Posted on 06/19/2008 1:44:33 PM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Purchasers of hybrid vehicles, which are subsidized by the federal government and championed by environmental activists as a way to reduce gasoline consumption, are trading in their vehicles because of health fears concerning electromagnetic fields created by the hybrid batteries, says John Dale Dunn, a policy advisor for the American Council on Science and Health.
As noted in an April 27 article in the New York Times:
Some hybrid vehicle owners are complaining of a variety of health problems allegedly caused by strong electromagnetic currents from the cars' batteries. Reported ailments and concerns include rising blood pressure, drowsiness behind the wheel and higher leukemia risks. Various agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute, acknowledge the potential hazards of long-term exposure to a strong electromagnetic field (E.M.F.), and have done studies on the association of cancer risks with living near high-voltage utility lines. Drivers who have given up their hybrids have reportedly documented "dangerously high" electromagnetic fields, leading them to conclude driving the vehicles is not worth risking blood for oil. This issue illustrates the double standard regarding environmental activists, says H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
"Environmental activists routinely use the Precautionary Principle as a weapon against technologies and products they do not like," Burnett explains. "They assert that until and unless a product they oppose can be definitively proven to be safe, the product must be banned. Now, however, when consumers and some scientists assert that one of the activists' pet products may be causing serious health harms, the activists act like they have never heard of the Precautionary Principle."
Source: John Dale Dunn, "Hybrid Vehicle Owners Report Adverse Health Effects," Heartland Institute, July 1, 2008; and Jim Motavalli, "Fear, but Few Facts, on Hybrid Risk," New York Times, April 27, 2008.
For text:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23393
For Times text:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/automobiles/27EMF.html
For more on Environment Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=31
Bang! Bang! Maxwell’s silver hammer
Came down upon his head.
That's exactly watt I would theorize.
Yeah, maybe if they would sink some more ‘dough’ into it, we could get a ‘rise’ in our mileage, and have some more ‘bread’ left in our pockets.
Electromagnetic fields are created by alternating current (AC) like the 110 in your house, or more readily the radio frequency RF generated by radios, TV transmitters, radars, cell phones, etc. In fact, radio “waves” ARE electromagnetic fields.
Batteries produce direct current (DC) and do not give off electromagnetic fields. Maybe there is some EMF from the electric motors on these cars, but it would be negligible.
My background? 30 years as an electronics tech.
I save fuel, though not as much as with a hybrid, by driving my 69 VW.
And I have no car payments!
That was a pun, and “Pun” spelled backwards is “NuP”, so that is a “a nup” out of you! :-)
Apparently this phenomenon is NOT widespread, as the market for used hybrids is very very strong — used hybrids are not cheap.
Not to mention the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston, some of Metro North, and much of the Philly Suburban Electrics operate off 11,500 VAC..
Hmm on the other hand... Liberals... Northeast....could THIS be the problem????
Well I congratulate you on the savings then. We’re fortunate enough to not have a daily commute or a high non-business mileage burden.
When it comes time to buy a new vehicle, I really do *want* the AWD Escape hybrid. It won’t have to make economic sense to me — it’s what I want. That’s a small part of the American dream ;-) Not sure I’ll get the full ‘green’ package though — just the full-zoot stereo and the moon roof.
Last note — a very conservative friend of mine has a Prius and loves it. He likes the torque (also drives a Corvette).
Exactly. Or her previous vehicle was a Peterbilt.
My vehicle does not get the miliage that I really need, I commute 90 miles a day, but it is paid off. It does not make economic sense to change at this time.
So yes, I understand your position.
Somebody call the Nanny GovernMental COPS!!!
Ewwwwwwwwwwww!!! That was 2/3rds of a PUN!!! (PU)
They must mean the engine.
The magnetic fields from the engine dwarf the batteries.
Chevy Trailblazer. It got worse mpg than the 4wd Suburban that we had before.
When you are going from 13 mpg to 31 mpg, and drive over 2000 miles a month, the savings are dramatic.
No; those symptoms are typical of buyers remorse; after realizing you'll NEVER save any money with this stupid purchase!
“I have long understood that high breads run on yeast...”
That’s the understanding that’s been ingrained in me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.