Are Cell phone towers and HV power lines killing us?
tags:
Stumble ThisDo High voltage power lines pose a health threat? Are we killing ourselves with cell phone towers?
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
EMF,power,lines,Cell,phone,tower Are Cell phone towers and HV power lines killing us?
Comments  who voted for this video Arsenault185
- siftbot
x14who has this post bookmarked rembar
Are Cell Phone Towers And HV Power Lines Killing Us? Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 14. d3bas3r
(125 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments       | ||||||||||||||
Even if the highly unlikely were true and one of the more credible (and I use that term lightly) theories were right, a mechanism for indirect harm linked to close proximity to cell phone towers et. al. (or electromagnetic fields for that matter) would still only result in very minute increases in disease occurrence.
I think it's important to differentiate the two claims, high-frequency transmitters, such as cell phones are very different then 60hz high tension power lines.
Cellphones and wi-fi systems use so little transmit energy it is difficult to be exposed to very much of it, unless you have an old cell phone and it's glued to the side of your head. While exposure of this kind may be a contributing factor, by facilitating some other mutation vector, it would require excessive cellphone use, and will not have anything to do with the towers, since the transmitters are so far away and use so little wattage.
ELF, such as 60hz power, on the other hand is more likely to be a problem. ELF has been experimentally shown to increase mutations in mono-cellular organisms, both alone, and as a catalyst with other factors. I would not discount out of hand any concern about significant increases in electro-magnetic radiation, any more then I would discount concerns about pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.
The fact of the matter is that we are really past the point technologically where high-tension power lines even make sense. Using a less monopolistic energy system with distributed generation is more stable, cheaper, more efficient, and safer in terms of ELF exposure then centralized generation. Even if ELF exposure could be shown to be insignificantly dangerous, high-tension power distribution should still be abandoned.
First of all, effects of anything on single-cell organisms can't be transferred directly to mammals. For example, short-term exposure to radiation on the level of party blacklights can have mutagenic effects on bacteria that humans would never suffer. Such comparisons are shoddy at best. In addition, to the extent of all studies I know of, the claim of ELF increasing actual mutations by itself, and as a "catalyst", has not been satisfactorily demonstrated, nor has an adequate mechanism ever been generally accepted. It would be nice if you backed that up with at least one study. An example of such would be a specific study such as High Density 60 Hz Magnetic Field Has No Effects on Mutagenicity and Growth of the Budding Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which does nothing to counter an argument for an overall mutagenic effect for my argument (general negation being impossible with papers like this), but a similar paper demonstrating increase in mutation for any bacteria with causative effect well-established to ELF would be interesting enough to discuss.
Of course, then again, you still have to deal with the fact that epidemiological studies on ELF exposure in humans still trumps bacterial mutation.
I would not discount out of hand any concern about significant increases in electro-magnetic radiation, any more then I would discount concerns about pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Mechanisms for and accounts of environmental damage caused by CO2 increases in the atmosphere have been well-documented, studied and analyzed. The same can't be said for EM radiation of the frequencies we are discussing on humans. Not the same at all.
The fact of the matter is that we are really past the point technologically where high-tension power lines even make sense. Using a less monopolistic energy system with distributed generation is more stable, cheaper, more efficient, and safer in terms of ELF exposure then centralized generation. Even if ELF exposure could be shown to be insignificantly dangerous, high-tension power distribution should still be abandoned.
Separate issue. Epidemiological arguments against ELF don't involve the pragmatics of such power distribution, that's another argument and one I don't have enough knowledge of to take up.
In the intro to the pdf you posted, it refs a study on human cells which agrees with my assertion about exposure mutation. I also googled a study which showed variance in type of mutation induced by X-rays with and without the presence of ELF before I wrote my first post, but I don't have the link on hand. I agree that we lack hard evidence for any specific causality of harm to humans.
I don't really see this as significantly different from the CO2 issue. They both can be tied, through complex causality, to effects on complex systems the outcome of which is ultimately unclear, but suggestive of problems. Due to the complexity of the systems involved the correlation of leukemia to HV lines (as in the 2005 study from Oxford) is very similar to the correlation of global atmospheric temperature to CO2.
I think the evidence suggests that the risk of O3 exposure as a consequence of the use of internal combustion engines is many times more dangerous to humans then ELF is likely to be, so If we have to pick, we should get rid of cars, but that does not mean that ELF is harmless. Certainly many of the things we take for granted in our lives are many times more dangerous then HV lines, you will get no argument from me on that. While I do see the tendency by many to fixate on a minor risk while ignoring real risks(terrorism vs car accidents for instance), that does not mean that the proper response should be to discount concerns of risk which are based on unexceptional claims, even if we lack conclusive proof.
Overall my concern is more that the HV lines are an anachronism, just as with CO2 spewing cars and power plants, it is not technologically necessary to put up with these things when we have better option which use less energy, and produce less waste, both in physical and EMF terms. I think arguing that it may be a small risk, but it would be better to do away with the tech even if it were not, is more pragmatic then arguing from a complex, and sometimes conflicting, body of data that we should ignore it.
disclaimer: I'm not sure I believe all that, I did a lot of googling to write this response, and I may be on the cusp of changing my mind and fully agreeing with rembar, so if I disclaim anything I'm posting right now, don't be surprised
Well, that was kind of the point of my referencing that particular study, as the basis for using a study on S. cerevisiae was as a setup to establish a baseline by which to compare mutagenicity, carcinogenic response, and other potential to reactions. It references the human cell exposure (notably, melanoma and osteosarcoma cells) study and a few others specifically because it was indirectly questioning the validity of those results, as they study S. cerevisiae's mutagenesis but also its recombinational repair. If you note in the conclusion, Shimizu et. al. suggest that ELF-MF "LF-MF does not injure the basic genetic system in the same manner as ionizing radiation or chemical carcinogen does". It is because of this that they call for further research on yet-more indirect mechanisms for any effects of MF exposure, and also a call for better exclusion of experimental setup issues ("involvement of eddy currents induced in the culture medium could not be precluded"). In fact, I do believe these issues of experimental procedure are very difficult to deal with - going through similar papers, they are a constant concern, especially when it comes to bacteria. This is ultimately a large issue of expanding all disease-related effects from simple organisms to more complex organisms, as complex organisms - in full, not just isolated cells - will ultimately not respond to such delicate, unintentional and untracked variable changes in experimental environment. This is, again, why epidemiological studies of humans will trump small-scale bacterial studies.
Certainly many of the things we take for granted in our lives are many times more dangerous then HV lines, you will get no argument from me on that. While I do see the tendency by many to fixate on a minor risk while ignoring real risks(terrorism vs car accidents for instance), that does not mean that the proper response should be to discount concerns of risk which are based on unexceptional claims, even if we lack conclusive proof.
I see your point, in that in the face of a great risk, minor risks should not be ignored. However, my argument is that in the face of all adequate studies, all evidence points to an either insignificant or non-existent risk.
Due to the complexity of the systems involved the correlation of leukemia to HV lines (as in the 2005 study from Oxford) is very similar to the correlation of global atmospheric temperature to CO2.
To the specific study (Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case-control study):
This study actually is pretty deep and requires a strong analysis not typically afforded it. Of note in the study, is the fact that they control using the Carstairs deprivation index for socioeconomic status statistically, specifically for affluence vs. risk of childhood leukemia. This needs to be considered with the fact that they're studying an association between distance of home address at birth from high voltage power lines. Do you see the issue in the combination of that control and that effect study? The basic control isn't so easily useable because of the number of confounding variables, including numbers of moves vs. birth location (stress factor), parental employment vs. location, etc. (These are only indirectly related to socioeconomic status as countered by Carstairs index, which uses four indicators: population density, owning a car, low social class, and male unemployment.) Then when you consider, within 200m, the analysis found a relative risk of 1.69 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 2.53), the result becomes not merely questionable but likely variably confounded, something that the paper notes: "There is no accepted biological mechanism to explain the epidemiological results; indeed, the relation may be due to chance or confounding." and "We have no satisfactory explanation for our results in terms of causation by magnetic fields, and the findings are not supported by convincing laboratory data or any accepted biological mechanism." and "We emphasise again the uncertainty about whether this statistical association represents a causal relation.", which altogether amounts to an immense amount of ass-covering.
It is also worth mentioning that assuming "400-420 cases of childhood leukaemia occurring annually, about five would be associated with high voltage power lines" approximately, and childhood leukemia is a pretty rare disease as it is. The amount of money blown on these types of studies would cover the treatment for these patients many times over. Of course, the issue of extended disease results still needs to be dealt with, but from the standpoint of pragmatism....
Overall my concern is more that the HV lines are an anachronism, just as with CO2 spewing cars and power plants, it is not technologically necessary to put up with these things when we have better option which use less energy, and produce less waste, both in physical and EMF terms. I think arguing that it may be a small risk, but it would be better to do away with the tech even if it were not, is more pragmatic then arguing from a complex, and sometimes conflicting, body of data that we should ignore it.
My argument with this sift specifically lies in epidemiological claims, and I take up the debate because of my interest in the topic and my exposure to the issue. I am arguing against claims of increase in disease incidence as caused by EMF exposure from power lines, cell phone towers, etc., something that has not only not been demonstrated but that, if causally linked, is highly unlikely to matter in any reasonable scale of public life. From a scientific/academic perspective, it's worth researching. From a medical perspective, most likely not. From a public health perspective, almost certainly not. And we're being practical here.
Like I said, I have no experience or anything approaching debate-worthy levels of knowledge on the technological necessity or lack thereof of HV lines, something separate from its possibility of causing diseases. If you would like to sift something about the technology of HV lines and its economic feasibility or some such that I could watch and then read up on, I'd be more than happy to look into it.
Reputable companies are being forced to pay out billions of dollars in settlements because of sham science. Whether it's the auto-immune effects of silicone implants (disproved), or the class action suits of smokers who developed lung cancer from a voluntarily inhaled carcinogen, but claim its because the pipes in the attic of their workplace were wrapped in asbestos, sham science costs us all.
I hope Motorola's not next.
Uhhh, worldwide economic collapse and a resulting culling of 2/3rds of the Earth's population, might make this world a better place.....if we do it now, maybe 3 generations from now, we will be able to do it without a carbon copy of the clusterfuck we enjoy now.
Stop shopping for Christ's sake,(we already have enough plastic shit from china to BUILD an artificial satellite) buy used clothes, grow some frikkin' vegetables that have some goddamn flavor, and say yes to hallucinogens....!!!
God I'm glad I'm not a lab-rat insect.....equally as happy that some folks balls start to tingle when they pick up an Erlenmeyer flask fulla goo for a paycheck....to each his own.
Choggie, if you haven't written a book on world affairs, you should. If you have, where do I get a copy ASAP.
There is enough anecdotal data to justify serious concerns over HV power lines.
There has not been a significant study carried out (in the EU) to prove this.
There have been many varied and significant studies carried out to disprove the claim that HV lines pose a health risk.
Look at who funds these latter studies.
You will not find an independent study proving they are dangerous. This is because nobody can raise the funding to do it.
This is a rational view of the bigger picture.
There has not been a significant study carried out (in the EU) to prove this.
Look at who funds these latter studies.
Lol, you clearly read nothing we wrote, nor have you backed up any of your claims with any evidence - including the ones that you made that are incorrect. Come back when you at least know enough to not say the phrase "anecdotal data" in this context and expect to be taken seriously.