Tom_H
Veteran Member
I think the only real concerns are whether it could fall on your house, or whether it's ugliness lowers your property value.
A couple of decades ago, there were "anecdotal" reports of a handful of areas in the country where clusters of people living beneath high voltage power transmission lines had higher than average rates of cancer. It turned out that indeed there was in these specific areas a correlation between the two. The thing is, correlation does not prove a relationship, neither cause and effect, nor any other kind.
Extensive study involving epidemiology and statistical analysis over the next several years revealed that there were isolated pockets where this correlation existed within a normal range of coincidence. Here's what this means: Lets say you had a barn. You let a bunch of kids dip paint brushes in red paint and then sling paint through the air, off the brushes and onto the side of the barn. The places where the paint lands and where it doesn't are both somewhat random. You then take a shotgun loaded with bird shot, and from about 50 yd. away, you unload several shells into the same barn wall. Once again, where the bird shot pellets hit and where they don't are both pretty much random. Now there will be a few places on that barn wall where there is red paint and a shot pellet landed on that red spot. There will be even more places that are red, but have no shot, as well as places where shot landed, but there was no paint. Greatest of all will be places where there is neither paint nor pellets. Now let's say that the barn wall is a map of the U.S. Red paint is all the places where cancer is higher than normal, and pellet holes are where power lines exist. When the entire map of North America was examined carefully, it was just like that barn wall. Most places had no power lines and no abnormal cancer rates. Some places had high cancer rates, but no power lines. Some places had power lines, but average or even below average cancer rates. A very few places had high cancer rates and power lines in the same locale. These were the places you heard about in the news. The studies, however, showed that the number of places having the correlation was within a normal statistical distribution.
Still though, this is only statistical analysis. Measurements needed to be taken and experiments performed. Electricity and magnetism are two parts of the same thing (think about electromagnets). The sinusoidal waves of magnetism and electricity lay at a 90 degree angle to each other. The magnetic field generated by high voltage lines, at the distance from the wire to the ground, is only 1/500th the strength of the Earth's own natural magnetic field (the one that makes a compass point north).
Laboratories use test animals (rats, mice, rabbits, etc.) that have been bred in such a way that things can make them develop cancer more easily than a typical member of the species. Numerous tests were carried out in which these animals were placed for months next to electromagnetic fields thousands of times more powerful than those of a power line (at a distance from the line to the ground-the field strength is inversely proportional to the distance from the wire). None of these animals developed any form of cancer. Those few places where clusters of people living beneath power lines had higher than average cancer rates: rare coincidences within a normal distribution. Electromagnetic fields have not been shown to induce either the "initiation" nor "promotion" of gene damage, both of which are necessary to cause cancer. All of the electromagnetic levitation (Maglev) rail projects (levitating trains capable of 365 mph.) in North America and Europe were canceled because of lawsuits brought by people with cancer against power line owners. We now know that the "correlation" between electromagnetic fields and oncological epidemiology should never have been admitted as forensic evidence in court. How sad that emotion overruled science and that a promising technology was forsaken.
(P.S. I am NOT being unsympathetic toward cancer victims. Numerous members of my family have suffered and died from it. Our modern technological culture has filled our world with proven carcinogens that would not exist had humans not put them there. I'm just saying that decisions need to be driven by scientific proof, not feelings or politics.)
A couple of decades ago, there were "anecdotal" reports of a handful of areas in the country where clusters of people living beneath high voltage power transmission lines had higher than average rates of cancer. It turned out that indeed there was in these specific areas a correlation between the two. The thing is, correlation does not prove a relationship, neither cause and effect, nor any other kind.
Extensive study involving epidemiology and statistical analysis over the next several years revealed that there were isolated pockets where this correlation existed within a normal range of coincidence. Here's what this means: Lets say you had a barn. You let a bunch of kids dip paint brushes in red paint and then sling paint through the air, off the brushes and onto the side of the barn. The places where the paint lands and where it doesn't are both somewhat random. You then take a shotgun loaded with bird shot, and from about 50 yd. away, you unload several shells into the same barn wall. Once again, where the bird shot pellets hit and where they don't are both pretty much random. Now there will be a few places on that barn wall where there is red paint and a shot pellet landed on that red spot. There will be even more places that are red, but have no shot, as well as places where shot landed, but there was no paint. Greatest of all will be places where there is neither paint nor pellets. Now let's say that the barn wall is a map of the U.S. Red paint is all the places where cancer is higher than normal, and pellet holes are where power lines exist. When the entire map of North America was examined carefully, it was just like that barn wall. Most places had no power lines and no abnormal cancer rates. Some places had high cancer rates, but no power lines. Some places had power lines, but average or even below average cancer rates. A very few places had high cancer rates and power lines in the same locale. These were the places you heard about in the news. The studies, however, showed that the number of places having the correlation was within a normal statistical distribution.
Still though, this is only statistical analysis. Measurements needed to be taken and experiments performed. Electricity and magnetism are two parts of the same thing (think about electromagnets). The sinusoidal waves of magnetism and electricity lay at a 90 degree angle to each other. The magnetic field generated by high voltage lines, at the distance from the wire to the ground, is only 1/500th the strength of the Earth's own natural magnetic field (the one that makes a compass point north).
Laboratories use test animals (rats, mice, rabbits, etc.) that have been bred in such a way that things can make them develop cancer more easily than a typical member of the species. Numerous tests were carried out in which these animals were placed for months next to electromagnetic fields thousands of times more powerful than those of a power line (at a distance from the line to the ground-the field strength is inversely proportional to the distance from the wire). None of these animals developed any form of cancer. Those few places where clusters of people living beneath power lines had higher than average cancer rates: rare coincidences within a normal distribution. Electromagnetic fields have not been shown to induce either the "initiation" nor "promotion" of gene damage, both of which are necessary to cause cancer. All of the electromagnetic levitation (Maglev) rail projects (levitating trains capable of 365 mph.) in North America and Europe were canceled because of lawsuits brought by people with cancer against power line owners. We now know that the "correlation" between electromagnetic fields and oncological epidemiology should never have been admitted as forensic evidence in court. How sad that emotion overruled science and that a promising technology was forsaken.
(P.S. I am NOT being unsympathetic toward cancer victims. Numerous members of my family have suffered and died from it. Our modern technological culture has filled our world with proven carcinogens that would not exist had humans not put them there. I'm just saying that decisions need to be driven by scientific proof, not feelings or politics.)
