>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 ;-] Now there was a fellow busted in Missouri for the following stunt. He hooked a loop of electric fence wire so that a section of it ran directly under high tension wires, then the ends looped back to his barn to run his barn lights. He raised the fenceposts up to about 10' in the air, and fiddled with it until he got a good strong 120VAC in the barn. He was caught because his barn burnt down. Seems an ice storm lowered the high tension wires, raising the voltage int he barn and eventually causing a fire when it arced over. The fire marshal got really suspicious when there was no power hooked to the barn and an electrical fire inside. Yes there is a signifigant em field under power lines, at least this fellow found out there was! People's behavior around this issue gets a little irrational. An electric blanket is bad, a computer monitor is OK. A toaster is OK, bare elements and all, as is a TV or a CB radio, but a cell phone is bad. Most house wiring runs two grounded wires with a hot wire, a good way to neutralize fields (not as good as grounded conduit) -- Lawrence Lile Dave King Sent by: pic microcontroller discussion list 01/03/03 03:47 PM Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU cc: Subject: Re: [EE]: Health effects of electric fields (was any design Idea in new house.) 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 -- 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