|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 25, 2008 10:17:21 GMT -6
Here is your thread. Although, I would ask you spend some time in archives. This topic has been discussed for a very long time. A new poster  such as yourself may have missed some of the discussion. Edit: From your archive research you will find that EMF has not been the primary area of discussion. Search on a posters name HillMom. You will find a fair amount of her thoughts on the subject as well. EMF Hazards at the Eola site? In my past life, I was a physicist (2 Masters and a PhD) - and as a result of working with all kinds of radiation, theory and practice, for over 20 years, I do know a thing or two about it. Do people realize that the Earth's magnetic field is around 300-500mG? And we are quibbling about 2-3 mG here? Some argue that it's not the same as the 2-3 mG is an alternating field, but a static field 100x that? We should be dropping dead like flies.... EMF effects on biological tissue are controversial, but far from conclusive. The pot was stirred in 1979 based on a flawed report of alleged correlation between childhood leukemia and proximity to power lines, which has since been put under serious attack. A 100+ studies after that have still not established the critical cause-effect relationship or a credible mechanism needed for this to be called "science". I am sure someone will trot out a set of publications that "prove" that EMF radiation "causes" cancer - I humbly point out that that is not the way controversy is resolved in science. The entire totality of data has to be examined - and the methodology and systematic errors for each study has to be analyzed to derive any conclusion. I'd be equally happy to trot out another set of publications that refute the first set if I believed that is the way determine truth. Unfortunately, in science, it is very difficult to prove a universal negative, so the notion persists and is impossible to shake loose. I would probably give more credence to reports of excessive cell phone use being dangerous than power lines, or being in front of computers too long, due to sheer distance between the source and biological tissue. Any safety guidelines adopted by any agency or government are based on lack of knowledge of what the effect is, not any established causal mechanism between EMF and the host of medical conditions it allegedly causes. Fear of litigation is the primary motivation for agencies to adopt this, as hard evidence of health hazards is highly questionable. So we have a situation not unlike Pascal's Gambit about the existence of God: "Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose." - source Wikipedia (Reader: Substitute "EMF hazards" for "God" in the original) Most household appliances create more EMF that power lines and substations because of an oldie but a goodie - the inverse square law that governs gravity and electromagnetism, and makes these fields die very rapidly with distance. So calling out proximity to power lines a health hazard is what we call FUD, and I have much disdain for that tactic. Arch - you're right - this should probably be a new thread on real and percieved hazards of Eola, and yes, I will come prepared. Lets look at the data together. EMF, contaminants, railroad tracks, earthquakes, gas lines. I don't care much for personal attacks - but facts are and should be up for debate. Feel free to re-post this in a new thread and we can continue there. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Apr 25, 2008 10:22:05 GMT -6
Player,
You have amazing credentials. I am not a Dr. nor do I understand physics or whatever else you talked about for that matter...but what I do know is that the school board laid the groundwork for future litigation pertaining to the Eola site by initially excluding it in their land analysis for health reasons pertaining to exposure to radiation.
No matter what compelling information you have stating how EMF stuff (yes, a very technical term) is safe, tell that to the parent with a sick child who will be grasping for reasons why their child is ill. They will absolutely point to all of the issues mentioned by this community and we all know that juries don't always use scientific , rational information when deliberating on a verdict.
All I am saying is that this is a big risk our district has taken with taxpayer monies. Add on top of that the BB damages and I fear our tax bills will be out of control.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 25, 2008 10:28:25 GMT -6
Player - since you are a new poster, I would like to re-post what Mark Metzger wrote about the St. John's site in early 2006 - well after the peaker plant was not operating. The board approved this analysis of the site:
The northeast parts of the site are immediately adjacent to two high energy electrical
switching substations. That means relatively high electromagnetic radiation would be
present at that location. The original location of the Patterson Elementary school in sight
of electrical power lines caused uproar over the possibility that electromagnetic radiation
might create health issues for the students, and the site was moved to its current location.
While the Patterson site created the possibility of exposure to electromagnetic radiation,
the Eola/Molitor site is somewhere between a probability and a certainty for exposure to
such radiation. Although the scientists studying the question of whether such exposures
do or do not create health concerns continue to disagree, the Board sees no advantage in
constructing a third high school in such a location if there is any possibility of
abandonment for health reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 10:32:59 GMT -6
EMR is used in the field of gene manipulation... There is an effect. How much and in what ways is still up to a jury to decide. Juries love junk science with it pulls at your heart strings. Lawyers understand this vulnerability all too well.
That alone (the ongoing risk to the taxpayers' wallets) is reason enough not to build there.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 25, 2008 11:11:58 GMT -6
I swiped JB's post from the Unity thread and will put it here too: www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/docs/emf2002.pdf Page 10 of pdf. Q. Doesn’t the earth produce EMF? A. Yes. The earth produces EMF, mainly in the form of static fields, similar to the fields generated by DC electricity. Electric fields are produced by air turbulence and other atmospheric activity. The earth’s magnetic field of about 500 mG is thought to be produced by electric currents flowing deep within the earth’s core. Because
these fields are static rather than alternating, they do not induce currents in
stationary objects as do fields associated with alternating current. Such static fields can induce currents in moving and rotating objects. .....although the spin you are attempting probably would induce current flow |
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 11:41:26 GMT -6
WeBe204: Thanks for the assist to the archives - I will study it. If EMF has been beaten to death, I won't belabor the point. slp: My reaction was to another poster who said EMF risk may cause litigation if a child is ill. Possible, I suppose. I worry a lot more about Aurora water than I do about EMF. Anything can be litigated in our country. My point is that far as I know, there has been no successful litigation against EMF based hazards anywhere in the world to my knowledge, due largely to the fact that this is an extremely difficult area to establish cause-effect (someone correct me if I am wrong). When there is, I suspect there will be worldwide class action suit - but not without much bloodshed from utility companies, EPA and the like. So in legal terms, no precedents. Thus the risk of this avenue of litigation is lower than for say drunk school drivers, or samonella poisoning in the water, or kidnappings (which I worry about!). I would say that IF the Eola site is a health hazard from an EMF point of view, likely many if not most public facilities are too, and even more likely, the childs home environment is as well. d204mom: If you are trying to convince me that SB members make no sense, you're preaching to the choir ;D. Say no more - I have seen much evidence of SB stupidity, and am still in shock after I studied its history since 2002 detailed in the Brodie lawsuit. While I am not attributing malice to the SB, I think their decisions and public statements make them appear like they have lost their marbles on many occasions. They are trying their best to recover from acute embarrasment - I will happily join you in voting at least some of them out the next election. Right now though I'd have to question the sanity of anyone who stands for SB next elections - the next Yossarian from Catch-22! Arch: Yes - EMR, in fact, most radiation, can be and is used for many biological purposes. Good and bad. It can kill too. Its a question of type (EMF, X-ray, Gamma-ray, neutrons, charged particle,...), intensity and exposure. So if you are arguing that EMF in some high intensity regime has biological consequences, I completely agree. I think one of the problems is that we use the term EMF very loosely. Take sunlight, for example- it is an EMF, and can and will cause cancer (melanoma) with enough exposure. - that has been established causally and has a credible mechanism. Does that mean we stay indoors for the rest of our lives? The reason is because the exposure is easy to manage - we can control intensity (sunblock, anyone?) and duration (no long sunbathing sessions) and type (filer out UV) to control what we call integrated dose. When I worked at Fermilab in my younger wilder days, we measured integrated dose for every individual over months to ensure we did not exceed ionizing radiation limits. Everything we know of any kind of radiation points to integrated dose being the key to determine health hazards. Genetic manipulation is characterized by high-intensity but low exposure times, making the dose low. Utility equipment related EMF's are typically much lower level and frequency (60Hz) than sunlight. At the kind of intensity levels we are looking at (<5mG), its not easy to add up enough integrated dose. Which is why recent studies (for cell phones, at least) are looking at 10 year+ integrated dose for people using cell phones for several hours a day. Cell phones produce FAR mode EMF that power lines do as we hoild them to our ears, for long periods of time too! Banning my kids from using cell phones and computers is on my mind...  So if someone does develop cancer - what caused it? Home computers, cell phones, sunbathing, power lines, microwaves? All of these have the same effects, and integrated dose comes from all. The sources cannot be distinguished - if EMF from power lines is a true hazard, as a culture, we are doomed - there are far more potent sources of EMF we expose our kids to on a daily basis. But to be prudent - I am not advocating that we act like there is no risk at all. But lets not go overboard with this too! While it would be great if we had a site with NO EMF at all (I suspect BB, Macom,... will all have their issues too), nothing I have seen in the EMF measurements so far has caused any concern, or at least, concerns that are far lower than ambient problems with any site. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on Apr 25, 2008 11:44:08 GMT -6
I do know that my Aunt developed a platelet disorder from the EMF's transmitted by her computer.
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on Apr 25, 2008 11:44:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 11:45:45 GMT -6
Player,
The problem we have with this district is the fact that by their OWN publications, the district KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN of these 'hazards'... Yet.. choose to proceed even though they had other options.
Their haste the past couple of months can be interpreted by some (possibly a jury) to give the appearance that there were 'no other options'. We know that statement itself is false (not having other options). They simply chose not to take those other options.
It will leave us in an interesting pickle to say the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on Apr 25, 2008 11:47:27 GMT -6
Player, The problem we have with this district is the fact that by their OWN publications, the district KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN of these 'hazards'... Yet.. choose to proceed even though they had other options. Their haste the past couple of months can be interpreted by some (possibly a jury) to give the appearance that there were 'no other options'. We know that statement itself is false (not having other options). They simply chose not to take those other options. It will leave us in an interesting pickle to say the least. ABSOLUTELY! |
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 11:50:59 GMT -6
I swiped JB's post from the Unity thread and will put it here too: ... .....although the spin you are attempting probably would induce current flow Yep - correct. I pointed this out in my first post - that the 2-3mG field is alternating as opposed to static. And you are right on - changing magnetic fields will produce changing electric currents. However, as biological tissue is a conductor, the electric component of EMF dies immediately - never gets past the skin. So it is the magnetic field that we'd be primarily concerned with here. And therefore the utility of setting perspective by looking at the Earth's 300-500mG magnetic field, even if its a static field. How do you like that for spin? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 11:56:38 GMT -6
I swiped JB's post from the Unity thread and will put it here too: ... .....although the spin you are attempting probably would induce current flow Yep - correct. I pointed this out in my first post - that the 2-3mG field is alternating as opposed to static. And you are right on - changing magnetic fields will produce changing electric currents. However, as biological tissue is a conductor, the electric component of EMF dies immediately - never gets past the skin. So it is the magnetic field that we'd be primarily concerned with here. And therefore the utility of setting perspective by looking at the Earth's 300-500mG magnetic field, even if its a static field. How do you like that for spin? Cheers. If the earth has 300-500mG, why don't meters show this all the time? (Did I overlook something earlier)? Is this 'tared' out like zeroing a scale at the deli w/ an empty container sitting on it? |
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 12:10:43 GMT -6
Ok. Here we go. This topic is kind of like watching a game of Atari's Pong. Back and forth. A quick search on the connection between EMF's and leukemia yields a long list of scientific "he said, she said" type of documents. Here are a few: ... (deleted for brevity) This was just page one of my google search. Of the above listed only ONE denies ill effects from EMF's. One. It is my STRONG opinion that there is enough doubt to concede that the current property is totally unsuitable for a school. Any school. ETA - Thanks player for posting. I love the thought provoking topics on this board. They inspire me to educate myself and I really appreciate it! Researching, I admire your desire to get to the bottom of this, but I implore you to not use Google hits as a metric to decide what "reality" is and what "truth" is!!!!! Look at some review articles... heres is one that points to others by the APS, NEIHS,... www.hps.org/hpspublications/articles/powerlines.htmlIf childhood luekemia and EMFs have a cause-effect relationship, then nothing short of becoming Amish-like, and shunning all electricity and mechanization, can save us. EMF from power line proximity is in the noise. There are much more serious sources of EMF that we are exposing our kids to as we speak. But, I think you nailed it - the topic is controversial in the literature because it is very difficult to establish cause/effect and even more difficult to prove that there is no cause/effect. I realize that you may have made your mind up, and I respect your right to do that. But this is not a matter to ajudged by Google or the media - scientific inquiry has a trusted way of converging, and right now, the totality of data shown no definitive effect. That being said, entire industries have been started to combat this, as have a healthy stream of research grant money. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by cornholio on Apr 25, 2008 12:10:47 GMT -6
Yep - correct. I pointed this out in my first post - that the 2-3mG field is alternating as opposed to static. And you are right on - changing magnetic fields will produce changing electric currents. However, as biological tissue is a conductor, the electric component of EMF dies immediately - never gets past the skin. So it is the magnetic field that we'd be primarily concerned with here. And therefore the utility of setting perspective by looking at the Earth's 300-500mG magnetic field, even if its a static field. How do you like that for spin? Cheers. If the earth has 300-500mG, why don't meters show this all the time? (Did I overlook something earlier)? Is this 'tared' out like zeroing a scale at the deli w/ an empty container sitting on it? The meter used in the test only tests for oscillating fields. |
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 12:15:15 GMT -6
Yep - correct. I pointed this out in my first post - that the 2-3mG field is alternating as opposed to static. And you are right on - changing magnetic fields will produce changing electric currents. However, as biological tissue is a conductor, the electric component of EMF dies immediately - never gets past the skin. So it is the magnetic field that we'd be primarily concerned with here. And therefore the utility of setting perspective by looking at the Earth's 300-500mG magnetic field, even if its a static field. How do you like that for spin? Cheers. If the earth has 300-500mG, why don't meters show this all the time? (Did I overlook something earlier)? Is this 'tared' out like zeroing a scale at the deli w/ an empty container sitting on it? Typically, Gaussmeters measure only alternating fields, as these are the ones that we see as a result of A/C currents in motors and power lines. Compasses measure the direction of static fields which is usually about all we care about. There are ways to measure static fields - rotate a coil in the earths field and measure the induced current. I can dig deeper if you like. Cheers. |
|
EMF Hazards at the Eola site?
such as yourself may have missed some of the discussion.
