"w_tom" wrote in message
...
Where are your numbers, Bob Crantz?

Read the NASA citation. There's numbers. Read the handbook for Magnetic
shielding. There's numbers. Every reference I gave has numbers.

A stationary and
permanent magnetic creates electricity?

Yes it can, if you move relative to it. Faradays unipolar generator
(featured on the English 20 pound note) needs no relative motion between the
conductor and magnet to produce electricity. Look it up.

Which field is
dangerous - electric or magnetic?

They both can be.


And how much?

80 mv transmembrane potential is all it takes.


How much are
the fields under a high voltage transmissions lines?

Between the lines take the voltage between them and divide by the separation
of the lines to get the field strength in volts per meter. If you know the
location of the ground below them (as in electrical ground) you can create
the image circuit (using the method of images) and calculate the field
strength also at the ground level.


And why
do you worry about those high voltage wires when your own
citations, instead, discuss lower voltage wires inside the
building?


The high voltage is ionizing the air. Ever hear that crackling noise? What
is the voltage induced in a moving object under a power line? Any idea?
Indoor wiring = very bad!


It is a classic junk science maneuver. Hype some fear.
Provide no numbers. Then when numbers expose the fear as
hype, attack the messenger rather than provide required
numbers.

Well, where's the proof of your point?



Tell us Bob Crantz. How strong are those fields underneath
that high voltage transmission line? You hyped the fear. But
you forgot to mention whether such fearful numbers even exist
under that transmission line.

100 V/m typically, which would induce 200 volts in a standing human. 80 mV
is all it takes.




In the meantime, others should again remember which electric
lines are accused of being dangerous. Not the high voltage
transmission lines. Even Bob Crantz's own citation discusses
which electric lines were originally suspect. Those low
voltage wires inside the building. Worry more about where the
wire to your electric stove is routed - if there is anything
to even worry about.

I'd really worry about wiring in the house!



Molecular resonance. Fine. Why is it so dangerous? You
forgot to mention field size - provide numbers - that make
molecular resonance significant. It was not an accidental
omission.


In large molecules, such as DNA, resonance can be used to alter the
molecule. The field strength or magnetic moment would have to exceed the
bond energy of the particular molecular link.



Don't take an MRI. Those fields are so much stronger as to
kill everyone who gets an MRI?

Don't get X-Rays. Those are so much stronger as to kill everyone who gets an
X-Ray?

(XRays are ioninzing radiation, much stronger, much more dangerous than the
27 MHz field of an NMR machine.)

Why do MRI machine operators work in a shielded area?

It's the cumulative dose that counts! You can get one big dose in a short
time or live under a powerline for decades.


Or maybe the hype should first
provide some numbers? According to what Bob Crantz has
posted, then clearly MRIs must kill some people. Why? Where
are his numbers to go along with all those dead brain cells?

It's the cumulative dose. MRI's have killed people.



Fortunately Scout will get a meter and learn the numbers.
Numbers are what the first posts in this thread should have
provided up front. Missing numbers are why so many can post
fear about electric transmission lines. No numbers is the
source of so much 'junk science' promoted fear.

Didn't check my references did you?



Bob Crantz wrote:
Where are you facts to support your assertions? You infer the
Leeper study and then don't mention it by name.

You completely fail to even consider molecular resonance.

You fail to consider aggregate resonance of the human body.

You cite the complexity of field conditions, which is true, but fail
to cite controlled laboratory experiments which can isolate cause
and effect and show the effects of electric and magnetic fields
on biological systems.
Here's just one example of magnetic fields used to control brain
chemistry:

http://nursing.vanderbilt.edu/pain/r.../pub-prot.html

Here's some Q&A:

http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlin...r-FAQ/toc.html

Note the conclusions in the article say powerlines can't hurt you
as far as cancer and leukemia go.

Just for fun, take a light steel or copper cable/wire (uninsulated)
and use it as a jump rope with your bare, sweaty hands under a
power line. Try it at different distances and orientations from the
line.

"w_tom" wrote in message
...
Many replies are so full of urban myth that I must restart.
Lets start with health effects rumored to be caused by
electricity (and ignore that original study was later
discovered with gross statistical errors). Many immediately
assume danger was in high tension wires. They first failed to
learn or demand the numbers. Those health effects, if exist,
were more likely from something that creates stronger fields -
such as wires underneath floor and inside walls, from circuit
breaker box to central air conditioner. Those who jump to
conclusions immediately assumed the study was about high
tension wires.

'Those' include many news anchors who refuse to first do what
all responsible anchormen are suppose to do - verify the story
- hold the reporter's feet to the fire - do as Walter Cronkite
did so routinely and so viciously. Immediately, the reply
from many posters is suspect - having confused health risk
warnings about something else - then assuming it must be high
tension wires. They assumed as many irresponsible news
anchors did on local news shows. Urban myth is now rampant
even in this thread.
...
Among the numbers not provided were line voltages. 128 kV?
230 kV? 765 kV? These also define other conditions such a
noise. What is on those electric distribution towers? Bottom
line. You need numbers before anyone can properly answer your
question. Lets not forget, the original Scandinavian study
that started all this hype was later discovered to have
manipulated the statistics. This was discovered by other
scientists who finally got access to the raw data. IOW hype
continued until numbers were revealed. Any yet the
speculation continues here - again without numbers.
...