At 01:20 PM 03/01/03, you wrote:
> > IMO it's not the EMF that is the problem. It is ....
>
>Indeed (again :-) ).
>WHAT the mechanism is or may be is not the issue,
>It's whether there IS a mechanism at all.
>In the mean time, taking simple essentially cost free steps to avoid what
>appear to be the most likely areas for mechanisms to act in seems wise.
>
>         RM

Then there is public perception of a risk that may or may not be there.
Remember the big craze about having to have a low radiation monitor a
few years back?

If you owned a computer store you couldn't stock enough of them to
sell to people until one of the local government agencies did some
testing (later confirmed by others) that there was no discernable emf
emissions from the monitor past about 8cm from the glass
(if I recall correctly). The low rad monitors were almost identical
(except you could sell them for more).  I've only ever seen one person
who had sight problems (legally blind) who would have to read text with
his nose touching the glass. Everyone else sits a good arms length away.

I've seen a similar test of the em fields around the hi tension towers. The
field was quite a bit bigger but they claimed to extend only a few meters
around the wire. Ask any farmer who has milk cows if they react or behave
differently when pastured next to towers and they will claim they do. I had
a friend who lived with towers in the backyard. He was pretty weird so O'm
convinced ;-]

Dave

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics