One month I ran 42 loads down to Eagle, a printing press, some were
heavy and wide. I really hated that light!

Scotty


"Scout" wrote in message
...
yep, our CDL instructor likes to challenge the Class A candidates
with Rt
100.
Scout

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Nice area. I hate that red light on 100 South, (steep hill, blind
curve)..

Scotty

"Scout" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott Vernon wrote:
so, where exactly is this dump?
Just a few miles East of your place, near Bucktown.
Scout

The best numbers are those found standard in a home. IOW it
is not advisable to live in a region of 1 gauss. That, I
thought, was obvious from my posts. But how much lower must
magnetic (or electric) fields be to be safe? Well, you and
your neighbors are all not suddenly dying. Therefore the E-M
fields in your neighborhood are probably a good benchmark for
safety.

Some are so worried about magnetic fields as to say 3
milligauss is too high. Then danger is everywhere. Others
put those maximum acceptable limits higher. Bottom line:
currently household appliances appear to be acceptable limits
for safety. As I said before, you have a crude measuring
device. If fields in that location cause a monitor to shimmy,
then that *might* be levels too high. Indeed, that location
is higher than what most people experience. Therefore it is
advisable to limit time in that area. IOW don't put a bed
there.

Did I give a magic number? Of course not. There is no
magic number. Concepts must be tempered by the numbers.
Provided is a crude method to measure field exposure - to get
ballpark numbers. No conclusive evidence says low level
fields, as found in most locations, are destructive. AND
(returning to the original post) speculation about high
voltage transmission lines is not what we should be
discussing. Unfortunately, too many with a junk science
perspective foolishly worry about those high voltage wires.
If E-M fields are dangerous, then we should be more worrying
about household appliances, automobiles, electric stoves, and
wires inside the walls. BTW, there was a wide difference in
the fields from different cars.

Provided is a 'best guess' value. There is no magic
number. There are numbers to make only a subjective
evaluations. Without numbers, then we only have junk science
reasoning - not even a good subject evaluation. Is your house
dangerous? First, what are the numbers? Notice that Scout is
doing just that. He has a meter. He is first collecting
facts - the numbers.

Thom Stewart wrote:
w_tom,
Using your own advice, please tell us what kind of meter were you using
for your car dash test. Should we believe you when you don't specify
type of meter, what you were measuring, what the values were, under what
conditions were your testing done.
IOW you have ignored the very things you are condemning.

I stated ; "The jury was still out on effects"
You haven't really said anything of value other than your own slant on
your "Urban Myth"

Ole Thom

Excellent. Experience from that meter is what every poster
should have had before posting. Please report fields in many
locations including car - and that transmission line.

Warning: sometimes transmission lines are not carrying much
current. Therefore the readings may appear low. Take
readings at various time of day or year to better understand
the fields. And find other equivalent transmission lines to
verify readings at your transmission line are reasonable.

3 milligauss is one of the lower limits that many claim to
be 'maximum permissible'. Notice that what is and is not
healthy is a very wide region because - despite all the papers
such as those from Bob Crantz - we still don't known what is
dangerous; if anything. Bottom line. If HV transmission
lines don't exceed what is normally created in the house, then
transmission lines (currently) can be considered safe.

Also take electric field readings. E fields are measured in
volts per meter. Furthermore, notice what does and does not
eliminate or reduce both magnetic and electric fields.

I love it when people are more interested in the numbers
rather than just hyping what could be junk science. Its
called 'dirt under your fingernails'. Number are what junk
scientists fear to learn or post. Use numbers from research
papers by Bob Crantz to put your meter readings into
perspective. Appreciate why speculation on the dangers of
either magnetic or electric fields is so widely disputed.
Then appreciate why so many reiterate worries without the
'temper' of reality - the numbers.

Scout wrote:
My EMF-822A electromagnetic field radiation tester has just arrived.
I read in one of the reports, a maximum suggested exposure limit of 3
milligauss. I am getting a reading of 2 milligauss just sitting in
front of my CRT (there is also a 2 bulb flourescent light about 3
feet above my head).
Moving the meter closer to the monitor gives readings up to 12
milligauss. I'll play with this more in the days to come.
Scout

"w_tom" wrote
Notice that Scout is doing just that. He has a meter.
He is first collecting facts - the numbers.

I placed the meter on my knee while driving home today. My knee actually
leans against the door speaker. The meter read as high as 30 milligauss (I
like my music rather loud).
At work, I placed the meter close to the transformer in my room, and read
over 200 milligauss. Naturally, that number dropped quickly as I backed
away. At my desk, I'm exposed to about 2-3 mG.
Don't know if any of these is dangerous, but I do like having a new toy to
play with. It'll be a while before I can get out to the property in
question.
Scout

I have a PA class A with passenger, tanker, and of course, air brake
endorsements. Naturally I have the motorcycle license too.
My employer bought a bus and I drive on many field trips with 50 kids on
board. I don't drive our Freightliner (18 wheeler) much, only enough to have
an honest respect for the responsibilities Scotty has.
Scout

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
I hold a Florida class A CDL. I wonder how many others here have a
Class A CDL AND a Masters License.

CN


"Scout" wrote in message
...
yep, our CDL instructor likes to challenge the Class A candidates with Rt
100.
Scout

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Nice area. I hate that red light on 100 South, (steep hill, blind
curve)..

Scotty

"Scout" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott Vernon wrote:
so, where exactly is this dump?
Just a few miles East of your place, near Bucktown.
Scout

Horvath:

That was the absolute all time greatest post ever on ASA.

But you'll still burn in hell!

Bob Crantz

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:10:47 GMT, "Bob Crantz"
wrote this crap:

Here's a reference from a company that produces permanent magnets. They
explain the cause of magnetism in the permanent magnet:

http://www.arnoldmagnetics.com/mtc/pm_manual_chap_1.htm

"Magnetic fields from permanent magnets arise from two atomic sources:
the
spin and orbital motions of electrons. Therefore, the magnetic
characteristics of a material may change as a function of alloying with
other elements. For example, a non-magnetic material such as aluminum can
become magnetic in materials such as alnico or manganese-aluminum-carbon.
It
may also change from mechanical working or any other stress to the
crystal
lattice."


So that's how Magneto managed to bend the aluminum on the train, the
copper straps on the Statue of Liberty, and Wolverine's adamantium.
Thanks for clearing that up.


I still think that since Yoda beat Count Duku, (Christopher Lee), in a
fair fight, and Saruman, (Christopher Lee), beat Gandalf, then Yoda
should have no problem taking out either Magneto or Gandalf.

Who do you think would win between Yoda and Professor X.?





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

w_Tom,

You are correct about the fields in the house being of more concern than the
fields from a powerline. You are also correct about the studies from
powerlines. I was playing around with you and you stood your ground. For
that I have great respect.. Why didn't you catch the remark about the E
field increasing in a dielectric? It actually decreases, the Displacement
vector remains constant. My hat tips to you!

http://www.emfacts.com/papers/case-histories.html

Amen!

You won't burn in hell!

A powerline will get you instead!

Bob Crantz


"w_tom" wrote in message
...
But Bob Crantz gave no numbers for the fields around high
voltage power lines. Other fields should cause more worry.
They are the missing numbers. Is it 100 volts/meter
underneath the transmission line? But the those fields are
also found inside the house. Don't worry about those high
voltage transmission lines. Instead, move the bedroom
depending on how the house is constructed and wired ... in
every house. If fields are a problem, then the problem are
things found inside every house.

I am impressed that you do have fundamental knowledge of the
concepts - even though you confuse electron spin (a concept in
quantum physics) with electric current. But that is not the
problem. The problem is that fields from high voltage power
lines are not the source of potentially dangerous fields - if
those fields are even dangerous. You have provided numbers
for some observed scientific research - providing numbers that
are only speculative. But those fields are everywhere - even
confronting passengers in a car front seat. The problem is
that you don't provide any useful numbers for making a
conclusion - other than industry benchmark numbers. If field
strength numbers you have provided are accurate, then we all
are at high risk, constantly, in all homes. And would be dying
more often.

Many theories exist on what constitutes dangerous fields.
Some research suggests as little as 1 gauss. A house,
adjacent or not, to high voltage power lines contains no such
fields. Others suggest limits like 100 milligauss. This is
further complicated by how measurements are taken. But again,
the original post is about high voltage transmission lines.
The 'dangerous' fields, if they even are dangerous, are from
elsewhere. Those worrying about fields from a high voltage
power line are using classic "penny rich and pound poor"
reasoning.

BTW, I am not suggesting that citations Bob Crantz has
provided are in error. Bottom line is that we don't really
know what extremely long term health effects of these low
magnetic and electric fields are. But one must live in
reality. That means one must have numbers. Numbers - if
these lower level fields are so dangerous, then we literally
must rewire all homes. If you thought lead paint was a
problem, then removing all TVs and other displays would be
trivial compared to replacing or relocating househould wire.
Yes it could become a problem just like lead paint. Or it
just as easily become another witch hunt. We don't know. But
we do know what fields currently exist in the house. We do
know the source of those 'theoretically dangerous' fields are
not high voltage transmission lines as some totally
irresponsible news anchors suggest. Low voltage, higher
current wires inside walls should cause concern - if concern
is justified. That is what too many if not most posters
failed to comprehend.

Provided is a crude tool to find locations with high
fields. Fields will cause the TV or CRT picture to shimy or
distort. This is a numerical perspective provided by ball
park measurements.

Bob Crantz wrote:
"w_tom" wrote in message
...
Where are your numbers, Bob Crantz?

Read the NASA citation. There's numbers. Read the handbook for Magnetic
shielding. There's numbers. Every reference I gave has numbers.

A stationary and permanent magnetic creates electricity?

Yes it can, if you move relative to it. Faradays unipolar generator
(featured on the English 20 pound note) needs no relative motion
between the conductor and magnet to produce electricity. Look it up.

Which field is dangerous - electric or magnetic?

They both can be.

And how much?

80 mv transmembrane potential is all it takes.

How much are the fields under a high voltage transmissions lines?

Between the lines take the voltage between them and divide by the
separation of the lines to get the field strength in volts per
meter. If you know the location of the ground below them (as in
electrical ground) you can create the image circuit (using the
method of images) and calculate the field strength also at the
ground level.

And why do you worry about those high voltage wires when
your own citations, instead, discuss lower voltage wires
inside the building?


The high voltage is ionizing the air. Ever hear that crackling
noise? What is the voltage induced in a moving object under a
power line? Any idea? Indoor wiring = very bad!

It is a classic junk science maneuver. Hype some fear.
Provide no numbers. Then when numbers expose the fear as
hype, attack the messenger rather than provide required
numbers.

Well, where's the proof of your point?

Tell us Bob Crantz. How strong are those fields underneath
that high voltage transmission line? You hyped the fear. But
you forgot to mention whether such fearful numbers even exist
under that transmission line.

100 V/m typically, which would induce 200 volts in a standing
human. 80 mV is all it takes.

In the meantime, others should again remember which electric
lines are accused of being dangerous. Not the high voltage
transmission lines. Even Bob Crantz's own citation discusses
which electric lines were originally suspect. Those low
voltage wires inside the building. Worry more about where the
wire to your electric stove is routed - if there is anything
to even worry about.

I'd really worry about wiring in the house!
...

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

Are you musical?

Yup, played guitar for about 25 years. Occasionally compose stuff using
MIDI.

I try to, too. However I'm not creative enough ... yet! Mind you, I'm
getting there ... slowly.




Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" blathered thusly:

Mind you, I'm getting there ... slowly.


That's to be expected in a Beneteau.

CN

"Donal" wrote in message news:cri3gu$ch2$1

Yup, played guitar for about 25 years. Occasionally compose stuff using
MIDI.

I try to, too. However I'm not creative enough ... yet! Mind you, I'm
getting there ... slowly.

What do you do, Donal? Play an instrument? Compose?