What is the Safe Residential Distance from Power Substation

Thirty million miles; you'll have to move to Mars.

Just who is "they", anyway?

Health concerned people.

It may be too late for you.

You seem to be exhibiting the signs of early onset of degenerative brain dysfunction and dyslexia induced by close proximity to electromagnetic fields, such as those caused by exposure to too much computer keyboard radiation. This is usually developed as a result of too much typing on an unprotected keyboard, or keeping company with too many dogs.

What you can't see won't hurt you. 3 miles.

I lived 1.7 miles away and it wasn't enogh. http://www.searchrealestatemyrtlebeach.com/couple-blames-santee-cooper-for-health-problems-2/

I'm not sure if you realized the humorous ambiguity in your response when you posted it.

.

If you are the Mr. Tidwell of the article, perhaps you could go into a little further detail as to how you pinpointed the substation as the source of the vibration and that vidration as the source of your ailments?

I took it as proof positive.

Didn't want to upset anyone by mentioning it directly....

Your only concerns should be high voltage arcing, and curious children who might be in your care.....I would think 100 feet for arcing, and maybe a mile for children....of course this is just arbitrary....

How near is near anyway?

With so many hungry critters out there, can we ever really be safe.

It's the virtual ones on the internet that we really have to be wary of.

Now that we've had some fun>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Health Risks of Living Near an Electric Substation

Q & A About EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields - EMF Safety ...

Living near a sub station - Real Estate - Home

You have to be careful when you are researching in this area. You could easily get sucked into the "dirty electricity" cult, although it sounds as if you already are questioning, and therefore open to any explanation (however unfortunately dramatic).

I might even go so far as to say this is snake oil, but you never know who's toes are going to get mashed, so we'll just provide a link: http://substation-health-risks.co.uk/ _{^{(any ministry must have a pastor, right?)}}

aaaanywho...

Calculate thusly: The intensity of linear waves radiating from a point source is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. Determine your acceptable level (Gauss, for example) and determine your safe distance. (re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law)

Also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_magnetism

Sorry, i posted about Gauss not following the inverse square law, maybe i should read the post first.

Gauss was arrested for that, so be careful.

Stick a small 1/4" by 1/2" neodymium magnet on the eraser end of a pencil and point it towards your object of concern.

If you can't feel the magnetic field vibrate the pencil wand the odds are you are just fine.

jut wear this, you'll be safe

Please, a little more commitment....

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_kw=engraved+hard+hat

Hahahahaha!

Safe distance would be about 1 henway.

Whats a henway - damn, got me!

It's great that you started this question, I too was searching this, please any body who has an idea about which standard to be followed on this regard?

Follow the internet standard.

How to Search the Internet - Hannon Library

It's a method of finding information, if it exists.

Some standards you might search are

• ANSI C12.1
• ANSI C12.10
• ANSI C12.19
• ANSI C12.20
• BS 7671
• IEC 60269
• IEC 61508
• IEC 61511
• IEC 62061
• NFPA 70B
• NFPA 72
• TIA-607-B

Of course, common sense would not enter into any this.

I feel certain that anyone who moves to within 5 miles of a substation will die within 90 years of said move. Their sanity may deteriorate much sooner. It may have already started by asking the question to begin with.

Worry about something important.

Many countries have implemented exposure limits recommended by International Commission on No-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). You can check with local county code. Some countries have added precautionary measures. Public concern has increased during last decade. A precautionary measure would be the enforcement of minimum clearance zones around newly constructed overhead power lines as well as around existing power lines with regard to the construction of new residences and schools. The utility service provider will conduct regular compliance Audit and the outcome will be published to public and l keep stakeholders and citizens informed of the status of health effects regularly.

I am not a great believer in the dangers of radiation at 50 0r 60 cycles a second. Mobile phones, micro waves, high altitude flight time, radar guns, old televisions (not thee new flat screen ones) and leaky spark plug wires on cars cause me much more worry. If these sources of radiation don't bother you then why worry about living near a power station, unless it is a nuclear one of course.

"...then why worry about living near a power station, unless it is a nuclear one of course....."

.

Right. Because in that case, worrying serves as a legitimate prophylaxis for whatever nuclear derived ailment you imagine battling.

"Still, having worked in nuclear radiation laboratories I think we should have more respect for the dangers associated with nuclear radiation than electrical radiation. I cite Japans present problem, the on going Chernobyl saga and Three Mile Island."

.

There is SO much wrong with your statement above. I don't think your time working in 'nuclear radiation laboratories' has served you well in this regard.

.

What would have made sense is a call to have appropriate respect for various risks.

.

Your suggestion that 'more respect' be given to the dangers of nuclear radiation than electrical radiation seems seated in irrational fear.

.

After rubbing your feet on the carpet an build up a static charge, before you actually touch a metal surface, electrons break the barrier, since this would occur even if a vacuum existed in the gap, it is fairly consistent with the definition of electrical radiation. That initial radiation, avalanches and creates a conductive plasma to allow the discharge. This is likely present to an important degree in every unintentional discharge.....electrical radiation initiates the discharge.

.

What's my point? Electrical radiation initiates a phenomena that is the direct cause of one of the top twenty leading causes of death world wide; electrocution. The risk of dying from electrocution is greater than even for drowning. The risk of dying from radiation sickness and all the other increases in risks from average nuclear power related increases in exposure pale in comparison.

.

Another problem with you analogy is the comparison of failed systems to working systems. Compare failed systems to failed systems. Which is more lethal, living within a few miles of Fukushima at its worst, or having the circuit protection fail when your toaster or radio fall into your bathtub while you are taking a bath? (No, I don't now why the toaster is on the bath ledge... it just is. I also cannot explain much of TEPCO's stupidity...it just is.)

.

.

Another HUGE problem with your statement is your matter-of-fact style attempt to conflate Three Mile Island with the likes of Fukushima and Chernobyl. Three Mile Island was a unmitigated nuclear containment success validating many important design aspects. It was wildly distorted by irresponsible sensationalist 'journalism', which even today helps to cultivate irrational beliefs in people who have the capability of thinking rationally.

.

Do yourself a favor and do a little reading on what actually occurred at Three Mile Island.

I agree completely......less coal would be far better...

And then what?

In addition Chernobyl was the result of the on duty watch standers seeing "what would happen". Fukushima was the result of someone failing to look at the 10 year flood zone.

The events that lead to Chernobyl were slightly more involved than that. The design of the plant also shares significant blame.

.

The failures leading up to Fukushima go far far beyond mere negligence and certainly beyond just a flood zone review. There were engineers who were whistle blowers who had been documenting their very specific warnings about the problems at the plant for more than a decade. Those engineers damaged their careers and in come cases resigned in protest, yet TEPCO did not address most of the problems, and did not effectively fix the few problems that were addressed.

.

Next time you hear about someone facing charges for a crime that didn't actually result in meaningful harm (reckless endangerment that was caught before it became wreck-full), consider how unjust the dearth of criminal repercussion for what occurred at Fukushima actually is.

I tend to disagree with your short Fukishima comment, here is why:-

The earthquake that caused the primary cooling problems for 3 reactors came first of course.

Furthermore, Fukishima was built on an easterly (mostly) facing coast, where if a Tsunami happened, it would be the most likely direction it would come from. Also it was close to the edge of the land. See this picture showing the fault lines around Japan:-

Here is a picture of Fukishima in relation to the probable epicenter, on the fault line:-

There was no proper sea wall high/long enough to protect the power stations, though with over 9 on the Richter scale Earthquake, that maybe moot......

I haven't listed all the further reasons for the accident, but you can read them online if you wish....

Here for example:-

http://world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Fukushima-Accident/

So although possibly the 10 year flood zone you mentioned (which they appear to have forgotten about!) may also be in there, it was not that alone that caused the Fukishima incident, as you appear to try and imply......

Japan has had many Tsunamis since time began, some running to over 30 meters high (around 100 feet). The main reason for the accident was simply building in the wrong place and no action being taken as knowledge of the dangers became apparent over the years between building and the eventual accident.

There is an interesting map here:-

Interactive Earthquake Map

....which clearly demonstrates that most if not all earthquakes around and on Japan, tend to be either in the sea off the east coast, or on land between the middle and the east coast (where the fault lines are!)......so if the Nukes had been built on the west coast, they would be unlikely either to have had a Tsunami or an earthquake, possible but far less likely.....

I hope this short dissertation (far from complete as many here already know!) clears up any misunderstanding about Fukishima. It was not a simple problem.

Excellent post Andy.

.

I do think think the mistakes made by TEPCO over the years go far beyond merely not heeding warnings that were provided (though that in itself is completely unacceptable in the context of nuclear power). TEPCO had a dangerous deceptive MO from the get go, as can be seen by failure to inform the regulatory agency and oversight of plan changes made to the emergency cooling water systems. That was early in the construction phase. Coupled with dragging their feet and and flat out ignoring engineers who were pointing out the dangers inherent in that particular implementation/set up of the plant, makes their wrongdoing far from passive or lazy.

.

The truth is that the event might easily been handled without major incident in that very location, had TEPCO had a long term attitude that placed sufficient value on the people it serves.

.

Obligatory seppuku deserves a revival for this occasion.

Your last line is perfect!!!

A couple years ago, I did some research into the health effects of living near an EMF source. What I found is that most people are not affected, but there is a small number of people who are. The radiation you'll receive is far below the "safe" limits - there is no ionization of your cells. For the few who are susceptible, the constant EMF energy can cause mutations (cancer) in their cells. One of the factors to look at is your family history with cancer, specifically NHL (non-Hodgkins Lymphoma). For some reason, people who have NHL in their bloodline are more susceptible to long term consistent EMF radiation.

Not to scare you, but I'd opt for a home a little further away, just in case you or someone in your family has had NHL. Why take the chance, unless you have no other options.

Are you saying that NHL gene carriers experience a statistically significant increase of NHL when nearer EMF energy?

Is this a comparison of those who live isolated from the grid in remote areas compared to those who live surrounded by EMF because they live in a building wired for electricity and as compared to those who live in EMF because the live near High Tension lines or, as the the original question wonders, power substations?

I believe there is a health risk from the overhead cables likely associated with a power station. On a damp day you would have to tolerate the low 50/60Hz hum. Having seen the results of HV transformer explosion I would take the blast zone into account as well. Your decision in the end but I would make sure my home was at least a hundred metres from the cables or transformer.

A power station with steam turbines can be extremely noisy with a lot of damp steam put into the air. You want to be looking at a couple of miles.

http://www.dijitalimaj.com/alamyDetail.aspx?img=%7B9356E975-ACFD-4414-B391-78347A32F18C%7D

On a plus note anythig that leaks out is free.

"....steam turbines can be extremely noisy with a lot of damp steam put into the air....."

.

Noisy? How noisy?

.

....and the idea of steam turbines putting damp steam into the air? Are you saying that the steam from the turbines is just dumped to the atmosphere?

When I was growing up, there were transmission lines in a big field - we played quite a few games of football there. No homes were under the lines and it was a good distance to the closest homes - 100 yards or so. There was a hum from the power lines, but it wasn't 60hz. 60hz is pretty deep and this hum definitely wasn't that low.

Pray tell, what country were you in? The United States of Tara?

Secret Government 10Hz lines...yeah, that's the ticket!

Yes, that makes sense. 3 phase power 60 hz.

"....steam turbines can be extremely noisy with a lot of damp steam put into the air....."

.

I thought that James Watt solved this problem many years ago.

No - he observed the steam and then likely did what any respectable engineer would do and nipped off for a cup of tea.

Not a bad lad though and improved the steam engines of the day into much more effective and useful machines.

"No - he observed the steam and then likely did what any respectable engineer would do and nipped off for a cup of tea."

Sounds like my response to most problems!!!

Being a Heriot-Watt alumni I felt duty bound to mention him.

You also bring up another good point. Those transmission lines I played football under went behind a shopping center (big empty field) and met with other transmission lines at a power distribution center (lots of big transformers on the ground).

One day, when I was in college, my friends came by to get me. I told them I had to study, so I couldn't go with them. Not more than an hour later, I heard an explosion - sounded like it was pretty close. My friends drove out to see what it was - it was an explosion at the power distribution center. One of my friends jumped the fence and tried to help this badly burned kid who was crawling on the ground. The other kid was thrown and was burned even worse. We found out that the two kids inside the fence were on acid and decided to climb on top of a transformer. I'm not sure what they did (touched something), but something blew. I know one kid died and I think the other didn't make it either.

Personally, I would check prevailing winds and stay upwind of any large industrial site. For coal and oil fired power stations, I would make an even larger distance between me and them!

Also, coastal regions and seismic fault lines would put me off.....

Coal and oil fired stations fire a lot of very low level radiation into the atmosphere from the fuel, many times more in a day than say a Nuke is allowed to in a year or so......when running correctly of course.

Of course where you live can be part of the problem, old US, Japanese and Russian Nukes, you need to stay well away from. especially if on a coast, on a fault line etc..

But I would be more scared of coal/oil burning ones myself......

Nukes generally are safe, especially European ones......up to now at least......

The US, Japan & Russia have demonstrated quite well HOW NOT to do it!!!

Only real authoratative one I know of would be OSHA - where they actually state the minimum distances required based on voltages.

Yes, but OSHA regulations only apply to the workplace.

Yes, but also a good start for other areas. After all, the workplace is one of the most regulated areas there is. Those rules are established, like many other things, with the lowest common denominator in mind, or as a result of someone, somewhere, screwing up really big time.

Yes, well, when ordinary household laundry bleach becomes a hazardous material ONLY because it enters the workplace, I become dubious of the sanity of some of the regulations in place.

Yes, one has to wonder. As a concerned employer, I have to deal with these regulations every day. Most of them are just good common sense, but I often wonder who did what to have those statutes and laws legislated, making every employer a "bad guy" in the eyes of the enforcing bodies.

My sister in law is not allowed to use a kettle in her office!!!

Heard about a water utility worker who wasn't allowed to vacuum clean his van as he didn't have the appropriate certificate.

Talk about the nanny state!!

Makes one wonder how we stay in business while complying with the myriad of legislated rules we have to follow. I know it takes up a lot of my time.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../PMC1035250/‎

www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/.../Risk/magn...

microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-a96issue.pdf‎

aje.oxfordjournals.org/.../6/548.full.pdf‎All of the above articles have good reliable accurate information in them pertaining to the cancer risk to humans when exposed to high voltage radiation. It is a scientific fact that utility workers exposed to HV radiation emissions suffer a significantly higher rate of brain and bone cancer. The EPRI study issued in the early 80's clearly states the potential risk of being in close proximity to HV power lines and substations for extended periods of time as a worker and as a home owner in the near vicinity at less than 300 feet. The EPRI report also clearly states the elevated seratonin levels in the human brain recorded when exposed to HV radiation and the fact that these levels are extremely elevated in females if pregnant and/or lactating. There is clearly enough scientific evidence that indicates long term exposure to HV radiation is not conducive to human health by any stretch of the imagination. Since the EPRI report was issued most utility companies now follow the distance recomendations for designing right-of-way corridors for overhead HV 40KV and up power lines. Knowing what I do I would not purchase a home within the 300 foot distance of any 40KV or higher overhead power line or substation.

All attributable to PCB's on a grand scale, which utility workers were swimming in for years.

How many EPA cleanups did you see after a transformer leaked or let go?

I worked with a fellow, who had also done studies on this. His studies centered around the vegetation that didn't grow under the power lines. He never considered what defoliants could have been used (possibly even PCB's) to reduce the need for mowing

Radiation levels fall off with the cube of the distance.

"...Radiation levels fall off with the cube of the distance...."

.

In what frame of reference would that be true? Are there requirements/restrictions on the size/shape/expansion of the source of the radiation or universe in which it occurs for this to hold true?

.

'..Square of the distance' is more intuitive, but that isn't always a good indicator.

I agree with you......

Everyone forgets that the speed and direction of the wind play a pivotal role with regard to radioactive particles and where and how far they travel.....which is covered in that link I posted recently......downwind of a coal burner is more dangerous that way than a true Nuke.........

I assume (there's that dangerous word again ) that AH is referring to ionizing radiation in a linearly absorbing media. Like tissue dosage of an implanted alpha or beta emitter. In a transparent media, the good old inverse square law applies. However, if the media is transparent then there will be no dose at all.

Homogenous shielding leads to a reduction that can be effectively modeled as exponential.....which doesn't lend itself well at all to conversion from inverse square to inverse cube.

1/r^3

Maybe you are confusing "radiation" with atomic fallout and not simply electro-magnetic field radiation, for which the above formula applies?

Nope, I'm not confusing those.

.

Let's make sure we are on the same page here:

.

Visible light meets your qualifications for electromagnetic radiation, correct?

.

Assuming for ease of calculation both a point source and zero scattering/absorption through the space....can you agree that the total radiation incident at on the surface 1 unit of distance from the point source (sphere with radius 1) for comparison is the same total amount as would be incident on the surface 2 units (or any other number of units) of distance from the point source?

.

Can you agree that the surface area of a sphere is proportional to the the radius squared?

.

Does that not lead you too the conclusion that exposure incident upon a given area will be inversely proportional to the square if the distance?

Ah, yes, Socrates teaches Meno.

"....So, enlighten me on how one goes about calculating the near-field EM field for HV transformers over the range of a few hundred meters?..."

.

I would ask you. I'd even place high confidence in your answer being correct now that you are paying attention.

.

^{(It is your turn. I pulled the fat out of the fire on the first one).}

.

Off the top of my head, I'd say that near field EM radiation doesn't lend itself so easily to rules so simple as 'inverse square distance'.

As far as I know, there is no easy way because the source radiation is not a point source nor a true antenna.

Then you have to consider the environment around you (metal, ground, etc.).

Here are my main considerations in buying a house near a power substation, listed in order of importance, most important first:

1) Curb appeal. What does the substation look like from the house and from approaches to the house. If I don't like the view, chances are I will have a difficult time selling the house for a profit when I need to.

2) House must be upwind of the substation. On the occasions of a fire at the substation or of a transformer burst, I would prefer not to breath any of the resulting particulates. (Also applies to forested areas and other houses. Try to minimize the amount of exposure to particulates due to their burning.)

3) House must be positioned such that a power line will not fall on my house or property in the event of a storm, wind, earthquake, etc.

I looked into this several years ago and discovered I was getting more radiation from my coffemaker than the transformers across the street. The picture I found even showed the radiation field around the coffeemaker.

I was told that a coal plant will emit more radiation during it's life than a nuclear plant.

Your comment:-

I was told that a coal plant will emit more radiation during it's life than a nuclear plant.

Is true, but encompasses the problem rather inaccurately.

Read here (there are more references with basically the same information):-

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

...and you will find the following sentences that clarify the differences exactly:-

"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant-a by-product from burning coal for electricity-carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as a 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

Sub Station has Power line reaching it and going out too. Please do not be below these cable lines. Also if a Tall Tower is there, stay at least twice its height away, as someday it can get uprooted by high wind or corrosion at its base. Close to Transformer can also reduce your quality of Music. Better have a Radiation meter and check its readings. Be in Green Zone.

Or above...oops, sorry New York...guess you're screwed.

Or any other large city...

I was wondering what the EMR exposure to these new induction rangetops was.

I've checked mine using a coil and oscilloscope; the signal virtually disappears only a couple of inches away from the element. The reason they cook so efficiently is the excellent coupling between the magnetic field and the cooking utensil. The vast majority of energy that is lost occurs in the driving circuitry. That's why they have fans.

And all of the ones I've tested (two cooktops and two portables) automatically turn off in the absence of an appropriate cooking vessel.

We LOVE them!

I agree, several years ago the company i was working for asked me to look into an office problem where interference was occuring. I attached a coil to an FET and ran it to an o scope. Turns out it was the copy machine producing the EMF.

dkwarner is dead right!!!

I did some simple tests some years ago and posted the results somewhere on CR4. But basically you must fully understand the safety features that at least all the ones I have had since 2007, I would expect them all to have same/similar.

1) The stove checks automatically that a pot/pan of the correct type is in place on the stove top before real "cooking" power is applied to the coil.

2) If the pot/pan is removed while the stove top is switched on, it is switched back into this test phase and after a further 20 odd seconds with no pot/pan, it switches off.

3) Furthermore, the "active" area is switched to be smaller than the pan placed on it in the expensive units and only a small coil is used in the cheap units.

4) The proper pot/pan type tends to "pull" the magnetic lines of force to it, a common effect of magnetic materials ( a simple test for an "induction pot/pan is to check that a magnet sticks to the base!).

It happens even with the earth's own magnetic field. So that the induction field, will be very low less than a few centimeters away. For example, I was unable to get a knife blade to even to get slightly warm when placed in contact with a pan base, flat on the stove top....full power.....several minutes.

We have had over the years, several radios in the kitchen with induction cooking nearby, I have never noticed any interference, either via the mains cables or via the ether.....and most radios tend to be very sensitive to either sort!! Probably this general lack or radio interference is mostly due to the very low voltage (high current) actually induced in the pot/pan.

So to sum up, no heating of a knife blade that is attracted to a magnet and no radio interference.......which tells me that probably only very specialized test equipment can measure any possible interference......therefore no more danger than any normal wiring to humans and animals, probably even less!!

I also believe that properly installed wiring is not of any danger either to me or my family.

One should also not forget that ONLY an induction stove CANNOT cause an oil/fat fire.......all other stove types can......

The cooking surface, when finished with cooking is only warm, not hot enough to cause any skin damage.....great when kids are in the house! Only this type of stove top has this effect!!! Safety First!!!

Also, induction cooking gives far less heat up into the kitchen atmosphere than any other type of cooking as only the pot/pan gets heated. Really great in summer......if one must cook something.....less negative effect on a running AC as well!! Cost reductions here too....

The efficiency of a properly designed induction stove top is better than most other stove types tested in the USA.

See here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking#Efficiency_and_environmental_impact

I would not use anything else......I am not a worrier about possible "leaky" electricity of any sort....

Let's not forget that the reaction time for induction cooking is slightly better than gas, the old favorite of chefs.

The only drawback I have found is some of the cheaper countertop units do not have fine enough control at the lower heat settings.

Induction cooking is finally starting to take hold in the US.

Absolutely correct, thanks for your good additions. well noted.

One other point I forgot, one which is difficult to correctly describe I find, is that due to the base being usually thick metal(s) on good cookware, the heating effect is very even over the area of the pan base, water even boils differently, with larger steam bubbles, that stay longer....to my mind anyway......

Though I have to admit its years since we had a normal stove top to compare.....

Also, food seems to not burn on as quickly, for example, sauces that usually "catch" quickly can be heated faster with no damage.....still stirring of course!

If you really "over-cook" it, they will catch, but instead of only in certain areas of the pan as with most electric stoves (not gas!!), its evenly distributed......not that that is a plus point!!

Both my wife and I are fully convinced Induction stove top people after almost 8 years of usage. Even though my wife usually hates new things/technology wise....

Between the size limitation of our kitchen, my wife's insistence on white color, and the limited number of available units at the time, we were forced to buy a cooktop with two induction elements and two radiant elements. At first my wife used the radiant elements most, since that was what she was accustomed to. Now she rarely uses the radiant elements, except when she needs more than two at the same time. I don't remember the last time I used a radiant element; at least a year ago.

Neither of us has mentioned one of my favorite aspects of the induction element: cleaning. When I'm home, I'm always the one who cleans the cooktop. Whenever my wife does use the radiant element(s), I have to get out the razor blade and abrasives to clean the surface, whereas since the cooking surface never gets hot enough to scorch, just a damp sponge is required to clean the induction side.

Since our unit does have the radiant elements I won't normally risk it, but if it were entirely induction, then we could just put a sheet of newspaper over the cooktop. When the paper gets dirty, just throw it away and put down a new one! I HAVE done this while cooking a messy sauce for 3-4 hours; the paper is not browned at all.

You are a great reminder of the good points of induction cooking that although I use, I forgot to mention them. Thanks.

The newsapaper is a great way to fry without a lid.......and keep stuff clean around the stove top.

"....an induction stove CANNOT cause an oil/fat fire..."

.

It certainly makes sense that an induction stove would be far less likely to start an oil/fat fire since there is nothing exposed to spark ignition.

What prevents an induction stove from heating oils to their autoignition point? The lowest of these temps are a little above the temperatures where most cooking on a stove is done, but not unimaginable.

As I indicated above, the cooktop does not even get hot enough to brown newspaper. Also, they have temperature sensors that will shut down the unit if the surface gets too hot, as could occur if someone walked away and forgot they had something heating.

Fair enough.

.

I was giving paper an auto ignition temperature of 451°F. I had rememebered that some cooking oils have autoignition temps of around 400°.... but it turns out it is a little above 400°C... so plenty of safety margin there.

.

Thanks.

They usually trip at 240°C if I remember correctly.

The temperature sensor shuts the stove down before oil fuming starts......it then displays an error that tells you what it did.. No other stove type can do this!!!!

I test it on all my stoves.....it works perfectly......

I don't see an induction unit in the near future for us. We like to cook in glass using a heat difuser (trivet) and glass doesn't work on an induction burner. We have a vintage 1960 pink Admiral range in our kitchen with a couple of 1950 vintage ranges in storage. They built them to last back then. Plus I've been doing lots of experimenting with microwave cooking. That being said what we really loved to cook on was a wood cookstove and would probably still being using one if we hadn't made a couple of errors in judgement along the way and started changing things. For some reason bisquits baked in a woodstove just tasted better.

Well, after all the information you have now, related to your "problem", or not. I have only one question,,,, do you have a choice of where you want to move to?? If you think you may be affected by any "emissions" from substations or power lines, choose another location, as far away as you feel safe. There have to be some options open to you.