Overhead or underground?
This is not true there is a lot of evidence, but arguably no proof. But neither is there proof they are harmless.
Given that there are theoretical reasons for believing electromagnetic fields could be harmful, and knowing the history of hazards such as radiation, tobacco, asbestos, DDT, thalidomide, etc, a cautionary principal is needed.
The ESB claims it is constrained by legal requirements to find the cheapest possible solution, but it also has to comply with health and safety regulations and other legislation.
Therefore, the economics are not as straightforward as it would have us believe.
I was recently involved with British supply boards which proposed underground cables, as opposed to overhead lines, for similar projects on the basis of costs, so I cannot help wondering why the ESB is so adamant.
As well as being a possible health hazard, overhead lines are ugly and an environmental disaster.
If the public prefers underground to overhead cables, and is prepared to pay the difference in cost, then it should be so.
Michael Job
Gortnacurra
Kenmare
Co Kerry
