Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
UCGal
ParticipantAre you calling the bottom nationally? Regionally? San Diego? Specific neighborhoods?
Just curious.
ParticipantAre you calling the bottom nationally? Regionally? San Diego? Specific neighborhoods?
Just curious.
Participant[quote=ocrenter][img_assist|nid=11221|title=no small children allowed|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=376|height=253]
“a collaboration between the Childhood Cancer Research Group at the University of Oxford and National Grid owners, Transco – looked at cancer data in England and Wales between 1962 and 1995, for children aged up to 15 years old.
They were able to map how far each child lived from a high voltage overhead power line. Comparing the children who had cancer with a control group of 29,000 children without cancer but who lived in comparable districts, found that children whose birth address was within 200 metres of an overhead power line had a 70% increased risk of leukemia. Children living 200 to 600 m away from power lines had a 20% increased risk.”[/quote]
I have to agree with ocr here based on my own personal experience. Granted this is anectdotal.
My family lived in a house That backed up to a high voltage power line till I was 4 years old. We were on the corner of Canning and Mt. Blanca in Clairemont.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Canning+Ave,+San+Diego,+CA+92111&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.957823,73.564453&ie=UTF8&ll=32.813391,-117.183952&spn=0.002002,0.00449&t=h&z=18Family of 5 – I was the youngest of 3 kids. Of the 5 of us, 3 are dead of cancer. Both my dad and my brother had two separate malignancies – so 5 different cancers among 5 people who spent 4-5 years under the power lines. So far my sister and I are cancer free.
I have no proof that the high voltage lines caused the cancer. This is anectdotal at best. But I, personally, would not move small children into a house adjacent to high voltage power lines.
But that’s just me.
Participant[quote=ocrenter][img_assist|nid=11221|title=no small children allowed|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=376|height=253]
“a collaboration between the Childhood Cancer Research Group at the University of Oxford and National Grid owners, Transco – looked at cancer data in England and Wales between 1962 and 1995, for children aged up to 15 years old.
They were able to map how far each child lived from a high voltage overhead power line. Comparing the children who had cancer with a control group of 29,000 children without cancer but who lived in comparable districts, found that children whose birth address was within 200 metres of an overhead power line had a 70% increased risk of leukemia. Children living 200 to 600 m away from power lines had a 20% increased risk.”[/quote]
I have to agree with ocr here based on my own personal experience. Granted this is anectdotal.
My family lived in a house That backed up to a high voltage power line till I was 4 years old. We were on the corner of Canning and Mt. Blanca in Clairemont.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Canning+Ave,+San+Diego,+CA+92111&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.957823,73.564453&ie=UTF8&ll=32.813391,-117.183952&spn=0.002002,0.00449&t=h&z=18Family of 5 – I was the youngest of 3 kids. Of the 5 of us, 3 are dead of cancer. Both my dad and my brother had two separate malignancies – so 5 different cancers among 5 people who spent 4-5 years under the power lines. So far my sister and I are cancer free.
I have no proof that the high voltage lines caused the cancer. This is anectdotal at best. But I, personally, would not move small children into a house adjacent to high voltage power lines.
But that’s just me.
Participant[quote=ocrenter][img_assist|nid=11221|title=no small children allowed|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=376|height=253]
“a collaboration between the Childhood Cancer Research Group at the University of Oxford and National Grid owners, Transco – looked at cancer data in England and Wales between 1962 and 1995, for children aged up to 15 years old.
They were able to map how far each child lived from a high voltage overhead power line. Comparing the children who had cancer with a control group of 29,000 children without cancer but who lived in comparable districts, found that children whose birth address was within 200 metres of an overhead power line had a 70% increased risk of leukemia. Children living 200 to 600 m away from power lines had a 20% increased risk.”[/quote]
I have to agree with ocr here based on my own personal experience. Granted this is anectdotal.
My family lived in a house That backed up to a high voltage power line till I was 4 years old. We were on the corner of Canning and Mt. Blanca in Clairemont.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Canning+Ave,+San+Diego,+CA+92111&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.957823,73.564453&ie=UTF8&ll=32.813391,-117.183952&spn=0.002002,0.00449&t=h&z=18Family of 5 – I was the youngest of 3 kids. Of the 5 of us, 3 are dead of cancer. Both my dad and my brother had two separate malignancies – so 5 different cancers among 5 people who spent 4-5 years under the power lines. So far my sister and I are cancer free.
I have no proof that the high voltage lines caused the cancer. This is anectdotal at best. But I, personally, would not move small children into a house adjacent to high voltage power lines.
But that’s just me.
Participant[quote=ocrenter][img_assist|nid=11221|title=no small children allowed|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=376|height=253]
“a collaboration between the Childhood Cancer Research Group at the University of Oxford and National Grid owners, Transco – looked at cancer data in England and Wales between 1962 and 1995, for children aged up to 15 years old.
They were able to map how far each child lived from a high voltage overhead power line. Comparing the children who had cancer with a control group of 29,000 children without cancer but who lived in comparable districts, found that children whose birth address was within 200 metres of an overhead power line had a 70% increased risk of leukemia. Children living 200 to 600 m away from power lines had a 20% increased risk.”[/quote]
I have to agree with ocr here based on my own personal experience. Granted this is anectdotal.
My family lived in a house That backed up to a high voltage power line till I was 4 years old. We were on the corner of Canning and Mt. Blanca in Clairemont.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Canning+Ave,+San+Diego,+CA+92111&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.957823,73.564453&ie=UTF8&ll=32.813391,-117.183952&spn=0.002002,0.00449&t=h&z=18Family of 5 – I was the youngest of 3 kids. Of the 5 of us, 3 are dead of cancer. Both my dad and my brother had two separate malignancies – so 5 different cancers among 5 people who spent 4-5 years under the power lines. So far my sister and I are cancer free.
I have no proof that the high voltage lines caused the cancer. This is anectdotal at best. But I, personally, would not move small children into a house adjacent to high voltage power lines.
But that’s just me.
Participant[quote=ocrenter][img_assist|nid=11221|title=no small children allowed|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=376|height=253]
“a collaboration between the Childhood Cancer Research Group at the University of Oxford and National Grid owners, Transco – looked at cancer data in England and Wales between 1962 and 1995, for children aged up to 15 years old.
They were able to map how far each child lived from a high voltage overhead power line. Comparing the children who had cancer with a control group of 29,000 children without cancer but who lived in comparable districts, found that children whose birth address was within 200 metres of an overhead power line had a 70% increased risk of leukemia. Children living 200 to 600 m away from power lines had a 20% increased risk.”[/quote]
I have to agree with ocr here based on my own personal experience. Granted this is anectdotal.
My family lived in a house That backed up to a high voltage power line till I was 4 years old. We were on the corner of Canning and Mt. Blanca in Clairemont.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Canning+Ave,+San+Diego,+CA+92111&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.957823,73.564453&ie=UTF8&ll=32.813391,-117.183952&spn=0.002002,0.00449&t=h&z=18Family of 5 – I was the youngest of 3 kids. Of the 5 of us, 3 are dead of cancer. Both my dad and my brother had two separate malignancies – so 5 different cancers among 5 people who spent 4-5 years under the power lines. So far my sister and I are cancer free.
I have no proof that the high voltage lines caused the cancer. This is anectdotal at best. But I, personally, would not move small children into a house adjacent to high voltage power lines.
But that’s just me.
June 2, 2009 at 4:35 PM in reply to: SD inventories dropping like a rock . . . disconnect from other “bubble” markets #409165ParticipantDoes this have anything to do with the new rules that remove pending listings from the lists? (Short sales pending lender approval, etc.)
June 2, 2009 at 4:35 PM in reply to: SD inventories dropping like a rock . . . disconnect from other “bubble” markets #409403ParticipantDoes this have anything to do with the new rules that remove pending listings from the lists? (Short sales pending lender approval, etc.)
June 2, 2009 at 4:35 PM in reply to: SD inventories dropping like a rock . . . disconnect from other “bubble” markets #409650ParticipantDoes this have anything to do with the new rules that remove pending listings from the lists? (Short sales pending lender approval, etc.)
June 2, 2009 at 4:35 PM in reply to: SD inventories dropping like a rock . . . disconnect from other “bubble” markets #409712ParticipantDoes this have anything to do with the new rules that remove pending listings from the lists? (Short sales pending lender approval, etc.)
June 2, 2009 at 4:35 PM in reply to: SD inventories dropping like a rock . . . disconnect from other “bubble” markets #409863ParticipantDoes this have anything to do with the new rules that remove pending listings from the lists? (Short sales pending lender approval, etc.)
Participant[quote=CBad]Hang on, this lady is not a “blogger”. She posted a comment on someone’s blog. Do I not understand the definition of a blogger or something? I don’t consider these replies on a forum to be blogging nor do I consider myself a blogger. How can these silly replies be considered publishing? It is not her website. I think the courts are way off on this one but it seems like her big mistake is the staged computer theft (which she shouldn’t have to turn over in the first place).[/quote]
I agree with you that she’s not a blogger, she’s a commenter or participant in a message board.But I also agree with the line in the article:
“Defamation is defamation no matter whether it is written on paper or on a blog”
(quoted above by asragov)People need to think before they type. Just like they need to think before they speak in public. This person alleged things that are in dispute, as fact. Denied they typed it, then failed to produce their computer. The reason Lyndal Harrington is in jail is for contempt, not for blogging.
(But I insert the same disclaimer as FSD – this is not advice, legal or otherwise. Don’t act on what I type. I’m not a lawyer or a blogger.
Participant[quote=CBad]Hang on, this lady is not a “blogger”. She posted a comment on someone’s blog. Do I not understand the definition of a blogger or something? I don’t consider these replies on a forum to be blogging nor do I consider myself a blogger. How can these silly replies be considered publishing? It is not her website. I think the courts are way off on this one but it seems like her big mistake is the staged computer theft (which she shouldn’t have to turn over in the first place).[/quote]
I agree with you that she’s not a blogger, she’s a commenter or participant in a message board.But I also agree with the line in the article:
“Defamation is defamation no matter whether it is written on paper or on a blog”
(quoted above by asragov)People need to think before they type. Just like they need to think before they speak in public. This person alleged things that are in dispute, as fact. Denied they typed it, then failed to produce their computer. The reason Lyndal Harrington is in jail is for contempt, not for blogging.
(But I insert the same disclaimer as FSD – this is not advice, legal or otherwise. Don’t act on what I type. I’m not a lawyer or a blogger.
-
AuthorPosts
