16 Oct 06
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/29/npylons29.xml
This report suggests that houses close to power lines are bad for the health of people living in these houses.
The UK government has a couple of options, as outlined in the report.
What should they do? Should the likely devaluation in house prices really be used as an excuse for taking less effective action, as the report suggests might be the case?
16 Oct 06
Originally posted by RedmikeIt seems that underground cables do not pose this hazard.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/29/npylons29.xml
This report suggests that houses close to power lines are bad for the health of people living in these houses.
The UK government has a couple of options, as outlined in the report.
What should they do? Should the likely devaluation in house prices really be used as an excuse for taking less effective action, as the report suggests might be the case?
So, how about replacing overhead wires with underground cables and charging the cost to all the houseowners who will therby benefit , according to their proximity to the existing supply lines?
16 Oct 06
Originally posted by aging blitzerGood point. Like the proclaimed benefits of a new treatment or drug which shows a 50% reduction in the incidence of some ill-condition which only affects one in a million people.
"Dr Draper suggested that children under 15 living near high voltage power lines could have a 69 per cent increased risk of getting leukaemia."
And why do they never tell what the actual figures are?
Has it gone up from 0.000001 to 0.00000169 or what?