Major electricity pylon route planned for Carlow

Villain

I really don't get why people can't see that using fairytale health risks as a reason to protest is only damaging their argument?

Is it they have lost all arguments and are scraping the bottom of the barrel?

almighty1

Super-Rush wrote: »

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.

What utter BS. Has nobody in your locality died from cancer in the last 30 years? Scientists (never mind you) have difficulty finding the cause of cancers.

Super-Rush wrote: »

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.

Don't know where you are making these comparisons. You must be a non-sequiter?

Super-Rush wrote: »

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.

Its ONE of the concerns as to why people are opposing these pylons.
I'm not saying that in 50-60 years time people might get sick because of them, it's that future studies might conclude that many sickness might be attributed to high EMF exposure.

There is plenty of scope for further investigations. Plenty of studies have suggested that there is a tentative link between them and leukemia.
That's plenty of reason for me (and many others) to oppose them.

Super-Rush

almighty1 wrote: »

What utter BS. Has nobody in your locality died from cancer in the last 30 years? Scientists (never mind you) have difficulty finding the cause of cancers.



Don't know where you are making these comparisons. You must be a non-sequiter?




Its ONE of the concerns as to why people are opposing these pylons.
I'm not saying that in 50-60 years time people might get sick because of them, it's that future studies might conclude that many sickness might be attributed to high EMF exposure.

There is plenty of scope for further investigations. Plenty of studies have suggested that there is a tentative link between them and leukemia.
That's plenty of reason for me (and many others) to oppose them.

Not one single person who would have lived in the direct vicinity of the pylons has died of cancer or leukaemia in the last 30 years. I can't think of anyone within a 20 mile radius of where I live that has died of cancer.

jayo99

and you happen to know every single person that lives within 20 miles of you?

Super-Rush

Maybe 20 miles is stretching it, but I'd safely say I'd know more than 80% of the people in that radius and almost everyone within a ten mile radius. Its rural Ireland and my family have been here for over a hundred years.

Villain

I'd be far more worried about Radon in old houses in Carlow rather than pylons.

almighty1

Super-Rush wrote: »

Not one single person who would have lived in the direct vicinity of the pylons has died of cancer or leukaemia in the last 30 years. I can't think of anyone within a 20 mile radius of where I live that has died of cancer.

You live here?

Super-Rush

Mockery, the sign of a defeated argument.

Cienciano

Super-Rush wrote: »

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.

That's it. The whole health, tourism, house price, buzzing noise argument is rubbish. We all know the reason, it's because people don't want to look at them. Fair enough, I live beside them and rather they weren't here, but they don't bother me. But people using the other arguments are talking shíte

almighty1

Super-Rush wrote: »

Mockery, the sign of a defeated argument.

Mockery alright. Consider 1/4 of all deaths in Ireland are attributed to cancer.

You either live in a very sparsely populated area or you're talking complete garbage.

almighty1

Cienciano wrote: »

That's it. The whole health, tourism, house price, buzzing noise argument is rubbish. ......Fair enough, I live beside them and rather they weren't here......

Congratulations. You just contradicted in the same post.

You rather they weren't there?

If you were buying a house and two identical houses were offered to you. The ONLY difference between the houses was that one house was in the shadow of the pylon and the other far away from pylons? Going by that premise alone you admitted you would take the one further away from the pylons. Other potential purchasers with similar a anti-pylon outlook would mean less of a consumer base therefore devaluing the price.

Thanks.

Super-Rush

almighty1 wrote: »

Mockery alright. Consider 1/4 of all deaths in Ireland are attributed to cancer.

You either live in a very sparsely populated area or you're talking complete garbage.

I live in rural Carlow. There's a fair amount of houses around here with a pylon route slap bang in the middle of it.

Have you anything to back up that claim that cancer is responsible for 1/4 of deaths in Ireland? Come to think of it, out of every person I know who has died, only one had cancer and he couldn't have lived any further from a pylon if he'd tried.

almighty1

Super-Rush wrote: »

I live in rural Carlow. There's a fair amount of houses around here with a pylon route slap bang in the middle of it.

Have you anything to back up that claim that cancer is responsible for 1/4 of deaths in Ireland? Come to think of it, out of every person I know who has died, only one had cancer and he couldn't have lived any further from a pylon if he'd tried.

http://www.cancer.ie/about-us/media-centre/cancer-statistics

• Cancer accounts for over one-quarter of the annual death toll.
• Cancer is the second most common cause of death in Ireland.

Super-Rush

almighty1 wrote: »

http://www.cancer.ie/about-us/media-centre/cancer-statistics

Statistics from 2009 I see.

Also not a mention of EMF or pylons.

SV

almighty1 wrote: »

Congratulations. You just contradicted in the same post.

You rather they weren't there?

If you were buying a house and two identical houses were offered to you. The ONLY difference between the houses was that one house was in the shadow of the pylon and the other far away from pylons? Going by that premise alone you admitted you would take the one further away from the pylons. Other potential purchasers with similar a anti-pylon outlook would mean less of a consumer base therefore devaluing the price.

Thanks.

Less of a consumer base does not mean the price is devalued.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Super-Rush wrote: »

Statistics from 2009 I see.

Also not a mention of EMF or pylons.

Do you really think the cause of death for an entire country shift that radically in 4 years? Start is valid.

Villain

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Do you really think the cause of death for an entire country shift that radically in 4 years? Start is valid.

It may be valid but how is it related to pylons?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Villain wrote: »

It may be valid but how is it related to pylons?

It's not. There's no way to draw a link between cancer deaths and proximity to pylons. Like many of the posts in this thread it completely ignores statistical methods. But sure why let a little thing like that stand in the way of a good rant.

almighty1

Villain wrote: »

It may be valid but how is it related to pylons?

Context is the key word here. Put it in the context of the original question posted by Super-Rush.

almighty1

Eirgrid chairman says he wouldn't like to live "close" to a pylon.
I'm not Ming Flanagans biggest fan but he absolutely nails it here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPv3UZVOW0w

almighty1

SV wrote: »

Less of a consumer base does not mean the price is devalued.

It has a much more likelihood of being devalued in comparison to the house further away from pylons.

SV

almighty1 wrote: »

It has a much more likelihood of being devalued in comparison to the house further away from pylons.

Right, so we're gone from what was apparently common sense to 'much more likelihood'. Grasping at straws.

almighty1

SV wrote: »

Right, so we're gone from what was apparently common sense to 'much more likelihood'. Grasping at straws.

Well given that "common sense" isn't working for you I had to use some other means to get my point across.

So lets get this right, you think that a pylon/motorway/wind turbine that is built within 50 metres from a house doesn't devalue it?

almighty1

http://www.thejournal.ie/eirgrid-pylons-1203572-Dec2013/

‘I wouldn’t like to live close to a pylon, but who would?’ – Incoming Eirgrid chair

THE CHAIRMAN DESIGNATE of Eirgrid has said that he will discuss with the minister whether or not to reconsider his nomination.
John O’Connor made his comments after a bruising encounter with the Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications in which he admitted that he personally would not like to live beside an electricity pylon.
The committee were questioning him on his proposed appointment as the chair of the state-owned electricity transmission company.
Asked by Fine Gael TD Patrick O’Donovan whether he personally would like to live beside an electricity pylon, O’Connor responded, “I wouldn’t like to live close to a pylon, but who would?”
Pushed later on his response by Independent TD Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan, O’Connor said that he would not like to live beside a pylon because it would “affect the amenity of the house” and “would be visually intrusive”. This would only be the case “if it were too close”, said O’Connor.
Questioned by Flanagan what he considered close to be, O’Connor answered “maybe 50 metres”.
The new appointment appointment comes as Eirgrid plans to erect large electricity pylons, as part of an update to the country’s energy infrastructure.
O’Connor also “refuted emphatically” that he would have a conflict of interest in his new position having previously been the chairman of An Bord Pleanála.
Speaking before the committee this morning, O’Connor said that he left An Bord Pleanála in June 2011 and his standing with the company was now “the same as any other citizen”.
O’Connor was chairman of An Bord Pleanála for 11 years from 2000 but he said today that the doesn’t feel he has “any unique knowledge” of the planning process.
O’Connor said that when approached by Environment Minister Phil Hogan who gauged his interest in the position, O’Connor said that the Minister did not make any specific reference to his experience in An Bord Pleanála.
He said that that this was likely “a deliberate” decision by the Minister not to mention his previous role as head of the state planning board.


Fianna Fáil TD Timmy Dooley said that his party will not be supporting O’Connor’s nomination as he felt that there was a “mismatch” between the his experience and his suitability for the role as it currently exists.
“There is a concern among community groups that your knowledge of the planning process will effect communities acting against Eirgrid, ” he said.
Dooley told O’Connor that he believes he has unique insight into how decisions are taken, something which could ”put Eirgrid in a dominant position” in disputes with communities.
O’Connor flatly rejected all of these charges, saying that he would not be taking a hands-on role in individual planning applications. He said that his role would primarily be in setting policy for Eirgrid and that “there won’t be any back door phone calls”.
Dooley asked O’Connor for a commitment to “dissociate yourself totally” from the planning and application processes.
O’Connor responded by saying that that, once a proposal is made, he will have no involvement but that he “couldn’t as chairperson of the company have nothing to do with the main issues around the proposals”.
Before his tenure with An Bord Pleanála O’Connor worker for 30 years in the Department of the Environment and he said that he has consistently worked to protect the environment. “If anyone thinks I’m going into Eirgrid to damage my life’s work then I would have a problem with that, ” he said.
A public consultation on the Leinster-Munster power line scheme has been undertaken and O’Connor said that he believes strongly that engagement as a rule is meaningful. He requested that communities wait for the report of the consultation process before making any judgments.
Sinn Féin deputy Michael Colreavy said that the main point on the agenda of consultations should be on whether the power lines go overground or underground and if this decision has already been taken consultations are meaningless

Villain

almighty1 wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/eirgrid-pylons-1203572-Dec2013/

I listened to it, he said he wouldn't like living too close to one, so what?

almighty1

Villain wrote: »

I listened to it, he said he wouldn't like living too close to one, so what?

He is the Eirgrid chairman.

Villain

So him being honest changes this how?

almighty1

Villain wrote: »

So him being honest changes this how?

If I have to explain the significance of his admission coupled with his position within Eirgrid then I'll respectively bow out.

/End thread for me

SV

almighty1 wrote: »

Well given that "common sense" isn't working for you I had to use some other means to get my point across.

So lets get this right, you think that a pylon/motorway/wind turbine that is built within 50 metres from a house doesn't devalue it?

It isn't common sense, stop letting your emotions cloud pure facts.

and yes, I don't that it devalues it in any way, shape or form, and I think that you simply don't want to look at them. That is a very very stupid reason.


and it's nice to see you're trying to be condescending, end of thread for you indeed.

Owryan

almighty1 wrote: »

If I have to explain the significance of his admission coupled with his position within Eirgrid then I'll respectively bow out.

/End thread for me

Dont see how him being honest has anything to do with his position. Nobody wants to live near a pylon, he is no different. They have to go somewhere and its a sad fact.