Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
But Bob Crantz gave no numbers for the fields around high
voltage power lines. Other fields should cause more worry. They are the missing numbers. Is it 100 volts/meter underneath the transmission line? But the those fields are also found inside the house. Don't worry about those high voltage transmission lines. Instead, move the bedroom depending on how the house is constructed and wired ... in every house. If fields are a problem, then the problem are things found inside every house. I am impressed that you do have fundamental knowledge of the concepts - even though you confuse electron spin (a concept in quantum physics) with electric current. But that is not the problem. The problem is that fields from high voltage power lines are not the source of potentially dangerous fields - if those fields are even dangerous. You have provided numbers for some observed scientific research - providing numbers that are only speculative. But those fields are everywhere - even confronting passengers in a car front seat. The problem is that you don't provide any useful numbers for making a conclusion - other than industry benchmark numbers. If field strength numbers you have provided are accurate, then we all are at high risk, constantly, in all homes. And would be dying more often. Many theories exist on what constitutes dangerous fields. Some research suggests as little as 1 gauss. A house, adjacent or not, to high voltage power lines contains no such fields. Others suggest limits like 100 milligauss. This is further complicated by how measurements are taken. But again, the original post is about high voltage transmission lines. The 'dangerous' fields, if they even are dangerous, are from elsewhere. Those worrying about fields from a high voltage power line are using classic "penny rich and pound poor" reasoning. BTW, I am not suggesting that citations Bob Crantz has provided are in error. Bottom line is that we don't really know what extremely long term health effects of these low magnetic and electric fields are. But one must live in reality. That means one must have numbers. Numbers - if these lower level fields are so dangerous, then we literally must rewire all homes. If you thought lead paint was a problem, then removing all TVs and other displays would be trivial compared to replacing or relocating househould wire. Yes it could become a problem just like lead paint. Or it just as easily become another witch hunt. We don't know. But we do know what fields currently exist in the house. We do know the source of those 'theoretically dangerous' fields are not high voltage transmission lines as some totally irresponsible news anchors suggest. Low voltage, higher current wires inside walls should cause concern - if concern is justified. That is what too many if not most posters failed to comprehend. Provided is a crude tool to find locations with high fields. Fields will cause the TV or CRT picture to shimy or distort. This is a numerical perspective provided by ball park measurements. Bob Crantz wrote: "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! ... |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
My EMF-822A electromagnetic field radiation tester has just arrived.
I read in one of the reports, a maximum suggested exposure limit of 3 milligauss. I am getting a reading of 2 milligauss just sitting in front of my CRT (there is also a 2 bulb flourescent light about 3 feet above my head). Moving the meter closer to the monitor gives readings up to 12 milligauss. I'll play with this more in the days to come. Scout |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Excellent. Experience from that meter is what every poster
should have had before posting. Please report fields in many locations including car - and that transmission line. Warning: sometimes transmission lines are not carrying much current. Therefore the readings may appear low. Take readings at various time of day or year to better understand the fields. And find other equivalent transmission lines to verify readings at your transmission line are reasonable. 3 milligauss is one of the lower limits that many claim to be 'maximum permissible'. Notice that what is and is not healthy is a very wide region because - despite all the papers such as those from Bob Crantz - we still don't known what is dangerous; if anything. Bottom line. If HV transmission lines don't exceed what is normally created in the house, then transmission lines (currently) can be considered safe. Also take electric field readings. E fields are measured in volts per meter. Furthermore, notice what does and does not eliminate or reduce both magnetic and electric fields. I love it when people are more interested in the numbers rather than just hyping what could be junk science. Its called 'dirt under your fingernails'. Number are what junk scientists fear to learn or post. Use numbers from research papers by Bob Crantz to put your meter readings into perspective. Appreciate why speculation on the dangers of either magnetic or electric fields is so widely disputed. Then appreciate why so many reiterate worries without the 'temper' of reality - the numbers. Scout wrote: My EMF-822A electromagnetic field radiation tester has just arrived. I read in one of the reports, a maximum suggested exposure limit of 3 milligauss. I am getting a reading of 2 milligauss just sitting in front of my CRT (there is also a 2 bulb flourescent light about 3 feet above my head). Moving the meter closer to the monitor gives readings up to 12 milligauss. I'll play with this more in the days to come. Scout |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
w_Tom,
You are correct about the fields in the house being of more concern than the fields from a powerline. You are also correct about the studies from powerlines. I was playing around with you and you stood your ground. For that I have great respect.. Why didn't you catch the remark about the E field increasing in a dielectric? It actually decreases, the Displacement vector remains constant. My hat tips to you! http://www.emfacts.com/papers/case-histories.html Amen! You won't burn in hell! A powerline will get you instead! Bob Crantz "w_tom" wrote in message ... But Bob Crantz gave no numbers for the fields around high voltage power lines. Other fields should cause more worry. They are the missing numbers. Is it 100 volts/meter underneath the transmission line? But the those fields are also found inside the house. Don't worry about those high voltage transmission lines. Instead, move the bedroom depending on how the house is constructed and wired ... in every house. If fields are a problem, then the problem are things found inside every house. I am impressed that you do have fundamental knowledge of the concepts - even though you confuse electron spin (a concept in quantum physics) with electric current. But that is not the problem. The problem is that fields from high voltage power lines are not the source of potentially dangerous fields - if those fields are even dangerous. You have provided numbers for some observed scientific research - providing numbers that are only speculative. But those fields are everywhere - even confronting passengers in a car front seat. The problem is that you don't provide any useful numbers for making a conclusion - other than industry benchmark numbers. If field strength numbers you have provided are accurate, then we all are at high risk, constantly, in all homes. And would be dying more often. Many theories exist on what constitutes dangerous fields. Some research suggests as little as 1 gauss. A house, adjacent or not, to high voltage power lines contains no such fields. Others suggest limits like 100 milligauss. This is further complicated by how measurements are taken. But again, the original post is about high voltage transmission lines. The 'dangerous' fields, if they even are dangerous, are from elsewhere. Those worrying about fields from a high voltage power line are using classic "penny rich and pound poor" reasoning. BTW, I am not suggesting that citations Bob Crantz has provided are in error. Bottom line is that we don't really know what extremely long term health effects of these low magnetic and electric fields are. But one must live in reality. That means one must have numbers. Numbers - if these lower level fields are so dangerous, then we literally must rewire all homes. If you thought lead paint was a problem, then removing all TVs and other displays would be trivial compared to replacing or relocating househould wire. Yes it could become a problem just like lead paint. Or it just as easily become another witch hunt. We don't know. But we do know what fields currently exist in the house. We do know the source of those 'theoretically dangerous' fields are not high voltage transmission lines as some totally irresponsible news anchors suggest. Low voltage, higher current wires inside walls should cause concern - if concern is justified. That is what too many if not most posters failed to comprehend. Provided is a crude tool to find locations with high fields. Fields will cause the TV or CRT picture to shimy or distort. This is a numerical perspective provided by ball park measurements. Bob Crantz wrote: "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! ... |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Fishfinder??? | ASA | |||
Steel hull - electrical ground | Electronics | |||
Steel hull - electrical ground | General | |||
Steel hull - electrical ground | Cruising | |||
Electrical problem | Electronics |