Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Edmonton should be concerned about AltaLink power line

  1. #1
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    27

    Default Edmonton should be concerned about AltaLink power line

    Edmonton should be concerned about controversial new AltaLink power line

    By Joe Anglin

    Evidence submitted that project could increase Edmonton death rate by 500 people per year!

    On April 14, 2005, Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) received approval from the Alberta Energy Utility Board (EUB) to have AltaLink upgrade a 240KV transmission line to a 500KV line and develop an additional 500KV transmission line from Genesee (west of Edmonton) to Langdon (southeast of Calgary). This was approved despite opposition from the City of Calgary, the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta, and the Alberta Direct Connect Consumer Association who argued for a more economical 240KV line.

    The sham behind this decision is that of the 13 alternatives considered, Option V was chosen in October 2003 prior to any consultation with any industry stakeholders. Option V was also chosen because it had the least landowner impact. However no landowners were ever consulted. Approximately three industry stakeholders meeting were held in early 2004; AESO submitted the final application to the EUB for approval on May 7, 2004; and because Option V was chosen, AltaLink was designated the sole beneficiary and future owner, awarded the rights to build and own the transmission line.

    SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. (SNC) is one of the world’s largest utility engineering and construction companies, and SNC owns 77% of AltaLink. This ownership guarantees SNC the contract (estimated to be worth about $600 million) to engineer and build this project. SNC consulted AESO on the need for this line and SNC’s ownership guarantees they get the contract. Upon completion, SNC would assume ownership of 77% of the asset. The project is paid for by the public, (called the load), and the transmission lines are expected to have a market value of approximately $2 billion dollars after completion.

    Landowners and citizens found out about this project only after it had been approved. They immediately filed for a review of the decision, citing lack of notification of the hearing. The EUB said the notification process was adequate but it was clearly confusing. The EUB granted the Landowners a review in July 2006, but refused to allow or consider any review of the need to build a transmission line. Landowners were not allowed to discuss or submit evidence challenging the decision that approved the line. In other words the landowners were granted a review but they were not allowed to review anything.

    The review, called a review and variance (R&V), granted landowners the unfair onus to prove a strip of land varying in width, from Edmonton to Calgary known as the “West Corridor,” to be unsuitable. Landowners, spent considerable time and resources to gather evidence to support their case that the “West Corridor” was unsuitable for another transmission line. When they requested that the EUB provide some criteria or a definition of suitable verses unsuitable the EUB did not respond.

    The challenge incumbent upon three landowner groups at the R&V was to disprove the empirical data utilized to create a corridor comparison chart in the Needs application [NID]. The corridor comparison chart in the NID is the evidence relied upon by the EUB in its decision. When landowners requested a copy, and the source of the information relied upon by AESO to construct a corridor comparison chart, AESO provided a document called N4(a) dated May 18, 2006. When asked how a document dated in 2006 could be included as evidence submitted in 2004, AESO responded by saying they had relied upon the information in the document but the finalized version was never published until 2006. During the R&V it was learned that N4(a) was constructed from two other documents submitted to the AESO by two electric transmission companies, AltaLink and ATCO. AltaLink submitted its document called N4(b) in November 2004 and ATCO submitted its document called N4(c) in July 2004. When it was pointed out to the EUB Board panel that both N4(b) and N4(c) arrived only after the application was submitted, the EUB panel ignored the conflict in the sequence of dates. AESO was asked if there were any other versions of N4(a), they said no, and when AESO was asked if they had submitted any evidence at the first hearing consisting of the information in N4(a), they said no.

    It was argued in the closing statements that the only evidence provided to the Board panel, concerned only the unsuitability of the west corridor. Furthermore, AESO having the opportunity to submit evidence failed or chose not to submit evidence, the Board had no alternative but to find the corridor unsuitable. The Board panel rejected the argument.

    After the R&V, Altalink filed an application to build a line. In that application AltaLink made public a different corridor other than the one under consideration at the R&V. Landowners complained when they discovered AltaLink withheld information from them at the R&V. The critical information was, AltaLink moved the corridor 20 miles north of Calgary and reduced it in width by 50%, from twelve miles wide to six miles wide. In affect, AltaLink mislead landowners into thinking the corridor was 12 miles-wide when it was only ever considering a 6 mile-wide corridor. In essence, by withholding information, in what could be classified as a classic bait-and-switch tactic, Altalink misled the landowners into a futile effort to disprove a 12-mile wide corridor when in reality they were only ever considering a six-mile wide corridor in a different location.

    There are number of inconsistencies and conflicts of interest that surround the application to build these transmission lines. Evidence was submitted during the R&V that showed that the death rate in and around Edmonton would increase by 500 people annually, based on each 10-micron increase in particulate matter air pollution. When the question was asked how much more particulate matter will increase as a result of the increased generation, the Board only asked “What if the study is wrong”? It is widely known, that air pollution in and around Edmonton will increase as a result of increased generation, but to what degree no one knows.

    Kellan Fluckiger the chief executive in charge of Alberta Dept of Energy testified at the first hearing and then wrote a letter supporting the approval of this 500KV line at the R&V. He is married to a senior executive at Altalink, the direct beneficiary of this project.

    In a letter written to landowners prior to the beginning of the R&V, the EUB denied landowners the opportunity to cross-examine friendly witnesses.

    When landowners pointed to the Transmission Regulations and said the EUB violated sec: 28 of the regulations, the Board responded by saying that participants at the original hearing agreed to not apply that section of the law. When it was pointed out that Sec: 32 of the same regulations says the “Transmission Regulations” supercede any agreement prior to or after the law comes into affect, the Board rejected the argument. Evidence shows that there was no agreement verbally or otherwise to not to abide by Sec:28. On the contrary, transcripts confirm every lawyer participating agreed that the “Transmission Regulations” applied in their entirety.

    AltaLink has made public in press statements that this transmission line is not for electricity export. However, the EUB approval was granted giving considerable weight to the capabilities of this line to increase export. Maximum export capabilities are 750MW at light loads.

    In 2004, the Northwest Transmission Assessment Committee (NTAC) convened a study group with the mandate of identifying transmission options that could be used to connect new generation projects in Western Canada to consumers in California. The group included experienced transmission planners from Alberta’s AESO.

    Called the Canada-NW-California (CNC) group, the objective of the CNC study was to provide high-level information on the feasibility of potential transmission projects to transfer a variety of new resources out of Canada into California. The first step was to identify potential generation resources that could influence the development of the transmission grid from Canada though the Pacific North West and on to California.

    The analysis was done for delivery of Canadian energy to the Columbia River area and both northern and southern California. AltaLink’s 500 KV line is included in a number of options, specifically options 5A, 5B, 7A, and 8A.






    This story takes many twist and turns. The regulator supposedly delegated to protect the rights of the citizens consistently worked to undermine the integrity of the process. At one point in the hearing when the Board Chairman called an opposition lawyer a “Philadelphia Lawyer”, he then shouted at a landowner, “I am denying your right”.

    There is a litany of improprieties plaguing this 500KV transmission line application. Events and statements indicate that public officials are complicit in the approval of this transmission line and the primary beneficiary is AltaLink and the coal electricity generating companies of TransAlta, Epcor, and TransCanada, who are seeking what appears to be, a backroom deal to have the public subsidize electricity export to California.

    Concept V (two 500KV transmission lines) was chosen in October 2003, coincidentally just at the same time two senior employees of TransAlta transferred to AESO. Concept V is inescapably identical to the 1980 500KV TransAlta proposal that was never built.

    An anonymous source well connected in the electricity industry in Alberta has informed me that this line was promised to AltaLink back when TransAlta spun off AltaLink, in an effort to sweeten the deal for AltaLink’s partners.

    There is no evidence to support this last claim, however circumstantial evidence supports the theory.

  2. #2
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    District of Alberta
    Posts
    79

    Default Re: Edmonton should be concerned about AltaLink power line

    On April 14, 2005, Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) received approval from the Alberta Energy Utility Board (EUB) ...
    The "Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB)" claims to be an agency of the "Government of the Province of Alberta". The "Government of the Province of Alberta" claims authority from the "Alberta Act" which supposedly was enacted by Canada's Parliament in 1905.

    The present draft of the "Alberta Act", as written in 1905, states: “Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-”.

    In 1905, Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867, stated: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen".

    In 1905, Section 17 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867, stated: "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons".

    In 1905, Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867, stated: "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...".

    Edward VII was not a Queen. Edward VII was not Canada's constitutional Queen regnant in 1905.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    District of Alberta
    Posts
    79

    Default Re: Edmonton should be concerned about AltaLink power line

    The "Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB)" claims to be an agency of the "Government of the Province of Alberta".
    Members of the "Government of the Province of Alberta" swore, or affirmed, that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II.

    Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 states: "...every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; ...".

    The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution Act, 1867 states:

    "Oath of Allegiance

    I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

    Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto."

    Queen Elizabeth II is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

  5. #5
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Am I the only one confused as to why this is linked to a 500 kV power line?
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  6. #6
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    District of Alberta
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Am I the only one confused as to why this is linked to a 500 kV power line?
    RichardS, what is the word "this" referring to in your above question?

  7. #7
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Your responses....how does the BNA relate to a 500kV transmission line...when the concern expressed here is about health, safety, and need for such a line?

    This is like having a discussion about power lines and tangenting to people in Thunder Bay having a desire to eat Nanaimo bars stuffed with Havarti...

    I know I can be the tangent king, but this one????

    Are you saying that our EUB, and our government is a historic sham??? Then again, how does that relate to a 500kV line?
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  8. #8
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    District of Alberta
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Your responses....how does the BNA relate to a 500kV transmission line ... how does that relate to a 500kV line?
    One way the 500kV transmission line relates to the British North America Act, 1867 is as follows:

    "On April 14, 2005, Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) received approval from the Alberta Energy Utility Board (EUB) to have AltaLink upgrade a 240KV transmission line to a 500KV line and develop an additional 500KV transmission line from Genesee (west of Edmonton) to Langdon (southeast of Calgary)". The "Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB)" claims to be an agency of the "Government of the Province of Alberta". The "Government of the Province of Alberta" claims authority from the "Alberta Act" which supposedly was enacted by Canada's Parliament in 1905. Canada's Parliament is referred to in the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867.

  9. #9

  10. #10

    Default

    At this point, I almost expect the CIA, Elvis and Reverse Vampires to be blamed for some transmission line conspiracy...

  11. #11
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dpwozney
    One way the 500kV transmission line relates to the British North America Act, 1867 is as follows:

    (...)
    Let me be more direct...

    Who cares about this contextual question. The EUB IS the governing body in Alberta, King, Queen, nephew, or Richard the Rodent, the EUB is it.

    The issue at hand, again, is

    1. what are the health affects of 500kV lines vs 250 (I for one suspect such EMF effects in causing my major health issue aka cancer),
    2. are we building this due to need or due to exports, and
    3. was this rammed down throats w/o proper consultation.

    King, Queen , or not, several farmers and communities in the Genesee/Keephills area were displaced due to decisions by this board and predecessors, so I tend to believe that they do weild some power... Burying it in the politics of "what is is"...well...that won't address the real issue at hand. Rewrite at will, that won't change the fact that the re-written body still would probably approve this.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  12. #12
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Maybe this will get this on track...

    Can we get the evidence that leads to the 500+ deaths posted here? Just how much more of an EMF problem does 500kV produce? Has there been a proven link to Cancers and proximity to transmission lines or generating stations?

    As for the process for this line getting approval, is there a review in the works?
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  13. #13
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    District of Alberta
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Nuclear power plants emit less carbon dioxide than coal-fired power plants. A goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. A nuclear power plant could be built with a shorter transmission line length.

  14. #14
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Ok, where.

    Nukes will be NIMBY'd to death. More than likely, you'd get a nuke way way out from somewhere, so you'd need this longer line. For example, the rumors of a nuke in NW Sask...what is that close to and would it take all that energy alone for the tar sands? They wouldn't build this to help exports?

    I am still curious as to the 500kV vs 250 kV argument when it comes to particulates et al. What's to say that a 500kV wouldn't be required, distance or not. That energy could help out a place as big as, say, LA...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  15. #15
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    District of Alberta
    Posts
    79

    Default

    A nuclear power plant could be built, with a relatively short transmission line length, relatively close to wherever the power is needed.

    Long-distance above-ground electricity transmission lines can encounter as much opposition as nuclear power plants with much shorter transmission line lengths.

  16. #16
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    You are going to build a nuke close to a major city and encounter the same opposition as a 250 kV or even a 500 kV line?

    I don't think so. Experience tells me otherwise. If they are going to fight a coal plant tooth and nail, they are certainly going to really fight a nuke. Whether or not the safety concerns are real, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island still ring very very clear.

    A transmission line, most farmers and land owners I know don't care for the most part as long as they get rent on the Right-of-way. Some do, but when GAPS (Genesee Agricultural Protection Society) was formed, the opposition was focused on the coal plant, the displacement of farmers due to the plant, mine, and flooding of the hamlet for the cooling pond. The transmission lines were well down the list. Put in a nuke, you still need a cooling pond, a plant site, and a "disposal" site. Throw in the unknown of laying waste to land for thousands of years given a terrorist strike or employee screw up (3 MI and Chern were these), and wow....

    It isn't always a CO2 discussion.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  17. #17
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    District of Alberta
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    A transmission line, most farmers and land owners I know don't care for the most part as long as they get rent on the Right-of-way.
    Do you know all of the farmers and land owners affected by the 500kV transmission lines?

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Some do, but when GAPS (Genesee Agricultural Protection Society) was formed, the opposition was focused on the coal plant, the displacement of farmers due to the plant, mine, and flooding of the hamlet for the cooling pond. The transmission lines were well down the list.
    Do you know the extent of the transmission lines that were built for Genesee after GAPS (Genesee Agricultural Protection Society) was formed?

  18. #18
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,401

    Default

    Wow...constitutional law and power transmission lines...

    Never thought I would have seen the day....

  19. #19
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    dp...

    Q1, no, but I know several that link to Q2

    Q2, yes, my ranch is still there, and I know all the neighbours. Most in 1979-1981 went for $$$ in the end. The line is 1 1/2 miles from the house.

    Would you also like the numbers of people displaced, the original operating license, and where the displaced people moved to? Original Genesee power plant proposals? Land area? I've got all the history...considering I lived it and someone in the family was president of GAPS...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  20. #20
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    I saw this thread ultimately going off the track and tried to ignore it.

    I agree that this "500 more deaths" comment is some bogus number that the author just pulled out of somewhere in order to try to make this powerline sound like it was somehow dangerous. I could easily say that 50,000 more deaths will occur if it isn't built.

    What I did find when checking out Mr. Anglin's name was a NIMBY landowner website dealing with thngs like resource development around their lands (one person complained about smelling sour gas one night, staying up and frantically checking with local well operators until the smell disappeared; while another thought that an oil comapny was trying to spy on her because they wanted to know where she would be in case of a sour gas blowout - go figure).

    I'm pretty sure this column has little to do with any health matters and is more to do with having the sight of these towers overwhelming some people. I know that people are physically puny when compared to them but it also seems like a few feel emotionally as small.

    In my opinion, we need these transmission lines and I'm all for building them.

  21. #21
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    District of Alberta
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    It isn't always a CO2 discussion.
    According to this May 5 Edmonton Journal article by Paul Marck,

    "... The price of meeting proposed federal greenhouse gas regulations is $25 million a year for Edmonton's Genesee power plant, says Don Lowry, CEO of Epcor Utilities.

    [trimmed]

    Epcor is also reviewing its proposed 450-megawatt joint power project with TransAlta at Wabamun, Keephills 3, to examine escalation of costs and technology implications in light of Ottawa's new policies, Lowry said.

    'What we're doing is stepping back and saying, given these proposals, how do they affect our existing plants and, secondly, those we've got under construction," said Lowry. "It's just a prudent, responsible thing, when you get measures of this magnitude, to step back and say, what's the impact.' ...".

  22. #22

    Default

    I wouldn't want a power line over my house, beause of the affect it would have on market value. Someone pointed out to me once that the dream "showhomes" you can win in contests often sit beneath such lines, the land no-one else will buy (funny that, win cancer!)

    Actually, I don't know if power lines do, or do not, cause health issues. However, I do know we need electricity infrastructure if we want to avoid future problems as our current infrastructure continues to age. If we move to a more electric ecomomy (e.g. if plug in cars ever become reality), this will be even more important.

    Seems to me we should be encouraging infra-structure investments like this, not discouraging them. There will be a lot more people moaning if things fall appart in 20 years time because we didn't approve these types of project. Where possible, lines shouldn't go directly over houses or schools, but lets not cry because they get built somewhere with a few cows getting zapped, all of us need electricity.

  23. #23
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    325

    Default

    i would base my decision on if the electricity will be exported. not even going back a few years i remember all the power outages etc and how our grid could not supply.

    if this becomes an issue like i think it will like with oil, we are forced to export so much, and even if we dont have enouph to support our demands we need to buy from else where its a bad idea

    what i am trying to say are canadians going to be protected first when it comes to demand and cost.

  24. #24

    Unhappy Study: Power Lines May Increase Cancer Risk In Children

    "June 3, 2005
    British medical researchers say their studies suggest that children who live in close proximity to high-voltage power cables at birth are much more likely to develop leukema.The Oxford University scientists say they found that children who lived within approximately 200 feet of the power lines had a 70 percent higher chance of developing the disease than children who lived more than 600 feet away.
    The researchers were quick to say that the results of their study could merely be coincidence, or that the cancer incidence among children might be related to other factors.
    But their study found that when they measured the cancer rate among children who lived more than 200 feet from power cables but less than 600 feet, there was still an increased risk, but not as high as for those living inside the 200 foot line.
    The research, published in the British Medical Journal, involved 29,000 children suffering from cancer. The Oxford research team said it plans to study the issue further.
    There have long been concerns about the possible connection between exposure to high voltage electricity and the risk of cancer. John E. Moulder, Professor of Radiation Oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, says there have been several studies of people working in "electrical" occupations.
    "Some of these studies appear to show a weak association between exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the incidence of some cancers. However, laboratory studies have shown little evidence of a link between power-frequency fields and cancer," he wrote in a posting on his Web site.
    The Web site "QuackWatch" also throws cold water on the notion of a power line-cancer link.
    "The notion that electric power lines can cause cancer arose in 1979 with a single flawed epidemiological study that created a stir. Subsequent epidemiologic and animal studies have failed to find a consistent and significant effect. No plausible mechanism linking power lines and cancer has been found. In recent years, the verdict from large-scale scientific studies has been conclusively negative, and scientific and medical societies have issued official statements that power lines are not a significant health risk. In short, there is nothing to worry about," writes John W. Farley, Professor of Physics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
    Leukemia is the most common cancer of childhood. The body produces lymphocytes to protect the body from infection; in leukemia these cells do not mature properly and become too numerous in the blood and bone marrow. Leukemia researchers say it's not clear what causes the disease."

    from: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...wer_lines.html

    This is just one of several other similar articles. I am terrified about the possibility that these power lines may be set up in the green belt behind my home... i already have the 240, i don't need the risk of 500. In a few they state that if a person is already not very healthy that the higher powered lines increase the likelyhood of brain tumours and lukemea. I am a new home owner, with power lines on the green belt behind my back yard and I just received a letter about this a few weeks ago and now I feel helpless...
    Last edited by concerned2008; 06-07-2008 at 11:39 PM. Reason: html code showed up on the post

  25. #25
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    This is just one of several other similar articles. I am terrified about the possibility that these power lines may be set up in the green belt behind my home...
    Green belt, or TUC?

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by concerned2008 View Post
    "June 3, 2005
    British medical researchers say their studies suggest that children who live in close proximity to high-voltage power cables at birth are much more likely to develop leukema.The Oxford University scientists say they found that children who lived within approximately 200 feet of the power lines had a 70 percent higher chance of developing the disease than children who lived more than 600 feet away.
    The researchers were quick to say that the results of their study could merely be coincidence, or that the cancer incidence among children might be related to other factors.
    But their study found that when they measured the cancer rate among children who lived more than 200 feet from power cables but less than 600 feet, there was still an increased risk, but not as high as for those living inside the 200 foot line.
    The research, published in the British Medical Journal, involved 29,000 children suffering from cancer. The Oxford research team said it plans to study the issue further.
    There have long been concerns about the possible connection between exposure to high voltage electricity and the risk of cancer. John E. Moulder, Professor of Radiation Oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, says there have been several studies of people working in "electrical" occupations.
    "Some of these studies appear to show a weak association between exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the incidence of some cancers. However, laboratory studies have shown little evidence of a link between power-frequency fields and cancer," he wrote in a posting on his Web site.
    The Web site "QuackWatch" also throws cold water on the notion of a power line-cancer link.
    "The notion that electric power lines can cause cancer arose in 1979 with a single flawed epidemiological study that created a stir. Subsequent epidemiologic and animal studies have failed to find a consistent and significant effect. No plausible mechanism linking power lines and cancer has been found. In recent years, the verdict from large-scale scientific studies has been conclusively negative, and scientific and medical societies have issued official statements that power lines are not a significant health risk. In short, there is nothing to worry about," writes John W. Farley, Professor of Physics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
    Leukemia is the most common cancer of childhood. The body produces lymphocytes to protect the body from infection; in leukemia these cells do not mature properly and become too numerous in the blood and bone marrow. Leukemia researchers say it's not clear what causes the disease."

    from: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...wer_lines.html

    This is just one of several other similar articles. I am terrified about the possibility that these power lines may be set up in the green belt behind my home... i already have the 240, i don't need the risk of 500. In a few they state that if a person is already not very healthy that the higher powered lines increase the likelyhood of brain tumours and lukemea. I am a new home owner, with power lines on the green belt behind my back yard and I just received a letter about this a few weeks ago and now I feel helpless...
    Why are you concerned? The article you posted shows reasons why you shouldn't worry (I bolded them for your own convenience). There are power lines like this all over the planet, and leukemia rates aren't skyrocketing every time a new power line is constructed. And of course some studies out there are going to show some positive relationship between power lines and poor health, but you can't let a few studies that got oddball results hold more weight than the majority of studies that come to a different conclusion. That's not how to properly weigh scientific evidence.

    Out of thousands of studies on ANYTHING, a few of them are going to show something different (likely these few oddball results are due to coincidence or study error).

    Weak magnetic fields do absolutely nothing to our bodies (and even if they did, why wouldn't they be good for us - I see lots of magnetic jewelery and therapeutic bracelets, etc.). Our bodies don't really have anything magnetic in them. No, our blood is not magnetic, either - the iron in our bodies is not ferromagnetic iron.

    This sounds to me like NIMBY-ism, nothing more.

  27. #27

    Default Uncertainty is not an excuse for action

    MrOilers obviously doesn't have children!
    That kind of attitude (its not a problem until someone proves its a problem) is what corporations have used for hundreds of years (since the legal system granted corporations the same legal consideration as individuals, see "The Corporation") to exploit the environment and the people for the benefit of the Shareholder.

    The responses I see here are typical of the office dwellers that congregate to C2E (not a direct dig, for I greatly respect the forum C2E has created). The environmental system that farmers, ranchers, artists, etc. use to create their living is no less valuable than the building "office dwellers" work in. In fact, it should be held with higher regard because a building is replacable, our arrable land is not. Some of the greatest agricultural land in North America is along the path of this proposed power line. The further we fracture and divide the large parcels, the less likely it will be maintained in its best use.

    On another note, the amount of money spent building large transmission lines could be better used building in regional power generation to improve balance in the pool.

    But, alas, that industry is privatized, and nobody wants to spend their own money to solve our problems, they'd rather spend our (tax payer) money to do it!

  28. #28

    Default

    ^ wow, quite the broad stereotype... C2E and office dwellers. I know many c2e'ers that are not... and to think that all c2e'ers have the same mindset or thought pattern is ********
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gbroks View Post
    MrOilers obviously doesn't have children!
    That kind of attitude (its not a problem until someone proves its a problem) is what corporations have used for hundreds of years (since the legal system granted corporations the same legal consideration as individuals, see "The Corporation") to exploit the environment and the people for the benefit of the Shareholder.

    The responses I see here are typical of the office dwellers that congregate to C2E (not a direct dig, for I greatly respect the forum C2E has created). The environmental system that farmers, ranchers, artists, etc. use to create their living is no less valuable than the building "office dwellers" work in. In fact, it should be held with higher regard because a building is replacable, our arrable land is not. Some of the greatest agricultural land in North America is along the path of this proposed power line. The further we fracture and divide the large parcels, the less likely it will be maintained in its best use.

    On another note, the amount of money spent building large transmission lines could be better used building in regional power generation to improve balance in the pool.

    But, alas, that industry is privatized, and nobody wants to spend their own money to solve our problems, they'd rather spend our (tax payer) money to do it!
    FYI, I do have children. But I also have enough knowledge in physics, human physiology, pathophysiology, and occupational diseases to know not to be concerned about alarmist nonsense from NIMBYs over some made-up correlation between power transmission and cancer (or other horrible health conditions).

    The thing is, we are not talking about a new technology here... we have an entire century worth of examples to show that proximity power lines do NOT cause an increase in the prevalence of ANY disease.

    And yet even today power companies are being forced by paranoid and ignorant lobbyists to divert power lines into other corridors at the cost of billions of dollars out of their own pockets (and eventually onto us consumers of said electrical power). Yay ignorant paranoia!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •