Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Major electricity pylon route planned for Carlow

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭fits


    psinno wrote: »
    The countryside only got electricity about 60 years ago.

    Wow I never would have known that :D


  • Options
    #153
    Seanachai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Seanachai


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    If *anywhere* in Europe should have open countryside, it's Ireland.
    We've one of the lowest density populations in the EU! We have oodles of space for housing, we just choose to scatter ourselves as far apart as humanly possible, then moan about lack of infrastructure.

    The bungalow blitz type development means that we tend to have very, very low density housing absolutely scattered sparsely everywhere rather than proper towns/villages like most of Europe has.

    There's only 65 people km2 in Ireland! Only Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden and Finland are less densely populated. We're comparable with Scotland's slightly more dense population of 67 / km2

    France 111
    The UK has 255.6 / km2
    Netherlands 393
    Germany 233

    I realise we have a low population density , I was arguing that because of the lack of desire of rural Irish people ( and urban migrants ) to congregate in towns and villages , dwelling free sections of countryside of any decent size is unlikely to be a reality any time soon. Can you understand why rural people who have lived outside towns and villages for generations don't want to be corralled into built up areas? , do you live in a built up area?.

    It just doesn't suit certain types of people to live too close to their neighbours. Some towns aren't exactly the most pleasant places to live especially if you get a 'Problem' family planted beside you , I know from accounts from friends that this can be hell on earth. The countryside is also made up of communities and identities that stretch back hundreds of years.

    I'm from the South Carlow/Wexford border myself but I live in Dublin , I'd move home in the morning if I got the chance but I'm stuck here because of work for the time being. Ideally I'd renovate a cottage in a way that doesn't go against the landscape , I can understand to a certain extent why visitors to the countryside would be put off by too many scattered houses especially the larger ones. With better planning regulation in terms of design and placement I think one off rural housing can be done in a healthy way.


  • Options
    #154
    derferjam
    Registered Users Posts: 197 ✭✭derferjam


    Another web page way better on issues and effects of eirgird is www.saveourheartland.com


  • Options
    #155
    derferjam
    Registered Users Posts: 197 ✭✭derferjam


    Underground is possible they have run it from wales to ireland already underground.
    Expense:
    Yes it is more expensive but also less health issues. Eir grid cannot claim for definite that there is no link to cancer with any certainty they are as much in the dark as anyone in respect to the effects. Countless studies on either side.

    So the question is not expense its how much is a human's health worth?
    Less or more than the cost of putting these underground.
    Maintenance:
    This is an opt out as the maintenance is minimal and easy correct.


  • Options
    #156
    derferjam
    Registered Users Posts: 197 ✭✭derferjam


    SV wrote: »
    It honestly wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
    Nah nothing constructive, find the whole protesting thing just hilarious is all.

    What about the links to cancer and house devalue both of which are facts that are caused due to the pylons. Eirgrid dismiss the cancer link but its a fact...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    derferjam
    Registered Users Posts: 197 ✭✭derferjam


    congo_90 wrote: »
    They're providing the electricity to you right now!?
    Pylons are cheaper and faster to erect, run cable through and easier to maintain.
    In comparison to underground.
    Which requires (due to current) deep trenches and repairs to ground. This is slow and costly.

    The links between pylons and cancer is too great to measure this project on cost its about foresight. Maintenance is not as big as issue as is let to believe.


  • Options
    #158
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    derferjam wrote: »
    What about the links to cancer and house devalue both of which are facts that are caused due to the pylons. Eirgrid dismiss the cancer link but its a fact...

    Where are these facts?


  • Options
    #159
    SV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭SV


    derferjam wrote: »
    What about the links to cancer and house devalue both of which are facts that are caused due to the pylons. Eirgrid dismiss the cancer link but its a fact...

    It is not a fact whatsoever.
    It is also not a fact that it devalues houses.


  • Options
    #160
    loremolis
    Registered Users Posts: 944 ✭✭✭loremolis


    SV wrote: »
    It is not a fact whatsoever.
    It is also not a fact that it devalues houses.

    If you say you're view is right prove it.

    The health issue is the most difficult of the two to prove or disprove. However, these lines radiate massive electric and magnetic fields at close range and those fields have been shown to have an effect on living organisms.

    In relation to the devaluation of houses, it is pretty much a fact that a pylon in the front garden of a house will devalues that house. If the pylon is directly across the road the the devaluation would be less.

    The further away the pylon is moved the less the devaluation. If that's not a fact I don't know what is.


  • Options
    #161
    almighty1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,183 ✭✭✭almighty1


    SV wrote: »
    It is also not a fact that it devalues houses.

    No that's purely common sense. Can you explain why some people were given up to 100k when motorways were run right beside their house?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    loremolis wrote: »
    If you say you're view is right prove it.

    The health issue is the most difficult of the two to prove or disprove. However, these lines radiate massive electric and magnetic fields at close range and those fields have been shown to have an effect on living organisms.

    Shown where?? Can we at least back up any claims in this thread?


  • Options
    #163
    SV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭SV


    When someone claims something the onus is on them to prove its true, not the other way around. That's the only thing common sense about this, I feel that people's emotions are getting in the way of logic.


  • Options
    #164
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    Villain wrote: »
    Shown where?? Can we at least back up any claims in this thread?

    I posted a link earlier on the thread. Mind you the result was not statistically significant i.e. could be random chance and was below one case per decade. Do not think anything better has been posted.


  • Options
    #165
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    psinno wrote: »
    I posted a link earlier on the thread. Mind you the result was not statistically significant i.e. could be random chance and was below one case per decade. Do not think anything better has been posted.

    So it hasn't been shown! I really wish people would stop with the scaremongering, if people don't like the look and want to object that's fair enough but leave out the crap claims.


  • Options
    #166
    Seanachai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Seanachai


    SV wrote: »
    When someone claims something the onus is on them to prove its true, not the other way around. That's the only thing common sense about this, I feel that people's emotions are getting in the way of logic.

    I suspect that a lot of the people who may possibly be affected in terms of their health by these pylons are lay people in relation to science. They have to read the studies and use their best judgement , they also speak to people who have direct experience of living close to these things and how it has affected their families health and livestock. There's also the factor that some people are just more sensitive to EMF than others , should they be collateral damage for the sake of extra expense and effort?.


  • Options
    #167
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Seanachai wrote: »
    I suspect that a lot of the people who may possibly be affected in terms of their health by these pylons are lay people in relation to science. They have to read the studies and use their best judgement , they also speak to people who have direct experience of living close to these things and how it has affected their families health and livestock. There's also the factor that some people are just more sensitive to EMF than others , should they be collateral damage for the sake of extra expense and effort?.

    What studies? and what direct reports?

    It's all hearsay and it dilutes any argument against pylons, why people can't see that is beyond me.


  • Options
    #168
    zl1whqvjs75cdy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,042 ✭✭✭zl1whqvjs75cdy


    The studies on both sides clearly state that they are statistically insignificant. Therefore pretty useless in this argument whether you're for or against the pylons. If someone has a statistically valid study please post a link, although I dunno how you'd even go about setting up an appropriate sample group.


  • Options
    #169
    Seanachai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Seanachai


    Villain wrote: »
    What studies? and what direct reports?

    It's all hearsay and it dilutes any argument against pylons, why people can't see that is beyond me.


    Studies such as the one mentioned in the web link below. Other posters have also linked to studies.

    www.emfwise.com/powerline.php

    I'm not a scientist , I don't have in-depth knowledge of the physics of EMF and it's effects on the human body so I have to read the information that's available from both sides and make my own mind up. I've spoken to people who live close to pylons that's what I meant when I said direct experience. Are you a scientist Villain? , if a GP prescribes me medication and I have a very bad reaction ( as has happened ) but the GP says that it's completely safe do I keep swallowing the pills or trust my own body?.

    Of course people get emotional they're frightened that a company is willing to take the risk of people becoming ill as the science at least for the moment is inconclusive. There is also a trust issue with these companies which I don't blame people for. As with exposure to pesticides and other toxins , health effects may be 'statistically insignificant' for the most part however a certain portion of the population can have a genetic vulnerability where this statistical insignificance could be tipped.


  • Options
    #170
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Seanachai wrote: »
    Studies such as the one mentioned in the web link below. Other posters have also linked to studies.

    www.emfwise.com/powerline.php

    I'm not a scientist , I don't have in-depth knowledge of the physics of EMF and it's effects on the human body so I have to read the information that's available from both sides and make my own mind up. I've spoken to people who live close to pylons that's what I meant when I said direct experience. Are you a scientist Villain? , if a GP prescribes me medication and I have a very bad reaction ( as has happened ) but the GP says that it's completely safe do I keep swallowing the pills or trust my own body?.

    Of course people get emotional they're frightened that a company is willing to take the risk of people becoming ill as the science at least for the moment is inconclusive. There is also a trust issue with these companies which I don't blame people for. As with exposure to pesticides and other toxins , health effects may be 'statistically insignificant' for the most part however a certain portion of the population can have a genetic vulnerability where this statistical insignificance could be tipped.
    I trust facts, I don't need to be a scientist to understand facts established by certified organisations.

    The reason I don't like this hearsay or people mentioning studies that haven't proven anything is we saw similar with the autism-MMR vaccine hoax which caused all sorts of panic.

    If you have an issue with how these pylons ruin the landscape, fine use the procedures in place to object but spare us the hysteria about health risks that haven't been proven.


  • Options
    #171
    Seanachai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Seanachai


    Villain wrote: »
    I trust facts, I don't need to be a scientist to understand facts established by certified organisations.

    The reason I don't like this hearsay or people mentioning studies that haven't proven anything is we saw similar with the autism-MMR vaccine hoax which caused all sorts of panic.

    If you have an issue with how these pylons ruin the landscape, fine use the procedures in place to object but spare us the hysteria about health risks that haven't been proven.
    Villain wrote: »
    I trust facts, I don't need to be a scientist to understand facts established by certified organisations.

    The reason I don't like this hearsay or people mentioning studies that haven't proven anything is we saw similar with the autism-MMR vaccine hoax which caused all sorts of panic.

    If you have an issue with how these pylons ruin the landscape, fine use the procedures in place to object but spare us the hysteria about health risks that haven't been proven.

    I don't think it's hysteria to have genuine concern over the possibility that a device may become a causative factor in somebody most likely a child becoming seriously ill. There seems to be some obfuscation on the part of Eirgrid in relation to this project and it's only right that they should be scrutinised heavily. The representatives of these energy companies can also be sanctimonious pr%*ks , like the guy who sniggered his way through the entire Primetime debate on Wind farming only to be cut down to size in the end. He basically tried to tell a woman tormented from the effects of a wind turbine that what she was experiencing was 'All in her head'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Seanachai wrote: »
    I don't think it's hysteria to have genuine concern over the possibility that a device may become a causative factor in somebody most likely a child becoming seriously ill. There seems to be some obfuscation on the part of Eirgrid in relation to this project and it's only right that they should be scrutinised heavily.

    Its hysteria when that concern is based on hearsay and ideas and not facts.


  • Options
    #173
    almighty1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,183 ✭✭✭almighty1


    Villain wrote: »
    Its hysteria when that concern is based on hearsay and ideas and not facts.

    It's neither proved nor disproved.

    Asbestos, tobacco, loud noises weren't deemed to a health hazard at some time in the past. What is acceptable now might not be acceptable in 50 years time.

    Wouldn't you remove yourself and your children from potential danger?


  • Options
    #174
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    almighty1 wrote: »
    It's neither proved nor disproved.

    Asbestos, tobacco, loud noises weren't deemed to a health hazard at some time in the past. What is acceptable now might not be acceptable in 50 years time.

    Wouldn't you remove yourself and your children from potential danger?

    What potential danger?? There is none!

    How many pylons have we got so far in this country and many deaths have been proven to have links to those pylons?

    Why can't you just argue based on the facts?


  • Options
    #175
    SV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭SV


    almighty1 wrote: »
    It's neither proved nor disproved.

    Asbestos, tobacco, loud noises weren't deemed to a health hazard at some time in the past. What is acceptable now might not be acceptable in 50 years time.

    Wouldn't you remove yourself and your children from potential danger?

    So if someone says something may be dangerous then you'd go by that? Even if there's no proof?
    It's an interesting approach.


  • Options
    #176
    almighty1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,183 ✭✭✭almighty1


    SV wrote: »
    So if someone says something may be dangerous then you'd go by that? Even if there's no proof?
    It's an interesting approach.

    I'd rather err on the side of caution as I'm sure lots of people would.

    And it's not very interesting to be honest.


  • Options
    #177
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    almighty1 wrote: »
    I'd rather err on the side of caution as I'm sure lots of people would.

    And it's not very interesting to be honest.

    There would have to be something to be cautious of though i.e. a risk and there is isn't any proven risk.


  • Options
    #178
    SV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭SV


    almighty1 wrote: »
    I'd rather err on the side of caution as I'm sure lots of people would.

    And it's not very interesting to be honest.

    Well it is, I mean if someone starts something in say the next ten years saying mass concrete buildings are putting off some kind of radiation and it's potentially dangerous, will you refuse to stay in or around them as well, for fear of future problems?



    Orrrr is this 'health risk' thing just a cover as people realise the "I don't want to look at pylons close to my house" is a crap argument?


  • Options
    #179
    almighty1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,183 ✭✭✭almighty1


    Villain wrote: »
    There would have to be something to be cautious of though i.e. a risk and there is isn't any proven risk.

    Excessive EMF levels are proven to be a health hazard. The exact level at which they are deemed safe have yet to be determined.

    It's not as if we are talking about something totally benign here.


  • Options
    #180
    Super-Rush
    Registered Users Posts: 19,473 ✭✭✭✭Super-Rush


    almighty1 wrote: »
    Excessive EMF levels are proven to be a health hazard. The exact level at which they are deemed safe have yet to be determined.

    It's not as if we are talking about something totally benign here.

    Well the levels being emitted must be safe seeing as there hasn't been a death or illness associated with the existing pylons in my local area in the last 30 odd years. I'm talking about pylons being less than 100 metres from some houses.

    This argument about the dangers that 'could' be caused is complete rubbish. Better stay away from cars, planes, trains, horses, fireplaces, Christmas trees, dogs, cats etc.

    If people came out and said they didn't want the pylons because they would spoil the view and the scenery then I'd listen to them, but saying you're against them because someone might get sick because of them in 50 or 60 years time is just silly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    almighty1 wrote: »
    Excessive EMF levels are proven to be a health hazard. The exact level at which they are deemed safe have yet to be determined.

    It's not as if we are talking about something totally benign here.

    Excessive anything is a health hazard.


Advertisement