I'm all for something that will help out the Sift AND your AOL blog. I'll continue to check in.
And fuck those Power Line assholes. Assrocket's ingnorance is only exceeded by his narcissism. Between Power Line, Little Green Footballs, and Townhall, they form the Axis of Assholery.

*clap clap clap*

By the way, I loved your "Anesthetist's Hymn" sift. I was watching it, then looked at your username, then looked at the sift, then looked at your name, and said, "OHHHHHHH...."

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Sham science is a real menace to our society. While not discounting the possible harmful health effects of low energy electromagnetic radiation, (microwaves are fairly low energy, but you don't want your body water to get resonating because of them), there exists no credible epidemiological studies to suggest that EM radiation emitted from cell phones or power lines does. While we study mutagenic and teratogenic effects on cell-lines, bacteria, and some of our mammalian cousins (I'm steering clear of that debate), for good reason, it must, ultimately, stand the test of having an effect at the macrobiotic level. We also know the hazards of extrapolating between species. I like chocolate, but I don't feed it to my dog.

Reputable companies are being forced to pay out billions of dollars in settlements because of sham science. Whether it's the auto-immune effects of silicone implants (disproved), or the class action suits of smokers who developed lung cancer from a voluntarily inhaled carcinogen, but claim its because the pipes in the attic of their workplace were wrapped in asbestos, sham science costs us all.

I hope Motorola's not next.

"There is enough anecdotal data to justify serious concerns over HV power lines."
There has not been a significant study carried out (in the EU) to prove this.
Look at who funds these latter studies.

Lol, you clearly read nothing we wrote, nor have you backed up any of your claims with any evidence - including the ones that you made that are incorrect. Come back when you at least know enough to not say the phrase "anecdotal data" in this context and expect to be taken seriously.

To the two science-heads:

There is enough anecdotal data to justify serious concerns over HV power lines.
There has not been a significant study carried out (in the EU) to prove this.
There have been many varied and significant studies carried out to disprove the claim that HV lines pose a health risk.

Look at who funds these latter studies.
You will not find an independent study proving they are dangerous. This is because nobody can raise the funding to do it.

This is a rational view of the bigger picture.

Sham science is a real menace to our society. While not discounting the possible harmful health effects of low energy electromagnetic radiation, (microwaves are fairly low energy, but you don't want your body water to get resonating because of them), there exists no credible epidemiological studies to suggest that EM radiation emitted from cell phones or power lines does. While we study mutagenic and teratogenic effects on cell-lines, bacteria, and some of our mammalian cousins (I'm steering clear of that debate), for good reason, it must, ultimately, stand the test of having an effect at the macrobiotic level. We also know the hazards of extrapolating between species. I like chocolate, but I don't feed it to my dog.

Reputable companies are being forced to pay out billions of dollars in settlements because of sham science. Whether it's the auto-immune effects of silicone implants (disproved), or the class action suits of smokers who developed lung cancer from a voluntarily inhaled carcinogen, but claim its because the pipes in the attic of their workplace were wrapped in asbestos, sham science costs us all.

I hope Motorola's not next.

I just had a conversation with a former coworker on this topic, and while discussing the 2005 Oxford leukemia study, we had a horrible, evil thought. Since this is a relatively recent study, imagine the most ironic scenario to explain the statistical finding: Overinflated reports of power lines causing cancer results in young couples becoming unwilling to live near power lines, while older couples (note a correlation of age of parents to leukemia in progeny) who have already settled in to their homes near power lines don't move, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy of the silliest kind. This would only have to happen a small percentage of the time comparatively to result in the consequently small percentage increase of childhood leukemia occurrence near power lines. This is just one of hundreds of scenarios that beat the EMF causality issue on Occam's razor test.

In the intro to the pdf you posted, it refs a study on human cells which agrees with my assertion about exposure mutation.

Well, that was kind of the point of my referencing that particular study, as the basis for using a study on S. cerevisiae was as a setup to establish a baseline by which to compare mutagenicity, carcinogenic response, and other potential to reactions. It references the human cell exposure (notably, melanoma and osteosarcoma cells) study and a few others specifically because it was indirectly questioning the validity of those results, as they study S. cerevisiae's mutagenesis but also its recombinational repair. If you note in the conclusion, Shimizu et. al. suggest that ELF-MF "LF-MF does not injure the basic genetic system in the same manner as ionizing radiation or chemical carcinogen does". It is because of this that they call for further research on yet-more indirect mechanisms for any effects of MF exposure, and also a call for better exclusion of experimental setup issues ("involvement of eddy currents induced in the culture medium could not be precluded"). In fact, I do believe these issues of experimental procedure are very difficult to deal with - going through similar papers, they are a constant concern, especially when it comes to bacteria. This is ultimately a large issue of expanding all disease-related effects from simple organisms to more complex organisms, as complex organisms - in full, not just isolated cells - will ultimately not respond to such delicate, unintentional and untracked variable changes in experimental environment. This is, again, why epidemiological studies of humans will trump small-scale bacterial studies.

Certainly many of the things we take for granted in our lives are many times more dangerous then HV lines, you will get no argument from me on that. While I do see the tendency by many to fixate on a minor risk while ignoring real risks(terrorism vs car accidents for instance), that does not mean that the proper response should be to discount concerns of risk which are based on unexceptional claims, even if we lack conclusive proof.

I see your point, in that in the face of a great risk, minor risks should not be ignored. However, my argument is that in the face of all adequate studies, all evidence points to an either insignificant or non-existent risk.

Due to the complexity of the systems involved the correlation of leukemia to HV lines (as in the 2005 study from Oxford) is very similar to the correlation of global atmospheric temperature to CO2.

To the specific study (Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case-control study):
This study actually is pretty deep and requires a strong analysis not typically afforded it. Of note in the study, is the fact that they control using the Carstairs deprivation index for socioeconomic status statistically, specifically for affluence vs. risk of childhood leukemia. This needs to be considered with the fact that they're studying an association between distance of home address at birth from high voltage power lines. Do you see the issue in the combination of that control and that effect study? The basic control isn't so easily useable because of the number of confounding variables, including numbers of moves vs. birth location (stress factor), parental employment vs. location, etc. (These are only indirectly related to socioeconomic status as countered by Carstairs index, which uses four indicators: population density, owning a car, low social class, and male unemployment.) Then when you consider, within 200m, the analysis found a relative risk of 1.69 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 2.53), the result becomes not merely questionable but likely variably confounded, something that the paper notes: "There is no accepted biological mechanism to explain the epidemiological results; indeed, the relation may be due to chance or confounding." and "We have no satisfactory explanation for our results in terms of causation by magnetic fields, and the findings are not supported by convincing laboratory data or any accepted biological mechanism." and "We emphasise again the uncertainty about whether this statistical association represents a causal relation.", which altogether amounts to an immense amount of ass-covering.

It is also worth mentioning that assuming "400-420 cases of childhood leukaemia occurring annually, about five would be associated with high voltage power lines" approximately, and childhood leukemia is a pretty rare disease as it is. The amount of money blown on these types of studies would cover the treatment for these patients many times over. Of course, the issue of extended disease results still needs to be dealt with, but from the standpoint of pragmatism....

Overall my concern is more that the HV lines are an anachronism, just as with CO2 spewing cars and power plants, it is not technologically necessary to put up with these things when we have better option which use less energy, and produce less waste, both in physical and EMF terms. I think arguing that it may be a small risk, but it would be better to do away with the tech even if it were not, is more pragmatic then arguing from a complex, and sometimes conflicting, body of data that we should ignore it.

My argument with this sift specifically lies in epidemiological claims, and I take up the debate because of my interest in the topic and my exposure to the issue. I am arguing against claims of increase in disease incidence as caused by EMF exposure from power lines, cell phone towers, etc., something that has not only not been demonstrated but that, if causally linked, is highly unlikely to matter in any reasonable scale of public life. From a scientific/academic perspective, it's worth researching. From a medical perspective, most likely not. From a public health perspective, almost certainly not. And we're being practical here.

Like I said, I have no experience or anything approaching debate-worthy levels of knowledge on the technological necessity or lack thereof of HV lines, something separate from its possibility of causing diseases. If you would like to sift something about the technology of HV lines and its economic feasibility or some such that I could watch and then read up on, I'd be more than happy to look into it.

ELF, such as 60hz power, on the other hand is more likely to be a problem. ELF has been experimentally shown to increase mutations in mono-cellular organisms, both alone, and as a catalyst with other factors.

First of all, effects of anything on single-cell organisms can't be transferred directly to mammals. For example, short-term exposure to radiation on the level of party blacklights can have mutagenic effects on bacteria that humans would never suffer. Such comparisons are shoddy at best. In addition, to the extent of all studies I know of, the claim of ELF increasing actual mutations by itself, and as a "catalyst", has not been satisfactorily demonstrated, nor has an adequate mechanism ever been generally accepted. It would be nice if you backed that up with at least one study. An example of such would be a specific study such as High Density 60 Hz Magnetic Field Has No Effects on Mutagenicity and Growth of the Budding Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which does nothing to counter an argument for an overall mutagenic effect for my argument (general negation being impossible with papers like this), but a similar paper demonstrating increase in mutation for any bacteria with causative effect well-established to ELF would be interesting enough to discuss.

Of course, then again, you still have to deal with the fact that epidemiological studies on ELF exposure in humans still trumps bacterial mutation.

I would not discount out of hand any concern about significant increases in electro-magnetic radiation, any more then I would discount concerns about pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Mechanisms for and accounts of environmental damage caused by CO2 increases in the atmosphere have been well-documented, studied and analyzed. The same can't be said for EM radiation of the frequencies we are discussing on humans. Not the same at all.

The fact of the matter is that we are really past the point technologically where high-tension power lines even make sense. Using a less monopolistic energy system with distributed generation is more stable, cheaper, more efficient, and safer in terms of ELF exposure then centralized generation. Even if ELF exposure could be shown to be insignificantly dangerous, high-tension power distribution should still be abandoned.

Separate issue. Epidemiological arguments against ELF don't involve the pragmatics of such power distribution, that's another argument and one I don't have enough knowledge of to take up.

rambar:

I think it's important to differentiate the two claims, high-frequency transmitters, such as cell phones are very different then 60hz high tension power lines.

Cellphones and wi-fi systems use so little transmit energy it is difficult to be exposed to very much of it, unless you have an old cell phone and it's glued to the side of your head. While exposure of this kind may be a contributing factor, by facilitating some other mutation vector, it would require excessive cellphone use, and will not have anything to do with the towers, since the transmitters are so far away and use so little wattage.

ELF, such as 60hz power, on the other hand is more likely to be a problem. ELF has been experimentally shown to increase mutations in mono-cellular organisms, both alone, and as a catalyst with other factors. I would not discount out of hand any concern about significant increases in electro-magnetic radiation, any more then I would discount concerns about pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.

The fact of the matter is that we are really past the point technologically where high-tension power lines even make sense. Using a less monopolistic energy system with distributed generation is more stable, cheaper, more efficient, and safer in terms of ELF exposure then centralized generation. Even if ELF exposure could be shown to be insignificantly dangerous, high-tension power distribution should still be abandoned.

I lived in central Florida for a number of years and spent a lot of time in the Clearwater area (Scientology central). It is scary what they are doing there. If you drive down the beach you will see many 10+ story beach front hotels with no cars in the parking lots because Scientologists have bought all the land for "religious purposes". I guess their followers demand the best and not paying taxes on the most expensive land in all of Central Florida can piss anyone off (hopefully they got their tax exemption revoked). Further more im not a religious man but i talked to many of the ministers around there (mainly methodists with some catholics and baptists) and they told me stories of how many of their churches are being closed down due to Scientologist buying them and then bulldozing them. If they dont sell then they will buy all the land around them and try to complicate their utilities by doing construction near the power lines and water pipes. Even reports of intimidation and threats geared towards certain churches and their followers. Its quite depressing that a priest near there said in 5-10 years not a single church will exist within the city limits of Clearwater unless it is owned by Scientologists

If the video is untampered with, I don't think this is a real lightning bolt as much as some other related electrical phenomena. I could believe that it's striking a power line a few hundred feet away.

I never compared it to AC. What I'm saying is that if by chance the bolt did in fact get inside the power lines, they would not leave them randomly. All power lines are accompanied by a ground wire that is at least as big as the largest conductor in that cable, as per the National Electrical Code. (I know this, I did electrical work for two years)
From there, it would have traveled to the nearest connection to ground which would have been no more than 300 feet away. As far as that line above the fence, like I said, it looked more like a house, what with that vertical line on the right of it.

I'm not ready to declare this a fake, but I'm not endorsing it as legit either. I just don't know. But I'm going to address a couple of the statements made here.

it would have hit a tree, especially since there were some that close

"The tallest objects in a storm don't always get struck by lightning. It's true that taller objects are closer to the clouds, but as discussed previously, lightning can strike the ground at a close distance to a tall object. Taller objects may have a higher possibility of a strike, but where lightning is concerned, the strike path is not predictable." from http://science.howstuffworks.com/lightning2.htm

and it certainly wouldn't have been 'caught' in at least 3 frames as it is in this video, it's a lot shorter than that.

I don't think you can really make that claim without more knowledge about the camera. Based on the quality of the video, it appears to be a fairly cheap camera, but that could just be the compression. We have no idea how many FPS they were recording at nor how many re-strikes made up this bolt, so we can't determine how many frames a bolt of lightning would appear in. If we assume it's a cheap camera, then we have to consider the possibility that the crappy sensor would not recover from such a high intensity light very quickly.

And as far as the "travels through the power lines" thing, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. Everyone knows that electricity is fucking lazy. It wants the easiest path to ground. Air is a terrible conductor, hence the reason you don't get zapped when you walk by a fucking outlet. If the lightning were indeed traveling through the lines, it would have stayed there, not just randomly jumped out in someone's back yard for him to videotape and put on youtube.

A power line is not going to be sufficient to contain a lightning bolt. I doubt it's possible for the core bolt to travel through a power line at all, but it's certainly possible for one of the smaller branches to. But these smaller branches are still seeking a path to the ground and I see no reason why they wouldn't arc to the earth rather than travel several miles to the transfer station, given the opportunity.

The comparison to household AC isn't of much use. Lightning may be electricity but a household circuit and the circuit of a lightning bolt are far, far different aside from sharing the basic properties.

I also don't see a single power line anywhere in this entire video.

I thought the gigantic power line strung just beyond the fence at the far end of the yard was pretty obvious.

Anyway, I doubt this is a video of a bolt of lightning striking anywhere near that dog. The shockwave at that range would be rather powerful. Even if nobody had a cognitive reaction to the strike, things would have moved. At best, I think we've got some "stray" voltage sparking in the yard. I went and found a few copies of this video and went frame by frame taking some screenshots into photoshop to evaluate. There's a bolt that comes down that I do not see when the video is playing normally, even now that I know it's there. I suspect this bolt is a ways off in the distance. The motion of the camera causes a streak that could give the impression that it's on the near side of the fence. After that are the 3 S-shaped bolts that are plainly seen in the video, and are all of identical shape and size. These definitely don't look real, but they also don't look like something someone who was trying to fake a lightning strike would put in either. I wonder if they are some sort of lens or sensor artifact? Maybe even some peculiar electrical interference?

Yeah, going with *fake on this one too. A real bolt would have been much brighter and thicker from that close. And as looris said, no one would have just stood around and said "ooh, did you get that?" No, they would have ran. ALSO, let's not forget simple physics. If the bolt actually struck that close, the sound it would have made would be instantaneous. There would have been no delay like it had to travel thousands of feet to get to the mic.
Thunder makes a rumble; lighning makes a crash. (noise) This video would have you believe the opposite, as when the lightning "struck" it rumbled, and then crashed as if it was a mile away.

And as far as the "travels through the power lines" thing, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. Everyone knows that electricity is fucking lazy. It wants the easiest path to ground. Air is a terrible conductor, hence the reason you don't get zapped when you walk by a fucking outlet. If the lightning were indeed traveling through the lines, it would have stayed there, not just randomly jumped out in someone's back yard for him to videotape and put on youtube.

I also don't see a single power line anywhere in this entire video. The only line I can see is to the right in the background - which is the trim of a house.

Thanks zif, for the shout-out
and thanks to everyone for the kind words (love the poems link, choggie)

only 498 more (give or take a few deads) to go for the big 1K!

[edit] and for the new folks, here is Raven's power lines reference