I live in a flat that's part of a complex that used to be sheltered
housing.

Because of the ages of people here, all the electrical sockets are
about waist height, so that people don't need to bend down.

This is a problem in my bedroom, as the room is so designed that the
only possible place to put the bed means that one of the two sockets
would be right between my shoulder-blades. Having a bed-head would
help, but when there's a plug in that socket - which there will be, as
I like a bedside light - the bed-head would be so far from the wall as
to be unsightly.

But my main concern is electrical fields. Sitting up in bed reading,
the socket would be only inches from my head.

I 've written to ask my housing association if they could move this
one socket down to floor level. In reply, the man in charge of
maintenance said that moving the socket there would not solve 'my
perceived worries about electrical fields', as he put it, because
there'd still be a cable running from the blanked-off old socket to
the new one.

But is this right? If the cable feeding the socket were approaching
the socket from the top - running down the wall to it - that would
indeed be the case, but I'd have thought that cables would run from
floor level UP to the sockets. I've a feeling he's just trying to fob
me off, because later in his letter he goes on about the expense of
having the work done.

I want to fight this decision if I can, because even though I know
fears about electrical fields close to one's brain aren't fully
substantiated, I don't want to take the risk.

Knowing my housing association as I do, I know they'll do anything to
put tenants off in order to save money, and that includes exaggerating
the cost of doing a job, or even claiming the job is just impossible,
and so I'd be very grateful for any facts I can muster to my own case,
such as likely costs of moving this one socket about three feet, and
whether it really is likely that the cable is running down the wall
towards it rather than up to it.

I'll be most grateful for any advice I can get here.

alan wrote:
I live in a flat that's part of a complex that used to be sheltered
housing.

Because of the ages of people here, all the electrical sockets are
about waist height, so that people don't need to bend down.

This is a problem in my bedroom, as the room is so designed that the
only possible place to put the bed means that one of the two sockets
would be right between my shoulder-blades. Having a bed-head would
help, but when there's a plug in that socket - which there will be, as
I like a bedside light - the bed-head would be so far from the wall as
to be unsightly.

But my main concern is electrical fields. Sitting up in bed reading,
the socket would be only inches from my head.

I 've written to ask my housing association if they could move this
one socket down to floor level. In reply, the man in charge of
maintenance said that moving the socket there would not solve 'my
perceived worries about electrical fields', as he put it, because
there'd still be a cable running from the blanked-off old socket to
the new one.

But is this right? If the cable feeding the socket were approaching
the socket from the top - running down the wall to it - that would
indeed be the case, but I'd have thought that cables would run from
floor level UP to the sockets. I've a feeling he's just trying to fob
me off, because later in his letter he goes on about the expense of
having the work done.

I want to fight this decision if I can, because even though I know
fears about electrical fields close to one's brain aren't fully
substantiated, I don't want to take the risk.

Knowing my housing association as I do, I know they'll do anything to
put tenants off in order to save money, and that includes exaggerating
the cost of doing a job, or even claiming the job is just impossible,
and so I'd be very grateful for any facts I can muster to my own case,
such as likely costs of moving this one socket about three feet, and
whether it really is likely that the cable is running down the wall
towards it rather than up to it.

I'll be most grateful for any advice I can get here.

The cables may run either up or down to the socket. It may even have one
cable running up to the socket and another running down from the socket.

The only way to find out is to have a look behind the socket.

--
Adam

On Apr 21, 10:36*am, alan wrote:
I live in a flat that's part of a complex that used to be sheltered
housing.

Because of the ages of people here, all the electrical sockets are
about waist height, so that people don't need to bend down.

This is a problem in my bedroom, as the room is so designed that the
only possible place to put the bed means that one of the two sockets
would be right between my shoulder-blades. Having a bed-head would
help, but when there's a plug in that socket - which there will be, as
I like a bedside light - the bed-head would be so far from the wall as
to be unsightly.

But my main concern is electrical fields. Sitting up in bed reading,
the socket would be only inches from my head.

I 've written to ask my housing association if they could move this
one socket down to floor level. In reply, the man in charge of
maintenance said that moving the socket there would not solve 'my
perceived worries about electrical fields', as he put it, because
there'd still be a cable running from the blanked-off old socket to
the new one.

But is this right? If the cable feeding the socket were approaching
the socket from the top - running down the wall to it - that would
indeed be the case, but I'd have thought that cables would run from
floor level UP to the sockets. I've a feeling he's just trying to fob
me off, because later in his letter he goes on about the expense of
having the work done.

I want to fight this decision if I can, because even though I know
fears about electrical fields close to one's brain aren't fully
substantiated, I don't want to take the risk.

Knowing my housing association as I do, I know they'll do anything to
put tenants off in order to save money, and that includes exaggerating
the cost of doing a job, or even claiming the job is just impossible,
and so I'd be very grateful for any facts I can muster to my own case,
such as likely costs of moving this one socket about three feet, and
whether it really is likely that the cable is running down the wall
towards it rather than up to it.

I'll be most grateful for any advice I can get here.

Either (or both) are equally likely. As above post says socket would
need to be looked behind to determine which.
I wouldn't worry about electric fields. They are tiny for mains
voltage electricity.
anything is possible with enough money. But as there is no dicernible
danger I don't suppose your landlord will be interested. I imagine it
would cost around £100/£150 but I'm guessing.

If you are a bit of a nutter, paste some cooking foil on the wall
over the place you suspect the wire might be.

Or make yourself a tinfoil hat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinfoil_hat

I have to tell you, this is moving into the zone of the mentally
deranged.
ie it is highly questionable technology.

On Apr 21, 10:36*am, alan wrote:
I live in a flat that's part of a complex that used to be sheltered
housing.
But my main concern is electrical fields. Sitting up in bed
reading,
the socket would be only inches from my head.

I want to fight this decision if I can, because even though I know
fears about electrical fields close to one's brain aren't fully
substantiated, I don't want to take the risk.


Could you not sleep the other way round in the bed?

You can find out where the cables go without undoing anything: use
one of those "cable detectors" like this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rapitest-Wpp...3383317&sr=1-2


Robert

Could you not sleep the other way round in the bed?




If he sleeps with his feet nearest the door that, will at least assist the undertaker
when he finally succumbs to the electric fields ;-)


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:36:52 -0700, alan wrote:

But my main concern is electrical fields. Sitting up in bed reading, the
socket would be only inches from my head.

I won't descend to insults, but you shouldn't worry.

I 've written to ask my housing association if they could move this one
socket down to floor level. In reply, the man in charge of maintenance
said that moving the socket there would not solve 'my perceived worries
about electrical fields', as he put it, because there'd still be a cable
running from the blanked-off old socket to the new one.

But is this right? If the cable feeding the socket were approaching the
socket from the top - running down the wall to it - that would indeed be
the case, but I'd have thought that cables would run from floor level UP
to the sockets.

Why? If it's a solid floor, it'd be much easier to run it down, not up.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here - I posted my message because I thought this was a
respectable group, but it seems I was mistaken.

I made a POLITE equiry, voicing my concerns about electric fields -
concerns even noted by the Environmental Protection Agency:

http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/emf-dangers.aspx

In my naivety, I expected politeness in return, not crass rudeness.
This is one of the main things that has spoilt Usenet, apart from the
spam: a lot of people now hesitate to post reasonable queries in case
they're met with nasty, unwarranted attacks like the ones I've
experienced here.

People like 'harry', 'Graham' and 'Huge' are only cheapening
themselves, but they probably wouldn't understand that.

To the one or two of you who showed me a bit of respect - thanks, I
appreciate that.

In article
s.com, alan scribeth thus
I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here - I posted my message because I thought this was a
respectable group, but it seems I was mistaken.

I made a POLITE equiry, voicing my concerns about electric fields -
concerns even noted by the Environmental Protection Agency:

http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/emf-dangers.aspx

In my naivety, I expected politeness in return, not crass rudeness.
This is one of the main things that has spoilt Usenet, apart from the
spam: a lot of people now hesitate to post reasonable queries in case
they're met with nasty, unwarranted attacks like the ones I've
experienced here.

People like 'harry', 'Graham' and 'Huge' are only cheapening
themselves, but they probably wouldn't understand that.

To the one or two of you who showed me a bit of respect - thanks, I
appreciate that.


Well being involved in RF I'd not like to have one of those street lamp
or telephone pole base station units outside my house thanks. But I
don't reckon that a power cable which most all of the time will be
passing no current or prolly very little in that instance would worry
me.

Anecdotally there is someone who lives in a bungalow near here who has
Twin 33 kV lines right above his house has had a string of people
suffering various cancers living there in the past, but no one AFAIK has
done any research on that instance. Now compare that to the population
in the UK I suspect that at some locations there will statistically be
more people affected in a given location or house, building, then
perhaps what's the norm.....
--
Tony Sayer

"RobertL" wrote in message
...


Could you not sleep the other way round in the bed?

What good will that do?

Just because there isn't a mains cable there doesn't mean the field is zero.

In fact he will and has been exposed to electric fields all his life and
will continue to be exposed wherever he sleeps in relation to the cables.
The electric field will have no effect upon him other than to increase his
level of stress by thinking about it.
if he worries too much the stress will affect his health, the electric
fields will not affect his health.

"alan" wrote in message
...
I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here - I posted my message because I thought this was a
respectable group, but it seems I was mistaken.

I made a POLITE equiry, voicing my concerns about electric fields -
concerns even noted by the Environmental Protection Agency:

http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/emf-dangers.aspx


Unfortunately, the EPA has entirely destroyed its credibility as a
government agency by labelling carbon dioxide as a pollutant. By all means
regard them as a souce of alarmist information, just don't regard them as a
scientific source. Ultimately you've got to read the literature and decide
for yourself.

But if you have decided there is an issue, the group has already given you
the easy answer to the problem you posed. Volt-stick type detectors are less
than a fiver, and also very useful for diagnosing simple faults without
dismantling things. Deciding whether a table light has failed because of a
fuse failure, a faulty switch, or a faulty bulb, for example.

"alan" wrote in message
...
I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here - I posted my message because I thought this was a
respectable group, but it seems I was mistaken.

I made a POLITE equiry, voicing my concerns about electric fields -
concerns even noted by the Environmental Protection Agency:

http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/emf-dangers.aspx

In my naivety, I expected politeness in return, not crass rudeness.
This is one of the main things that has spoilt Usenet, apart from the
spam: a lot of people now hesitate to post reasonable queries in case
they're met with nasty, unwarranted attacks like the ones I've
experienced here.

People like 'harry', 'Graham' and 'Huge' are only cheapening
themselves, but they probably wouldn't understand that.

To the one or two of you who showed me a bit of respect - thanks, I
appreciate that.


Having read your original post please excuse me for picking a few holes

1 A plug in said socket would only protrude from the wall some 20 mm. As bed
heads do not usually touch the wall due to the skirting board or battens
behind the headboard there would be little if any extra spacing off of the
wall

2 If the socket were moved nearer to the floor it would still need to be
clear of the skirting board and would create the same issue as number one if
you have a box divan bed

3 If it were moved nearer to the floor it would create the same perceived
electrical field issues when you are lying down as the higher one does when
you are sitting up

4 There would be the same perceived electrical field issues with the
proximity of the bedside lamp so it would be best not to use one

5 If you took the trouble to read the article you refer to you will find
that the table lamp should be 6 feet from the bed along with an electric
clock if you have one.
Electric wires running under the bed should also be moved (this would
include the wire from where you would like the socket to the bedside lamp &
and any wires running under the floor serving the floor below)
You would need to check the location of wiring the other side of the wall
concerned and if necessary have that moved as wll

It would appear from the article that you should move to a property where
there is no electricity in order to be fully protected

And please tell that you do not wear metal framed glasses

As regards showing you some respect that is difficult to do when the
solution you are seeking appears to be as much a risk as the problem you
perceive (according to the article you cite)

In summary without any intention to be crass or rude and with due
consideration given to the issue you raise

Don't be so stupid

Regards

Huge wrote:
In article

s.com, alan scribeth thus

Well, you're already in my killfile, so I only see your droolings when
someone else posts them.

I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here

I have to say I've long since given up being dismayed at the mentality
of some of the posters on Usenet. Droolers, dribblers, morons,
theists, off-topic posters, people whose IMPORTANT information should
be DISSEMINATED as WIDELY as possible, top posters, Mike Corely and
arrogant ****wits generally.

My milk of human kindness dried up many
years ago.

I had noticed:-)
--
Adam

In article , ARWadsworth
writes
Huge wrote:
In article

s.com, alan scribeth thus

Well, you're already in my killfile, so I only see your droolings when
someone else posts them.

I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here

I have to say I've long since given up being dismayed at the mentality
of some of the posters on Usenet. Droolers, dribblers, morons,
theists, off-topic posters, people whose IMPORTANT information should
be DISSEMINATED as WIDELY as possible, top posters, Mike Corely and
arrogant ****wits generally.

My milk of human kindness dried up many
years ago.

I had noticed:-)

Was it that chapped and swollen nipples that gave it away?
--
fred
FIVE TV's superbright logo - not the DOG's, it's ********

In article
,
alan wrote:
I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here - I posted my message because I thought this was a
respectable group, but it seems I was mistaken.

It's a DIY group. You don't intend DIYing, but want information better
asked of a trades person. Since you can only be sure by an on site survey
where a cable actually is sited.

However, if you are really concerned about radiation from the mains, best
to not have it in the house at all. As certain appliances will radiate far
more than a cable. And never ever use a computer.

--
*Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

alan wrote:
[snip].

But my main concern is electrical fields. Sitting up in bed reading,
the socket would be only inches from my head.

Don't worry. Induced electrical currents can only affect higher brain
functions. You are clearly not at risk.

Yes - and sometimes from the side, with any combination of all 3 or just
2.

--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
alan wrote:
I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here - I posted my message because I thought this was a
respectable group, but it seems I was mistaken.

It's a DIY group. You don't intend DIYing, but want information better
asked of a trades person. Since you can only be sure by an on site survey
where a cable actually is sited.

However, if you are really concerned about radiation from the mains, best
to not have it in the house at all. As certain appliances will radiate far
more than a cable. And never ever use a computer.

...Or a mobile phone, or a cordless phone, or sit near a TV, or get in a
modern car, or live in anything other than a Faraday cage.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

"alan" wrote in message ...
I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here - I posted my message because I thought this was a
respectable group, but it seems I was mistaken.

I made a POLITE equiry, voicing my concerns about electric fields -
concerns even noted by the Environmental Protection Agency:

http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/emf-dangers.aspx

In my naivety, I expected politeness in return, not crass rudeness.
This is one of the main things that has spoilt Usenet, apart from the
spam: a lot of people now hesitate to post reasonable queries in case
they're met with nasty, unwarranted attacks like the ones I've
experienced here.

People like 'harry', 'Graham' and 'Huge' are only cheapening
themselves, but they probably wouldn't understand that.

To the one or two of you who showed me a bit of respect - thanks, I
appreciate that.

Well if my bad taste joke caused you offence then I'm happy to tender my
apology.

The website you linked to is http://mercola.com/ contains an unattributed quote
Environmental Protection Agency, I rather doubt a US website would be referring
to the UK EPA when there is a US one too.
http://mercola.com appears to be the opinion of an individual doctor.

"Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted."

If you are going to worry yourself about this stuff at least try to get your information from reliable
sources.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"newshound" wrote in message ...


"alan" wrote in message ...
I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here - I posted my message because I thought this was a
respectable group, but it seems I was mistaken.

I made a POLITE equiry, voicing my concerns about electric fields -
concerns even noted by the Environmental Protection Agency:

http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/emf-dangers.aspx


Unfortunately, the EPA has entirely destroyed its credibility as a government agency by labelling carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
By all means regard them as a souce of alarmist information, just don't regard them as a scientific source. Ultimately you've got
to read the literature and decide for yourself.

But if you have decided there is an issue, the group has already given you the easy answer to the problem you posed. Volt-stick
type detectors are less than a fiver, and also very useful for diagnosing simple faults without dismantling things. Deciding
whether a table light has failed because of a fuse failure, a faulty switch, or a faulty bulb, for example.

Good advice, but as I just mentioned to the OP there is no way that American website
will be referring to the United Kingdom EPA.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Apr 21, 12:46*pm, alan wrote:
I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here - I posted my message because I thought this was a
respectable group, but it seems I was mistaken.

I made a POLITE equiry, voicing my concerns about electric fields -
concerns even noted by the Environmental Protection Agency:

http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/emf-dangers.aspx

In my naivety, I expected politeness in return, not crass rudeness.
This is one of the main things that has spoilt Usenet, apart from the
spam: a lot of people now hesitate to post reasonable queries in case
they're met with nasty, unwarranted attacks like the ones I've
experienced here.

People like 'harry', 'Graham' and 'Huge' are only cheapening
themselves, but they probably wouldn't understand that.

To the one or two of you who showed me a bit of respect - thanks, I
appreciate that.

The link you posted was not to any government agency. It was to a gang
of nutters. Just because a topic appears on the internet doesn't make
any of this psuedo-science factual. It is the territory of the crazed
and ignorant.
You are worrying unneccessarily. Traffic pollution is a greater
concern for your health. Fukushima is more dangerous.

Electro- magnetic fields are generated by electric currents. At night
when you are in bed you are using no electricity, there is no current
and no magnetic field.
In any event the most powerful man made magnetic fields are generated
inside steel containers which effectively contain them.
The most powerful magnetic field you are subjected to is the Earth's
magnetic field. I think we are all attuned to that.

On Apr 21, 4:37*pm, hugh ] wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writesIn article
,
* alan wrote:
I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here - I posted my message because I thought this was a
respectable group, but it seems I was mistaken.

It's a DIY group. You don't intend DIYing, but want information better
asked of a trades person. Since you can only be sure by an on site survey
where a cable actually is sited.

However, if you are really concerned about radiation from the mains, best
to not have it in the house at all. As certain appliances will radiate far
more than a cable. And never ever use a computer.

..Or a mobile phone, or a cordless phone, or sit near a TV, or get in a
modern car, or live in anything other than a Faraday cage.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

Tinfoil hat!!!!!!!!!!!!! I pointed this out to him.

In message
Huge wrote:


alan wrote:

But my main concern is electrical fields. Sitting up in bed reading,
the socket would be only inches from my head.

I'll be most grateful for any advice I can get here.

Don't be so stupid.


Dunno, but I think the OP is right to be concerned. After all, it was an
electrical field that killed two racehorses recently.
:-p

--
Jim White
Wimbledon London England
I will not barf unless I am sick

In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus
On Apr 21, 12:46*pm, alan wrote:
I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed at the mentality of some of the
replies here - I posted my message because I thought this was a
respectable group, but it seems I was mistaken.

I made a POLITE equiry, voicing my concerns about electric fields -
concerns even noted by the Environmental Protection Agency:

http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/emf-dangers.aspx

In my naivety, I expected politeness in return, not crass rudeness.
This is one of the main things that has spoilt Usenet, apart from the
spam: a lot of people now hesitate to post reasonable queries in case
they're met with nasty, unwarranted attacks like the ones I've
experienced here.

People like 'harry', 'Graham' and 'Huge' are only cheapening
themselves, but they probably wouldn't understand that.

To the one or two of you who showed me a bit of respect - thanks, I
appreciate that.

The link you posted was not to any government agency. It was to a gang
of nutters. Just because a topic appears on the internet doesn't make
any of this psuedo-science factual. It is the territory of the crazed
and ignorant.
You are worrying unneccessarily. Traffic pollution is a greater
concern for your health. Fukushima is more dangerous.

Electro- magnetic fields are generated by electric currents. At night
when you are in bed you are using no electricity, there is no current
and no magnetic field.
In any event the most powerful man made magnetic fields are generated
inside steel containers which effectively contain them.

The most powerful magnetic field you are subjected to is the Earth's
magnetic field. I think we are all attuned to that.


Ever been in a 3.0 Tesla MRI scanner;?...
--
Tony Sayer

"harry" wrote in message
...


The most powerful magnetic field you are subjected to is the Earth's
magnetic field. I think we are all attuned to that.


It might be big but it is not powerful.

dennis@home wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...


The most powerful magnetic field you are subjected to is the Earth's
magnetic field. I think we are all attuned to that.


It might be big but it is not powerful.

A good description of your brain dennise.

--
Adam

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:46:31 -0700 (PDT), alan
wrote:

I made a POLITE equiry, voicing my concerns about electric fields -
concerns even noted by the Environmental Protection Agency:

http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/emf-dangers.aspx

Mercola is not a credible source for anything, he peddles pills and
potions and selectively quotes from random sources of varying
credibility to further his sales.

If you feel em fields are a problem then the solution is simple. Pay
for the socket to be relocated yourself.

It would be quite wrong for a housing association to spend its funds
on doing so when there is no credible evidence that a socket in the
position you describe poses any health risk whatsoever.

On 4/22/2011 1:15 AM, Huge wrote:

I have to say I've long since given up being dismayed at the mentality
of some of the posters on Usenet. Droolers, dribblers, morons, theists,
off-topic posters, people whose IMPORTANT information should be
DISSEMINATED as WIDELY as possible, top posters, Mike Corely and arrogant
****wits generally. My milk of human kindness dried up many years ago.

they're met with nasty, unwarranted attacks like the ones I've
experienced here.

Ummm. Not unwarranted. You're an idiot.

People like 'harry', 'Graham' and 'Huge' are only cheapening
themselves, but they probably wouldn't understand that.

I don't care what you think. You're an idiot. You came into a public
space and said something stupid. Some people patted you on the back, said
"there, there" and hoped you would go soon. Some people said it like it
is. If you don't like that, get the nurse to take you back to your room,
perhaps someone else would like to use the PC?


LOL!

alan wrote:
I live in a flat that's part of a complex that used to be sheltered
housing.

Because of the ages of people here, all the electrical sockets are
about waist height, so that people don't need to bend down.

That makes life easy for us oldies doesn't it? The designers of the complex
had some sense.

This is a problem in my bedroom, as the room is so designed that the
only possible place to put the bed means that one of the two sockets
would be right between my shoulder-blades. Having a bed-head would
help, but when there's a plug in that socket - which there will be, as
I like a bedside light - the bed-head would be so far from the wall as
to be unsightly.

A plug is around 25mm thick - you woudn't even notice the gap.

But my main concern is electrical fields. Sitting up in bed reading,
the socket would be only inches from my head.

Why are you concerned about nothing - and where is the evidence of harm?

I wonder if you use a mobile phone, if so, how close to your head do you
hold it? If you do own such an implement, read up on the possible effects
of emissions from them - and you'll crap yourself. And I won't wander down
the road of people being constantly bombarded by radio and communication
emissions.

I 've written to ask my housing association if they could move this
one socket down to floor level. In reply, the man in charge of
maintenance said that moving the socket there would not solve 'my
perceived worries about electrical fields', as he put it, because
there'd still be a cable running from the blanked-off old socket to
the new one.

He is quite correct in that it would not solve your "perceived worries" - he
have to strip all the electric wiring from your flat and supply you with
candles to solve those. And then you'b scared of a fire breaking out.

But is this right? If the cable feeding the socket were approaching
the socket from the top - running down the wall to it - that would
indeed be the case, but I'd have thought that cables would run from
floor level UP to the sockets. I've a feeling he's just trying to fob
me off, because later in his letter he goes on about the expense of
having the work done.

Now why would he fob you off when cable "drops" are common in millions of
buildings? As for for the expense, would you wish to have your rent and
service charges increased because tenants *expect* to have unnecessary works
done?

I want to fight this decision if I can, because even though I know
fears about electrical fields close to one's brain aren't fully
substantiated, I don't want to take the risk.

Don't bother "fighting" the decision, you will lose - and think of the
stress you will be under then!

I would suggest that you seek treatment for paranoia - and live in dwelling
without electricity nor use a radio, computer or television to give you
complete peace of mind.

Knowing my housing association as I do, I know they'll do anything to
put tenants off in order to save money, and that includes exaggerating
the cost of doing a job, or even claiming the job is just impossible,
and so I'd be very grateful for any facts I can muster to my own case,
such as likely costs of moving this one socket about three feet, and
whether it really is likely that the cable is running down the wall
towards it rather than up to it.

You have no case for getting the HA to shift the socket, and it's not down
to cost or difficulty - it is simply not necessary!

I'll be most grateful for any advice I can get here.

Dig into your own pocket and pay for it yourself if your that paranoid - and
don't forget to ask the HA for permission to move the socket first.

Or you could simpy trip the breaker to the ring main for the sockets and use
the overhead room light - then you'd complain about....

BTW, as a "coffin dodger" why are you so bloody worried about such trifles.
Get out and enjoy the world, you could drop dead tomorrow - and your next
abode would be rather dark, cold and wet - and you can't complain about that
one. ;-)

On Apr 21, 6:58*pm, Jim White wrote:
In message
* * * * * Huge wrote:



alan wrote:

But my main concern is electrical fields. Sitting up in bed reading,
the socket would be only inches from my head.

I'll be most grateful for any advice I can get here.

Don't be so stupid.

Dunno, but I think the OP is right to be concerned. After all, it was an
electrical field that killed two racehorses recently.
:-p

--
Jim White
Wimbledon London England
I will not barf unless I am sick

********. It was an electric current due to a damaged electric cable.

On Apr 21, 10:17 pm, harry wrote:

If you are a bit of a nutter, paste some cooking foil on the wall
over the place you suspect the wire might be.

I discovered that foil works very well. Since all the external walls
in my house have aluminium foil between the wallboard and the wiring,
I am unable to detect where the wiring is, with any kind of device!

harry wrote in
:

On Apr 21, 6:58*pm, Jim White wrote:
In message
* * * * * Huge wrote:



alan wrote:

But my main concern is electrical fields. Sitting up in bed
reading, the socket would be only inches from my head.

I'll be most grateful for any advice I can get here.

Don't be so stupid.

Dunno, but I think the OP is right to be concerned. After all, it was
an electrical field that killed two racehorses recently.
:-p

--
Jim White
Wimbledon London England
I will not barf unless I am sick

********. It was an electric current due to a damaged electric cable.

Whooooossshhhhhhh ....

--

All the best,

Chris

In message
Chris Wilson wrote:


[snip]


********. It was an electric current due to a damaged electric cable.

Whooooossshhhhhhh ....

Quite :-)
--
Jim White
Wimbledon London England
I will not belch the national anthem

In article ,
Chris Wilson wrote:
harry wrote in
:

On Apr 21, 6:58*pm, Jim White wrote:

Dunno, but I think the OP is right to be concerned. After all, it was
an electrical field that killed two racehorses recently.
:-p

--
Jim White
Wimbledon London England
I will not barf unless I am sick

********. It was an electric current due to a damaged electric cable.

Whooooossshhhhhhh ....

More of a sizzle, perhaps

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

In message on Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:28:38 +0100
Unbeliever wrote:

I wonder if you use a mobile phone, if so, how close to your head do you
hold it? If you do own such an implement, read up on the possible effects
of emissions from them - and you'll crap yourself. And I won't wander down
the road of people being constantly bombarded by radio and communication
emissions.


A local activist was whipping up enthusiasm on a Green blog for protests
against a new mobile mast near a local school, using all the usual electro-
magnetic field arguments.

I pointed out that a base station needs to receive all signals at the same
level, so it instructs the mobiles to increase/decrease the trasmit power as
appropriate to achieve this. As a result of this, the nearer to the mast the
'phone is, the lower the transmit level and that he might like to concern
himself with the reduction in the powerful field generated 2cm from the kid's
brains rather than the very much lower field from the mast 200m away.

He acknowledged the validity of the argument, then carried on with his campaign
regardless ...

--

Terry

In message on Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:28:38 +0100
Unbeliever wrote:


You have no case for getting the HA to shift the socket, and it's not down
to cost or difficulty - it is simply not necessary!


Even if he does get the socket - and wiring - removed at his own expense,
unless his bed butts up to an outside wall, what about cables feeding sockets
on the other side?

If it's the party wall with a mirror image flat on the other side, I'd say
there's a 100% guarantee ...!

--

Terry

In article ,
Terry Casey scribeth thus
In message on Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:28:38 +0100
Unbeliever wrote:

I wonder if you use a mobile phone, if so, how close to your head do you
hold it? If you do own such an implement, read up on the possible effects
of emissions from them - and you'll crap yourself. And I won't wander down
the road of people being constantly bombarded by radio and communication
emissions.


A local activist was whipping up enthusiasm on a Green blog for protests
against a new mobile mast near a local school, using all the usual electro-
magnetic field arguments.

I pointed out that a base station needs to receive all signals at the same
level, so it instructs the mobiles to increase/decrease the trasmit power as
appropriate to achieve this. As a result of this, the nearer to the mast the
'phone is, the lower the transmit level and that he might like to concern
himself with the reduction in the powerful field generated 2cm from the kid's
brains rather than the very much lower field from the mast 200m away.

Course mobiles further away;?..


He acknowledged the validity of the argument, then carried on with his campaign
regardless ...


Bit out of touch anyway, children do not talk on their mobiles they just
use TxT ....
--
Tony Sayer