Transformer station near house in new development area

  • Erstellt am 2025-02-21 08:45:36

Snowy36

2025-02-22 08:19:17
  • #1
I know enough people who would also have an uneasy feeling about that, including myself.

But I also had my property checked for water veins because I didn't want to sleep on it…..
 

wiltshire

2025-02-22 10:12:17
  • #2
Yes. The location is completely harmless to you as a future resident. Purely from a measurement perspective, you will measure more intense electromagnetic radiation with a plug-in power supply by your bed, where you charge your phone, than from the 630kVA transformer station in front of your house. However, this does not help those who fear or worry about radiation, because these feelings are irrational, and anyone trying to falsify or verify them out of uncertainty on the internet will find the entire range from "stupid to think that" to "don’t put yourself in danger." So practically, that doesn’t help much either. If you are uncertain and have a bad feeling about it, find another building site. It is not sensible to build somewhere where you subconsciously have a queasy feeling. That is actually distressing, not the radiation itself.
 

Molybdean

2025-02-22 10:37:22
  • #3


Both are complete nonsense.

The fact that we haven't firmly contradicted such nonsense and "I feel it though" for decades has led to science skepticism and mumbo jumbo becoming socially acceptable in our society.

There are limit values that are adhered to, and everything outside the cordoned-off area is absolutely uncritical.
 

wiltshire

2025-02-22 10:52:17
  • #4
I rely, just like you, on the established limit values and acknowledge the development of the state of research and the classification of findings in science. Nevertheless, it is now clear to anyone with even a basic scientific orientation that people's attitudes are relevant to health. This is not just a matter of "nonsense." If someone is afraid in the dark forest, they simply shouldn't live there, even if it is objectively super safe. If someone is afraid of transformers, then they simply don't build next to a transformer. It's that simple.
 

MachsSelbst

2025-02-22 11:05:43
  • #5


On the one hand, that is completely correct, on the other hand, limit values are based on the current state of research and studies.
In 1945, soldiers were still allowed to watch nuclear weapon tests; in the 60s, the sleeping pill Thalidomide was initially considered harmless even for pregnant women. They simply did not know better. Blood pressure values that were considered completely normal in the 50s would put any general practitioner into a panic today, and so on.

And in the end, compliance with a limit value does not yet mean that it is harmless for everyone. Limit values are always a compromise between economic efficiency and risk.

The best example is my prohibition sign P007. I am allowed to enter such areas because I am healthy; for me, the limit value is okay. Someone with a pacemaker may not enter this area; for them, the limit value would be far too high. There are different limit values for children than for adults, different limit values for pregnant women than for men. There are different limit values for industrial areas than for residential areas, and so on.

If you do not feel comfortable with that, you have to find another place. Because for our society to function, limit values are necessary, since not every risk can be reduced to zero.
 

Molybdean

2025-02-22 11:06:14
  • #6


Yes, and that is why one must firmly contradict such things.

Because if you just leave it as it is, others read it, think "oh, there might be something to this," and then change their attitude towards it.

For those already deeply caught in the nonsense, contradiction doesn’t help much, but all the people who have only heard about it and want to see if there is something to it must perceive the contradiction.
 
Oben