{"id":350,"date":"2014-02-13T18:17:11","date_gmt":"2014-02-13T18:17:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/not-so-great-northern-transmission-line.org\/?p=350"},"modified":"2014-05-21T18:09:46","modified_gmt":"2014-05-21T18:09:46","slug":"electro-magnetic-fields-are-dangerous","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/not-so-great-northern-transmission-line.org\/?p=350","title":{"rendered":"Electro-magnetic fields are dangerous"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"DSC01914\"<\/a><\/p>\n

AAAAARGH… during last night’s meeting there was a question and concern expressed about electro-magnetic fields (I’ve focused primarily on magnetic fields, here and elsewhere).\u00a0 The question was referred to Minnesota Power’s engineer, and was essentially dissed, then and also later by the engineer.<\/p>\n

What Minnesota Power says about EMF in their\u00a0CoN Application<\/strong> (201310-92766-02)<\/a> (p. 45-46):<\/p>\n

Maximum ampacity is defined for the Project as the expected capacity of the line, in this <\/em>case 2,000 Amps. The projected peak loading of the line \u2013 1,024 Amps \u2013 was derived<\/em> from power system modeling of the Project under system normal conditions in a 2020<\/em> summer off-peak case with high Manitoba \u2013 United States transfers. Per IEEE Standard<\/em> 644-1994 (R2008), IEEE Standard Procedures for Measurement of Power Frequency<\/em> Electric and Magnetic Fields From AC Power Lines, values were calculated at minimum <\/em>conductor-to-ground clearance (mid-span) at a height of one meter above ground.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Maximum amps 52.94-88.54 at the edge of the Right of Way… Projected loading at the edge of the Right of Way, 26.81 – 44.76 mG.\u00a0 That’s HIGH!<\/p>\n

Here’s their chart for the meetings:<\/p>\n

\"DSC01915\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Now, here is a chart showing ampacity and MVA for various voltages and configurations, taken from this chart from the SW MN 345 kV Certificate of Need proceeding (Ex 35 App 7 Conductor spec-ACSR<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\"Ex<\/a><\/p>\n

They’re talking about ampacity of 2,000, which is higher than the chart goes.\u00a0 And this is to be a 500 kV line with three conductors per phase, so the MVA rating at nominal voltage would be above 4,704 MVA.\u00a0 And remember, MW are essentially MVA (ask an engineer to explain the difference).\u00a0 Minnesota Power is saying that this project proposal is based on a 250 MW Power Purchase Agreement, and the potential of another 133 MW PPA.\u00a0 250 + 133 = 383 MW.\u00a0 Out of MVA rating at nominal voltage of 4,704.\u00a0 Now I’m a math idiot, so let me get out the calculator:\u00a0 4,704 – 383 = 4,321 MVA missing-in-action.\u00a0 What do you think will comprise the excess capacity for this project?\u00a0 Seems to me to be substantive size, type and timing issues here!<\/p>\n

This is all about having a high capacity line to be able to market power south and eastward, let’s be clear about that.\u00a0 And folks, that is NOT a public purpose, that’s all private profit for Manitoba Hydro and Minnesota Power.<\/p>\n

Now utilities have been known to understate projected loading, and have typically never admitted potential capacity of these projects, and they’ve been outed on this before:<\/p>\n

\n

Bruce McKay_Affidavit_CapX 2020 Brookings-Hampton Routing 08-1474<\/a><\/p>\n

Bruce McKay_Affidavit_Hiawatha CoN-10-694<\/a><\/p>\n

Bruce McKay_Affidavit\u00a0\u00a0 CapX 2020 Hampton-La Crosse Routing 09-1448<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The point?\u00a0 They’re consistently under-representing the capacity of the line, the projected loading and the potential loading.\u00a0 In calculating EMF exposures, it’s important to use both the utilities numbers (presumed low) and the MVA rating of the line.\u00a0 These two points form a range of potential loading and potential EMF emissions.\u00a0 This full range must be addressed in environmental review, and to not address this full range is misleading.\u00a0 The full range has yet to be addressed in any environmental review I’ve seen in my nearly 20 years and that must change.<\/p>\n

The Power Line Task Force went to the PUC about shutting down the existing 69kV line that was going to be converted to a 115 kV, a transmission line in people’s backyards.\u00a0 The PUC didn’t regard it as a problem, Commissioner (former Rep.) LeRoy Koppendrayer made one of his famous statements about the safety of EMF, stating, on the record, that he had an electric blanket and every time they used it, 9 months later they had another kid.\u00a0 Really… And he probably uses a cell phone without a headset too…<\/p>\n

The Appellate Court also didn’t care… and it was probably the best oral argument I’ve done in my career…<\/p>\n

\n

Power Line Task Force, Inc. v.\u00a0 Public Utilities Commission<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The PUC and courts don’t want to get into the minefield of EMF.\u00a0 Think about what it would mean if utilities were held liable for damages due to EMF?\u00a0 Think of the liability!\u00a0 It’d be bigger than asbestos!\u00a0 Shades of The Distinguished Gentleman<\/span><\/strong><\/a>!<\/p>\n

LOOKING FOR BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT ELECTRO-MAGNETIC FIELDS?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The best resource I know of is Roger Conant’s site on Power Line Health Facts, at www.powerlinefacts.com<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 It looks like he’s let the site go, but it’s available on the Wayback Machine.\u00a0 Here is the EMF page — CLICK HERE<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 This was last captured in April, 2012.<\/p>\n

The information that we presented in the Southeast Metro transmission line case in 2000-2001 resulted in the first denial of transmission permits by local government based on concerns about EMF.\u00a0 Here’s a short version from the Power Line Facts site.<\/span><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0 The cities of South St. Paul, Mendota Heights, and Sunfish Lake joined together to form a Steering Committee which heard the evidence (this was applied for by then Northern States Power as a local government permitting decision), and the Steering Committee decided the permits should not be granted, and then each of the local governments individually rejected the permit applications.\u00a0 Great!\u00a0 Until one by one, Northern States Power started throwing its weight around and filed suits against all the local governments.\u00a0 Despite a thorough record and well substantiated decisions by all, they rolled and caved to Northern States Power.<\/p>\n

Steering Committee Papers from www.powerlinefacts.com via Wayback Machine<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In that case, we presented Dr. Martin Blank and Dr. Magda Havas.<\/p>\n

Testimony of Magda Havas – SE Metro<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Testimony of Dr. Martin Blank – SE Metro<\/a><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We also used Dr. Blank for the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line case to get information about EMF into the record:<\/p>\n

Testimony of Dr. Martin Blank – Susquehanna-Roseland<\/a><\/strong>
\n<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Another good source is the World Health Organization:<\/p>\n

WHO EMF home page<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

WHO EMF Research<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

WHO Environmental Health Criteria 137<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here’s their fact sheet in English on Static electric and magnetic fields: English<\/a><\/p>\n

And their fact sheet in English on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: English<\/a><\/p>\n

On the\u00a0 page there’s a “What’s New” (but I don’t think 2010 info is “new” though):<\/p>\n

\n