 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / June 2005HT Power Lines
Does anyone know of any research into the cause of the increased incidence of muon's and tauon's near HT power lines, or explain why this phenomenon occurs. Spud > Does anyone know of any research into the cause of the increased > incidence of muon's and tauon's near HT power lines, or explain why > this phenomenon occurs. When asking about mysterious phenomena it is best to start with a reference that documents their occurrence, Jan >Does anyone know of any research into the cause of the increased >incidence of muon's and tauon's near HT power lines, or explain why >this phenomenon occurs. Are you sure you didn't accidentally misspell "whether" in this sentence? I've never heard of this phenomenon, and a quick google search didn't turn up anything. I'd be astonished if it's true. Where did you hear about it? -Ted  Signature[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.] >>Does anyone know of any research into the cause of the increased >>incidence of muon's and tauon's near HT power lines, or explain why [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >didn't turn up anything. I'd be astonished if it's true. Where did >you hear about it? There was some research recently that showed that houses under power lines accumulated radon more than ones not under them - the people doing it weren't entirely happy with the finding, as it seemed to make no sense, but couldn't think of another explanation. However, as with all such research, there can always be other factors that nobody has thought of, so it was not conclusive. The problem here is that such effects have been claimed for 30 years, and are a serious matter in the west of the UK, but the government was doing its usual denial (which involved blocking funding for actually checking up on the facts). When the research WAS done, it got the result that the government didn't want, so they tried to play it down rather than investigating more thoroughly. Yes, some research into this effect (starting with its existence or otherwise) is thoroughly justified. I believe that some is being done, but it is very limited and being kept low-key, for the above political reasons. Regards, Nick Maclaren. >There was some research recently that showed that houses under power >lines accumulated radon more than ones not under them - the people >doing it weren't entirely happy with the finding, as it seemed to make >no sense, but couldn't think of another explanation. However, as with >all such research, there can always be other factors that nobody has >thought of, so it was not conclusive. Reference? Anyway, even if this is true, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the original claim, which was about muons and taus. -Ted Signature[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.] |> In article <d7s09c$kjv$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, |> Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] |> |> Reference? It was a very respectable researcher from Bristol University, whose career has suffered because he published results that were not wanted. I can't remember the name, but it will be findable if you search. Another one has found an increase in leukaemia, and was published in the past few weeks. Again, inconclusive, for the same reasons. |> Anyway, even if this is true, it doesn't appear to have anything |> to do with the original claim, which was about muons and taus. Oh, yes, it does. If there is evidence of an unexplained effect, then it increases the likelihood of there being other weird effects (simple Bayesian statistics). I.e. it weakens the case of the people who say "don't be ridiculous - that can't happen". However, I fully agree that it doesn't provide any evidence that muons, tauons, tachyons or lions will be found miraculously appearing under power lines. For that, it is necessary to do some actual measuring and observing. Regards, Nick Maclaren. >|> In article <d7s09c$kjv$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, >|> Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >wanted. I can't remember the name, but it will be findable if you >search. You're right: I did find some news reports about this, although I haven't dug far enough at the moment to find a scholarly article. >Another one has found an increase in leukaemia, and was published >in the past few weeks. Again, inconclusive, for the same reasons. I had heard about these studies (there are others before this most recent one), but not about the radon ones. >|> Anyway, even if this is true, it doesn't appear to have anything >|> to do with the original claim, which was about muons and taus. > >Oh, yes, it does. If there is evidence of an unexplained effect, >then it increases the likelihood of there being other weird effects >(simple Bayesian statistics). It's certainly true that the likelihood of *related* strange effects goes up when a strange effect is found, but not that of unrelated strange effects. For example, even if there is a correlation between radon levels and proximity to power lines, that doesn't mean I'm any more likely to find unicorns under power lines than anywhere else, because there's no known mechanism by which radon attracts unicorns. Substitute the word "muon" for "unicorn" in the above, and it's still true. You seem to agree with this when you say >However, I fully agree that it doesn't provide any evidence that >muons, tauons, tachyons or lions will be found miraculously >appearing under power lines. For that, it is necessary to do some >actual measuring and observing. But if you really want to be a good Bayesian, you won't acknowledge any distinction in meaning between "increases the probability of" and "provides evidence for." If indeed the radon evidence doesn't provide evidence for increased muon levels, then it doesn't increase the probability that there'll be higher muon levels. Anyway, I get the impression from your posts that you think I'm trying to dismiss the whole thing out of hand. (If I've misread you, then never mind. It's quite possible to mistake people's tones in a medium such as Usenet.) I plead not guilty to this charge. All I did was read a mention of an extraordinary claim (increased muon levels near power lines) and ask to see the evidence for that claim. What else would you have had me do -- accept the claim without even a bit of curiosity about the evidence? Anyway, if anyone does want to point out some evidence for the correlation of muon levels and power lines, I'm all ears. -Ted Signature[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.] ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu ha scritto: > >|> In article <d7s09c$kjv$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, > >|> Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I had heard about these studies (there are others before this > most recent one), but not about the radon ones. There are some oldish "scholarly" references (both pro and con) on the Bristol, power lines, radon, cancer connection at http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/news/nrpb_archive/response_statements/1999/response_st atement_11_99.htm An recent Oxford study is apparently on the same track, but BBC's referencing is as lousy as usual. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4606045.stm IV >|> In article <d7s09c$kjv$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, >|> Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >appearing under power lines. For that, it is necessary to do some >actual measuring and observing. Some years back an article was published in Science (I forget the authors) about the effect of fields from high-tension lines at the cellular level. The result I found memorable was that the measurable level of the E&M fields at distances representative of "close" habitation was at the same amplitude as the naturally occurring noise in the cell. I concluded that any studies correlating power lines to health issues would not be decisive from simple statistics alone. > |> In article <d7s09c$kjv$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, > |> Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > (simple Bayesian statistics). I.e. it weakens the case of the > people who say "don't be ridiculous - that can't happen". Simple perhaps, but an obvious abuse of the good Bayes. Has your faith in seeing gosts rattling their bones under HT lines been increased by this thread? Jan >> |> Anyway, even if this is true, it doesn't appear to have anything >> |> to do with the original claim, which was about muons and taus. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Has your faith in seeing gosts rattling their bones >under HT lines been increased by this thread? Obviously. Let me explain, since you are clearly suffering from a loss of imagination. 1) Existing accepted application of theory predicted that there would be no accumulation of radon and no increase in leukaemia. 2) Both have been observed, by reliable scientists, to a level that seems unlikely to be by chance. 3) It is therefore very probable that the existing accepted application of theory has missed something. 5) One cannot be sure what effects will result from a phenomenon that one hasn't yet thought of. 5) Subject, of course, to high-level theories - but nobody is claiming a breach of quantum mechanics. 6) Therefore the anomalous observation increases the probability of any other physically possible ones, slightly. 7) What proof do YOU have that muons and tauons cannot occur under ANY natural conditions (because you are claiming that)? As far as seeing ghosts go, what evidence do you have that whatever effect this is cannot also produce radiation that affects the optic nerve? We know that visual disturbances can be caused by such things, and one of the theories of why ghosts and such phenomena have been observed by scientists (sic) in the past is that they were affected by a (probably chemically induced) visual disturbance. One of the standard explanations of the observations of ball lightening is along these lines. As I posted earlier, I don't believe that HT power lines are likely to cause an increase in muons, tauons, tachyons or lions (for this ones, see Lucretius). But, since that was also predicted for radon, investigating this anomaly more thoroughly (including looking for effects that "can't happen") is clearly justified. If for no other reason that an understanding might help build safer or more efficient power lines. Or might not - there is no way to tell until the research is done and an explanation found (which might show that the current observations were due to some other factor). Regards, Nick Maclaren. >>Does anyone know of any research into the cause of the increased >>incidence of muon's and tauon's near HT power lines, or explain why [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > didn't turn up anything. I'd be astonished if it's true. Where did > you hear about it? This FAQ is derived from an FAQ of the same name that was developed in the sci.med.physics newsgroup of USENET in the early 90's. Power Lines and Cancer FAQs http://www.spinspace.com/biophysics/powerlinefaq.htm SignatureDirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org |> This FAQ is derived from an FAQ of the same name that was developed in the |> sci.med.physics newsgroup of USENET in the early 90's. |> Power Lines and Cancer FAQs |> http://www.spinspace.com/biophysics/powerlinefaq.htm It is a little out of date. There is now evidence both indicating an increase in radon accumulation and an increase in childhood leukaemia - but, as I said, causality has not been demonstrated, and nobody can think of adequate explanations. It could still be yet another cause of misleading correlation. Regards, Nick Maclaren. > |> This FAQ is derived from an FAQ of the same name that was developed in the > |> sci.med.physics newsgroup of USENET in the early 90's. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and nobody can think of adequate explanations. It could still > be yet another cause of misleading correlation. There appears to be another factor which is overlooked, namely modulation. I don't mean the gross 50/60Hz of mains supply but spikes that may occur for various reasons. However, I don't know whether on those lines there are spikes of measurable size. SignatureDirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millenium http://www.theconsensus.org |> > |> This FAQ is derived from an FAQ of the same name that was developed in the |> > |> sci.med.physics newsgroup of USENET in the early 90's. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] |> various reasons. However, I don't know whether on those lines there are spikes |> of measurable size. There are, but not often. We get a LOT of lightning strikes against power lines. However, the really baffling thing about the radon issue (and the leukaemia one, if it occurs in low-radon areas, which I don't know) is that there is no known, plausible, physical mechanism to account for it. At this point, a competent government would fund research, not just from the safety angle but because it might give interesting results that could be useful elsewhere. Regards, Nick Maclaren. > |> > |> This FAQ is derived from an FAQ of the same name that was developed in the > |> > |> sci.med.physics newsgroup of USENET in the early 90's. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > not just from the safety angle but because it might give interesting > results that could be useful elsewhere. http://www.emfacts.com/papers/powerline-studies.html "Quoted from the paper "How You Can Avoid or Eliminate Pulsing Electric or Magnetic Fields within Your Home and Bedroom" by James B. Beal, EMF Interface Consulting, 5500 Prytania, #406, New Orleans, LA 70115, USA: |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.