anyone's advocating that. The point I'm making is that presuming there's an association between magnetic flux density and health effects, it's only speculation to say whether it's a positive, inverse, or square association etc.

Also there's the point that if the underground cables presented say twice the health risks of pylon held cables, twice a tiny risk is still a tiny risk. People do things every day that bring almost negligible risks to health into very real levels, for example a large percentage of people choose to smoke which (purely educated guess here) brings their risk of death or illnesses normally related to smoking from almost 0 to roughly 50%. If you don't smoke I'm sure you've (you being the general population) not worn a seatbelt in a car, not checked a smoke alarm, cycled in the dark without lights, slid down the stairs, crossed the road without looking etc.

Basically humans are terrible assessors of risk, and if we're prepared to ignore these documented and proven risks and mechanisms, why should we focus on putting a huge amount of effort and inconvenience into avoiding these unproven mechanisms, which even if they exist carry risks so small as to be pretty much negligible.

Birdnuts

Impetus wrote: »

?

Not forgetting the total use costs/benefits of connections to wind turbines, rail electrification and car charging points.

Has Eirgrid produced a credible CBA for this multi billion euro pylon splurge?? cos if they have I'm having trouble finding it.

PS: No doubt wind developers are all for getting another handout from bill payers in the form of pylon sprawl across rural Ireland.

Impetus

Macha wrote: »

Sure, but people do spend a lot of time on their mobiles. I guess my point is that a more useful approach would be for the discussion to focus on the level of risk we are willing to accept and how we can best reduce the risks associated with overhead cables and any other item or technology.

And what are the implications for Ireland's grid system if they all have to be beyond this 'cause line'? What about existing pylons that are within this 'cause line'?

It is only 30 to 40 m of land strip along a few high power grid connection cables. It is an easy matter to determine the households within this "risk area" - and analyze their medical history. All one needs is a statistically significant sample. If properly constructed, this sample would determine what if any risks attach, and how far away one needs to be.

As for mobile phones and similar, my personal policy is to use them only for urgent calls, and use a landline for everything else. I call someone from time to time and one might get no answer from their landline. Call their mobile to find them in the garden. If I offer to call them again on the landline for a typically 30 minute call, they prefer to hold their mobile to their head. In my view this is bonkers. But I wouldn't be worried about a high voltage cable in the vicinity of my house, assuming tests were made going back over 50 years or so that showed no ill affect on health.

Perhaps it is a lack of trust in the powers that be, that causes such hysteria to evolve?

Impetus

Birdnuts wrote: »

Has Eirgrid produced a credible CBA for this multi billion euro pylon splurge?? cos if they have I'm having trouble finding it.

PS: No doubt wind developers are all for getting another handout from bill players in the form of pylon sprawl across rural Ireland.

I don't believe eirgrid has even thought about the cost benefit issues of running pylons along rail, motorway and other arterial routes. My suspicion is that organisations like this are full of over-paid staff who lack the mental wherewithal to do big picture thinking / planning and have to employ €500 + per/h consultants to do the work they are paid to do.

Birdnuts

Impetus wrote: »

I don't believe eirgrid has even thought about the cost benefit issues of running pylons along rail, motorway and other arterial routes. My suspicion is that organisations like this are full of over-paid staff who lack the mental wherewithal to do big picture thinking / planning and have to employ €500 + per/h consultants to do the work they are paid to do.

Not to mention the many vested interests who have their snout in the trough when to comes to spending state money on white elephants

Oldtree

Impetus wrote: »

There are other options too including the “T” pylon which when carrying 400 kV has about 3.5 micro Teslas of radiation within 20m of the pylon, a figure which rapidly drops off the further one gets away. This compares with about twice that using a conventional pylon.

The “T” shaped pylons also look nicer in my view.

http://www.emfs.info/Sources+of+EMFs/Overhead+power+lines/specific/tpylon/

There are a few designs of pylons that are aesthetically better than the existing ones. Sadly there is little in any cost analysis of the impact of towers on an out of the way place in Ireland (which is heavily reliant on tourist views and aspects), the landscape and its beauty is something that is apparently free and undeserving of preserving :rolleyes:

The types of towers being considered by Eirgrid:
http://www.eirgridprojects.com/projects/gridwest/towerdesign/

Impetus

Oldtree wrote: »

There are a few designs of pylons that are aesthetically better than the existing ones. Sadly there is little in any cost analysis of the impact of towers on an out of the way place in Ireland (which is heavily reliant on tourist views and aspects), the landscape and its beauty is something that is apparently free and undeserving of preserving :rolleyes:

The types of towers being considered by Eirgrid:
http://www.eirgridprojects.com/projects/gridwest/towerdesign/

One wonders how eirgrid can get planning permission to install such ugly monsters, when more aesthetically pleasing designs are available that emit half the EM radiation on properties underneath them?

One can drive down a German autobahn and it looks pleasant - wind turbines here and there, an ICE train flys past at 300 km/h - no big deal in my books. Intelligent design and planning.

Oldtree

Impetus wrote: »

But I wouldn't be worried about a high voltage cable in the vicinity of my house, assuming tests were made going back over 50 years or so that showed no ill affect on health.

Perhaps it is a lack of trust in the powers that be, that causes such hysteria to evolve?

Dr James Reilly may give you pause for thought:
"Dr James Reilly said that “as a doctor and Minister for Health” he was worried about the health risks from such magnetic fields. He cited DCU-based public health expert, Professor Anthony Staines who had said “it is well established that the low frequency magnetic fields increase the risk of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia”.2
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/reilly-letter-raises-health-fears-over-pylons-253772.html

Mr O’Connor also told the committee that he would “not like to live close to a pylon”.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/ff-calls-on-government-to-reject-appointment-of-new-eirgrid-chair-1.1616632

I am ploughing my way through this at the moment:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/NPRBArchive/DocumentsOfTheNRPB/Absd1503/

Oldtree

Impetus wrote: »

One wonders how eirgrid can get planning permission to install such ugly monsters, when more aesthetically pleasing designs are available that emit half the EM radiation on properties underneath them?

One can drive down a German autobahn and it looks pleasant - wind turbines here and there, an ICE train flys past at 300 km/h - no big deal in my books. Intelligent design and planning.

It appears the Uk has had enough of onshore turbines, but even then I think there are onshore places that turbines are appropriate for, industrial zones cities towns, etc I like your motorway suggestion.

TheChizler

Oldtree wrote: »

Dr James Reilly may give you pause for thought:
"Dr James Reilly said that “as a doctor and Minister for Health” he was worried about the health risks from such magnetic fields. He cited DCU-based public health expert, Professor Anthony Staines who had said “it is well established that the low frequency magnetic fields increase the risk of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia”.2
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/reilly-letter-raises-health-fears-over-pylons-253772.html

Mr O’Connor also told the committee that he would “not like to live close to a pylon”.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/ff-calls-on-government-to-reject-appointment-of-new-eirgrid-chair-1.1616632

I am ploughing my way through this at the moment:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/NPRBArchive/DocumentsOfTheNRPB/Absd1503/

Kind of worrying how active ministers can come out with this kind of rubbish! Ones who also happen to be medical professionals!

Oldtree

This recent paper is worth reading: 2013

Findings

From a literature survey it is concluded that there is statistically significant published evidence consistent with the involvement of airborne electroactive agents in the powerline proximity modulation of some cytokine activity. Attention is drawn to overhead line fault associated corona discharge action as a source of potentially bioactive agents deserving careful study in view of the widespread close residential proximity to overhead power distribution lines in many countries. Particular attention is given to the role of electricity access associated faults as a possible explanation for the high childhood leukaemia rates in certain districts of Mexico City

http://www.springerplus.com/content/2/1/454#

and this: 2011

4. Conclusions

Concentrations of positive and negative small ions, net aerosol ions and fine particle number, dc electric fields and ac magnetic fields were measured at a site near three parallel overhead power lines with a steady wind blowing normal to the lines. Measurements were made at seven points at ground level along a length of about 340 m of the lines along a line parallel to the lines about 20 m downwind of the lines and at eight points upwind, under and downwind of the lines spanning a total distance of about 160 m. The main conclusions of this study are as follows:

Positive small and aerosol ion concentrations downwind of the lines were significantly higher than on the upwind side, suggesting that the lines were a source of positive corona. The emission of corona ions along the lines was not uniform, with large small ion concentrations being attributed to discrete sections of the lines, while large sections of the lines did not produce any corona at all. A set of spacers on one of the lines was identified as a probable source of corona. When moving from the upwind to the downwind side of the lines, along a line through the spacers, positive small ion and aerosol ion concentrations and dc electric field all increased sharply. The respective median values of these three parameters at a downwind distance of 20 m from the lines were found to be 4400 cm−3, 1300 cm−3 and 530 V m−1. Making a simplistic assumption that each charged aerosol particle carried a unit charge, it was estimated that less than 7% of the total number of particles was charged. The electrical parameters decreased steadily with downwind distance from the lines but were still significantly higher than background at the limit of measurement.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304388611000490

djpbarry

Impetus wrote: »

I don't believe eirgrid has even thought about the cost benefit issues of running pylons along rail, motorway and other arterial routes.

It hasn’t happened, therefore it wasn’t considered?

djpbarry

Oldtree wrote: »

This recent paper is worth reading: 2013

Findings

From a literature survey it is concluded that there is statistically significant published evidence consistent with the involvement of airborne electroactive agents in the powerline proximity modulation of some cytokine activity. Attention is drawn to overhead line fault associated corona discharge action as a source of potentially bioactive agents deserving careful study in view of the widespread close residential proximity to overhead power distribution lines in many countries. Particular attention is given to the role of electricity access associated faults as a possible explanation for the high childhood leukaemia rates in certain districts of Mexico City

http://www.springerplus.com/content/2/1/454#

And if we read on to the conclusions:

Despite more than 30 years research worldwide there is no generally accepted biological mechanism to explain the adverse health impact of overhead powerline residential proximity.

In other words, there is no evidence that power lines impact negatively on health.

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

And if we read on to the conclusions:
In other words, there is no evidence that power lines impact negatively on health.

No - it means they don't understand what is actually happening and research has not progressed to a point to explain it

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

No - it means they don't understand what is actually happening...

With regard to what?

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

And if we read on to the conclusions:
In other words, there is no evidence that power lines impact negatively on health.

fclauson wrote: »

No - it means they don't understand what is actually happening and research has not progressed to a point to explain it

My point is that research has not uncovered why there is a statistical anomaly around the variations in health of those people who live near power lines but the research does show there is a variation in the health of these people.

fits

That they don't agree on the biological mechanism does not mean it doesn't exist.

A parallel would be the swine flu vaccine and narcolepsy - they don't know the biological mechanism for that link either but it exists.

(personally I think health effects are overplayed but 50m is far too close. Properly planned infrastructure corridoors with minimised impact and a proper compensation relocation set up for those affected is required.)

TheChizler

Wasn't there some case in Mexico recently where the anomaly around some lines was explained by the weed killer being sprayed round the base of the pylons?

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

My point is that research has not uncovered why there is a statistical anomaly around the variations in health of those people who live near power lines but the research does show there is a variation in the health of these people.

I'm not at all convinced by the latter statement. I've seen it suggested before that there may be a link between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia, but the methodology employed is often sub-standard.

Oldtree

This recent news may have an impact on the pylon/turbine issue:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/eu-renewable-energy-targets-to-be-significantly-scaled-back-1.1658122

Macha

Oldtree wrote: »

This recent news may have an impact on the pylon/turbine issue:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/eu-renewable-energy-targets-to-be-significantly-scaled-back-1.1658122

Not really. Ireland has to go for renewables, regardless of what the rest of Europe does, although it would certainly be much, much cheaper for us if the rest of Europe also builds out renewables. Why? Technology costs will come down a lot faster with more widespread deployment.

We spend E6 billion a year importing energy. We have an energy import dependency of 85%. We get 93% of our gas through one point in the UK and we use that for heating, cooling, cooking etc AND to generate electricity. We simply can't afford to keep going on like this.

This debate over pylons is about how we develop our energy system to ensure clean, affordable energy but there shouldn't be any question that we have to do it.

Oldtree

Macha wrote: »

Not really. Ireland has to go for renewables, regardless of what the rest of Europe does, although it would certainly be much, much cheaper for us if the rest of Europe also builds out renewables. Why? Technology costs will come down a lot faster with more widespread deployment.

We spend E6 billion a year importing energy. We have an energy import dependency of 85%. We get 93% of our gas through one point in the UK and we use that for heating, cooling, cooking etc AND to generate electricity. We simply can't afford to keep going on like this.

This debate over pylons is about how we develop our energy system to ensure clean, affordable energy but there shouldn't be any question that we have to do it.

I would agree 100% that we need more national sustainability regarding power, the same goes for our food +90%+ imported) and yes it is how we go about it. But setting this thing up under the pretence of national security when the aim is to export the power for profit (as mentioned earlier), kinda sticks in the craw.