Slashdot Mirror


Power Cables' UV Flashes Apparently Frighten Animals

Rambo Tribble writes "Ultraviolet light flashes, or "corona", may be scaring animals and altering behavior. An international scientific team, first studying behavioral anomalies in reindeer near power lines, have found that sporadic flashes of UV from the lines are probably responsible. As most mammals can see into the UV spectrum, this has broad implications for the disruption of animal behavior. From the BBC article: "Since, as the researchers added, coronas 'happen on all power lines everywhere,' the avoidance of the flashes could be having a global impact on wildlife.""

118 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Protection from Deer Car accidents by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After reading the article this may prove to be a solution to the numerous deer car collisions. I might try this given the number of deer in my area.

    --
    Time to offend someone
    1. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly! Considering that windshields already have good UV filtering, this shouldn't be an issue for the eyes of drivers.

    2. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by inqrorken · · Score: 2

      The issue is that corona discharges are more prevalent on high voltage transmission lines. They require large clearances and rights-of-way - not ideal to run 220 kV up and down every road in the nation!

    3. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

      One deer acclimate they won't care any more. Similarly, I'm sure back in the past the loud noises would scare deer away, the way automobiles drove horses into a frenzy a century ago.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    4. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by sh00z · · Score: 1

      Or two-three feet off the ground.

    5. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is what the corona discharges look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Pretty amazing, really.

    6. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      I was thinking more along the lines of having some flashing UV LEDs that flash every 10 or so seconds. Put a couple in the grill and let them flash away.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    7. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by imikem · · Score: 1

      I would swear I have seen these in the past. Maybe not now as I get older and eyes get lousier though.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    8. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      You mean the same UV LEDs that burnout retinas if you look into them, those LEDs?

    9. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      You mean the same UV LEDs that burnout retinas if you look into them, those LEDs?

      lol, standing like deer in the headlights would take on a whole new meaning, as they stumble into every tree in the area after you pass by.

      That said, I would think visible light would trump UV.

    10. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Here is what the corona discharges look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Pretty amazing, really.

      Seeing it is different that what I thought, I figured it would be at the insulators but the discharges are everywhere; mentioned in the video a cause was bird droppings.

    11. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      It probably does just before air breaks down and the arc strikes. Bright flashing lights with loud bangs probably scare animals a whole lot more than a dim purple/violet haze and a soft steady hum.

    12. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      Funny how 30-40 sec into the video they've identified UV discharges from a tower that appears to have a flock of sheep browsing under it. Perhaps not so scary after all?

      What makes you think sheep can see UV light?

      Most mammals that can see UV light are nocturnal or live in arctic conditions where it helps deal with snow-blindness (according to current theories). It's also worth noting that mammals whose eyes filter out UV (like humans) tend to have better visual resolution.

      Sheep are diurnal animals that rely heavily on vision for defense from predators. They also, like most dichromatic animals, have roughly red & green cones with no blue cones. It's pretty unlikely they can see the flashes.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    13. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Especially for the cars coming the other way

    14. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That shows more where they are than what they look like though, as that type of instrument greatly amplifies any UV signal similar to a corona to produce a big white spot, as opposed to what is probably more of a diffuse glow over a couple centimeters.

    15. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by Amtrak · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard a car from a century ago. They almost make me want to go into a frenzy they are so loud....

    16. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't need to run high voltage up and down every road to acheive the same effect.
      A small light like wreckers or volunteer fire/police use except in the UV spectrum would
      probably do the trick. Would also want to check and make sure it was legal first so you
      don't get charged with "impersonating a cop" but if it was restricted to the UV spectrum
      you should be fine.

    17. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      One deer acclimate they won't care any more.

      If they acclimate. My dog has been around fire all her life and is still scared to death of
      it even at a safe distance. Wild animals don't necessarily acclimate to everything
      especially if it is something (like a car) that they know causes harm. It's not like
      roads provide food. On a non-busy road (which is where most deer accidents occur),
      a deer would be glad to avoid you if they had a reliable early warnings.

    18. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by iMactheKnife · · Score: 1

      I'm a bowhunter. I can help with your deer problem. Where are you?

    19. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by tresho · · Score: 1

      I've hit one deer at 70 mph & another ran into the side of my truck when I was going 40 mph. Since then, if I see deer ahead of me on the roadside, or if one crosses road ahead of me, I honk my horn. Most of the time, the deer I honk at show an obvious startle reaction and move away from my car. None has ever moved toward my car or into my path. If one deer crosses the road, there's a good chance others will follow, that's why I honk. I think it helps, don't think it hurts. Most animals act as if they dislike loud, sudden noises.

    20. Re:Protection from Deer Car accidents by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The sheep or the light?

  2. Is "impact" such a bad thing? by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does everything humans do that affects animal behavior need to be altered or fixed? In this case the "impact" is simply that the animals stay away from the power lines. There are countless naturally-occurring things in nature that have similar kinds of "impact".

    1. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What if those power lines cross a major migration route? Or block a nesting ground or food source? It's nothing personal, but I hate when people just say, "Well it's probably not a big deal." To us it may not seem like it, but to everything else it might be. We are the single most invasive species on the planet. That will eventually come back to haunt us.

    2. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by RichMan · · Score: 2

      As people don't like living under power lines the land is often left wild, a lot of power line corridors are counted as wildlife corridors. This would tend to indicate that animals also don't like living under power lines and that corridors should not be counted as wildlife corridors.

    3. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think there are many natural things that form a virtual wall thousands of miles long, closing off wildlife corridors and genetically isolating populations. Anyway, because something exists in nature doesn't mean it's benign. Occasionally meteorites fall from the sky and obliterate life on Earth. If humans were to engage in an activity that emulated those effects it wouldn't be OK because there are similar things in nature.

    4. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by geekmux · · Score: 2

      There are countless sources of fire in nature too, I guess we'll let your house burn when it catches fire. Do we really need to alter or fix that? Now, substitute planet for house, and maybe you'll start seeing it.

      Uh, before you continue with the modern society slut shaming here, I'd like to know what the real impact has been since power lines are now considered "invasive" due to a UV light study.

      We've had power lines in nature for decades now, and yet population numbers didn't wildly drop off. There were no random attacks by normally non-violent creatures due to this. No massive changes in behavior that had impact on a large scale, causing extinction. In fact, the only thing TFA calls out is the fact that reindeer in the north avoid power lines when moving, but otherwise they are moving normally.

      Seriously, can we at least try and establish a baseline before calling this the next Global Warming event? I don't need Al Gore telling me how evil I am for consuming electricity while he cruises around in a Tesla.

    5. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fair enough, but animals (like humans) are supremely adaptable. So the question remains - why is it a big deal if animal behavior is altered?

      And calling humans an invasive species discounts our role in nature. We have survived through the evolution of our intelligence. The application of that intelligence includes altering nature to the full extent that we're able to in order to support our success as a species. All species do this to the full extent that they're able.

    6. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does everything humans do that affects animal behavior need to be altered or fixed?

      No. We should continue to eat them.

    7. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      The question is more like: should humans stay away from those power lines as well?

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    8. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by jonnythan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because we have power lines everywhere and as far as I know we haven't really spent a lot of time considering the possibility that a simple power line is a de facto boundary to an animal's habitat. It's kind of a big deal when there are serious, important aspects of land use planning and environmental conservation that absolutely rely on accurately predicting and knowing an animal's range and habitat.

    9. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I plan on putting some power lines over my vegetable garden now. I wonder if I can make a solar powered UV flashing light to scare away animals?

    10. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In my various travels, power lines are often placed near and parallel a roadway. That is less true in mountainous regions, where "the path with the least construction needs" can be over the top of a mountain for power lines and around it for the road, but it is a common trend.

      So, if animals are learning to avoid the UV flashes of power lines, it also implies they are less prone to migrating across roads. If you like the continued existence of wild animals, that would be a good thing.

    11. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I appreciate your stance, but this whole "but X is adaptable!" answer to having to change our behaviour to help X is clearly limited. We need to know the scale of the impact before we know if they're adaptable enough to adapt to the changes we are throwing at them. I'm sure you appreciate that if the change we are talking about is simply making them walk 1 meter out of their way - they can probably adapt to that. If the change is causing them to jump off cliffs, there's not much adaptability that would work in that case.

      Are you aware that we rely on other species to survive? We evolved with those other species around - removing them from our environment might indeed change the balance of wildlife to the point where things we directly rely on start being affected by our changes to other species. Yes, humans are awesome and clever and can fly and go to the moon and everything, but we still breathe the same air as other (air-breathing) animals, drink the same water, and live on the same planet.

      Our role in nature should be to not mess with nature so much that we die out. The status quo got us this far - changing it too much is not a good idea. Science can tell us what constitutes "too much", and ignoring that is folly. Suicidal folly.

    12. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Just because species have not been negatively affected in the past (to your knowledge) doesn't mean they won't be in the future. Imagine if a new set of power lines were installed across the migration paths of some large herbivores - they might affect their migration, and so the health of the groups affected. That means their normal predators (whose numbers have grown large enough to be sustained by that group of herbivores) are now without enough food. They might just start attacking humans. That's pretty extreme, but it's an example of a much worse secondary effect of what otherwise seems like a rather benign primary effect.

      No-one's calling this the "next global warming", and you might want to leave your Al Gore bashing out of this so you don't look quite so ridiculous.

    13. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I wonder if I can make a solar powered UV flashing light to scare away animals?

      A couple UV LED's and a 555 timer. Hell, you might be able to mod one of those solar-powered outdoor lights.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

      Let us all know if this works....The deer and rabbits decimate my wife's garden every year. Somewhere in my basement, I have a 200KV power supply....a little motion sensor to kick off the spark gaps...hmmmmm.

    15. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by ImWithBrilliant · · Score: 1

      "Impacting" bald eagles before they "impact" a wind turbine blade would be a good thing.

      --

      Is it a rule, that there's an exception to every rule?

    16. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by r1348 · · Score: 1

      As Spiderman would say: "With great powers come great responsabilities"

    17. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I suggest that you enclose the spark gap so dried debris can't blow into it and ignite.

    18. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the animal adaptation proves to be a problem for us (and the animals). For example, not everyone is terribly happy that coyotes have adapted to suburban living. A lot of people aren't that happy that bears have adapted to food locked in small cars.

    19. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Yes our success is likely dependent on the survival of species around us. No we aren't smart enough (yet) to comprehend the permutations of possibilities and outcomes to conclude whether a particular action we take is ultimately helpful or harmful to us as a species.

      We don't mess with nature. We are nature. The fact that our actions come about via volitional acts of cognition makes them no less natural than any other observable behavior from other species.

    20. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      "So the question remains - why is it a big deal if animal behavior is altered?"

      Depends on the alteration, of course, but in general imposing new stressors often leads to death, even extinction.

      "calling humans an invasive species discounts our role in nature.... altering nature to the full extent that we're able"

      Yes, altering the environment is pretty much the defining characteristic of an invasive species. With the exception of our nomadic hunter-gatherer ancestors, "our role in nature" is to disrupt the extant equilibrium everywhere we go.

    21. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Is there an individual or species's intelligence that will ever compete with the collective intelligence of the billions of individual evolutionary processes occurring around us? Does nature consider the impact of these processes before allowing them to occur?

    22. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by pla · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that we rely on other species to survive? We evolved with those other species around - removing them from our environment might indeed change the balance of wildlife to the point where things we directly rely on start being affected by our changes to other species.

      Don't worry, we're adaptable. We can just find some other way to metabolize glucose into ATP after we kill all the oxygen-producing creatures on the planet. Just one little atom, anyway - And heck, other critters use sulfur instead of oxygen, why can't we? ;)

    23. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      Nature doesn't "consider" anything. Your argument is basically that nature will adapt around us. Yes, it will..... but it might "adapt" in ways that eliminate important species, destroy biodiversity, and generally ravage the environment around us. Nature may "adapt" in ways that suck total ass for both us and millions of other species.

    24. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I wonder if I can make a solar powered UV flashing light to scare away animals?

      A couple UV LED's and a 555 timer. Hell, you might be able to mod one of those solar-powered outdoor lights.

      Or just use a bug zapper. Of course, that might kill off the pollenators as well.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    25. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the animal adaptation proves to be a problem for us (and the animals). For example, not everyone is terribly happy that coyotes have adapted to suburban living. A lot of people aren't that happy that bears have adapted to food locked in small cars.

      While building the Alyeska Pipeline workers were taken out to the job site in buses; where they would leave their lunches. I've heard a few stories where a bear(s) had taken over the bus for the food.

      Each story had the workers waiting until the bear was through until they could get back in.

      Most of the time things like that don't work out well for the Bears. If the sites weren't so remote a group might of shown up, knocked the Bear out and flown it 200 miles away "so they couldn't find their way back".

      The thing is a worker might of fed a bear at one time, or left their garbage in the open; after that the bear expects food, or knows where to find it.

    26. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I wonder if I can make a solar powered UV flashing light to scare away animals?

      A couple UV LED's and a 555 timer. Hell, you might be able to mod one of those solar-powered outdoor lights.

      Or just use a bug zapper. Of course, that might kill off the pollenators as well.

      Yea, that could be a problem. Then again, it begs the question, what effect do the UV light pulses have on pollinators such as bees?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    27. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, altering the environment is pretty much the defining characteristic of an invasive species.

      There's a difference between indirectly interacting with the environment in a manner that changes it (eating the deer, causing changes to the plants and other animals in the area), and directly interacting with the environment (draining swamps and filling in coastal areas to "reclaim" land).

    28. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, the pie and baked good industry is probably thankful for the increased sales due to replacing what bears steal from pic'i'nik baskets.

    29. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      First off this is NOT a virtual WALL, it may discourage crossings, but does not prevent them. There are many things in nature that do a far better job of preventing crossings, rivers for example, or even relatively small streams. Crossing these likely exert more stress than some flashes of light.

    30. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      To me it is ridiculous to think that power lines could have any where near the impact that a well-traveled roadway does.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    31. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      You had a good factual point, then you ruined it with the political crap - by that I mean when has Gore ever called anyone "evil" for using electricity?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    32. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that they don't. But we understand that roadways isolate areas and cut up habitats. We never really thought power lines would do that. But now maybe we do.

    33. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      You had a good factual point, then you ruined it with the political crap - by that I mean when has Gore ever called anyone "evil" for using electricity?

      He didn't. It was a pun on the fact that the man did manage to make a career flying all around the globe warning us of the dangers of global warming as his airplanes shit out a carbon footprint of irony.

      It's rather obvious when certain influential people jump to conclusions, and likely more for personal gain. And my factual points remain.

    34. Re:Is "impact" such a bad thing? by tresho · · Score: 1

      The speed of evolutionary processes depends on the length of the lifecycle of the organism. Any species bigger than viruses and bacteria will quite likely die off before they adapt to human technology.

      This statement makes me wonder if the human species will die off before it adapts to its own technology. Alas, Babylon.

  3. Reindeer by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, of course reindeer are especially scared of power lines. They're a hazard for most low-flying objects.

    1. Re:Reindeer by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

      Glad somebody modded it up. That really was funny.

  4. Troll Hunter! by Max+Threshold · · Score: 5, Funny

    Troll Hunter really was a documentary.

  5. What? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    People don't live in tanning beds under power lines, so it doesn't lend much credence at all.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  6. DC transmission lines? by ACluk90 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was wondering whether there UV flash also exist for DC transmission lines. Is there any expert around who knows that?

    This is of interest as it is very difficult to build new power lines all over Europe, usually resulting in around 20 years of legal battle for a mere 30 km of power lines far away from any densely populated area. This is just slightly reduced for buried transmission lines with all their disadvantages. Thus a current idea/discussion is to hang DC power lines on existing poles for long distance transmission.

    1. Re:DC transmission lines? by kyrsjo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would think so - corona discharges are dependent on electric field, not frequency (and 50/60 Hz is pretty much DC anyway).

    2. Re:DC transmission lines? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      AC won a hundred years ago, because DC voltage conversion and circuit termination was difficult a hundred years ago. These days, the only reason to stick with AC transmission is due to the legacy install base.

    3. Re:DC transmission lines? by bughunter · · Score: 1, Informative

      50/60 Hz is pretty much DC anyway

      LOL, clearly either a digital logic or RF engineer.

      Tell ya what, if you're that confident, then take an aluminum crochet needle in each hand and jam them each in the +/– terminals of a 12 volt DC power supply, then in the line/neutral sockets of a variac output tuned down to 12V, and tell us again that 60 Hz is 'pretty much DC anyway.'

      (Spoiler: one will be fatal and the other not.)

      And then see if you can figure out why Westinghouse engineers chose the frequency at which electrical impulses best travel along human nerves as the standard power transmission frequency...

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    4. Re:DC transmission lines? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      The development of a corona (surrounding plasma) is dependent on the electric field, but wouldn't discrete discharges be specific to the pulsing AC field? I would expect DC to just produce a constant, muted glow, rather than flashes.

    5. Re:DC transmission lines? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      If you think DC can't kill, LOL - you're not any kind of engineer at all. You're an ignorant fool.

    6. Re:DC transmission lines? by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Yes, RF guy indeed :)

      But yes, in this case, power line frequencies are pretty much DC, as the plasma is formed around high electric field regions, and the time for the plasma to form and stabilize is much quicker than 1/100 sec anyway.

      The only thing that may make it slightly different from DC, is that you may only get a plasma for half the wave, and may not have the initial ionization event every time the field is in the plasma-forming direction. That could result in an "interupted"/flashing plasma, while a DC line would tend to maintain a steady discharge once the plasma is formed.

      Anyway, I don't really see how safe to touch voltages are relevant - it's not the corona discharge that kills you, and coronas doesn't have nerves so I don't think they care about either Westinghouse, Tesla, or Eddison :)

    7. Re:DC transmission lines? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      False. Maximum safe touch potential is 50V for AC at 60hz and 90V for DC

        +/- 10V for both depending on which country standard you follow.

    8. Re:DC transmission lines? by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Sure, power flow is important to whether a glow discharge turns into an full-blown breakdown / arc or not - but in this case, the time constants of the plasma are much much smaller than the AC's 1/f anyway - the plasma will extinguish when the field has a zero-crossing.

    9. Re:DC transmission lines? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      These days, the only reason to stick with AC transmission is due to the legacy install base.

      You'd still want AC in the home though as its safer.

      And yet, it isn't. For a given RMS voltage, AC is ever so slightly more dangerous, due to its higher peak, meaning it needs more insulation. Your muscles don't care about polarity, and 50/60Hz leaves too little time at zero point for the myth that you can release from AC current to be accurate. Anything in the path of the current is gone, and you're only going to pull yourself free using unaffected muscles. On the opposite side, 50/60Hz is too low for reactance or skin effect to make it behave significantly different from straight DC. Simply put, anything beyond 40-50V needs to be treated as potentially lethal, regardless of whether it is AC or DC, and that's all there is to it. The one advantage AC electricity has over DC in terms of safety is that it's much easier to zero quench in a circuit breaker. That's not to say it cannot be done, it's just more expensive to do it.

    10. Re:DC transmission lines? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why so many delays with burried? And what are their disadvantages? The reports I've read indicate they have lower support costs and higher reliability (in areas where backhoes aren't free-range).

    11. Re:DC transmission lines? by vandamme · · Score: 1

      I was a high power radar transmitter engineer, and I've had to look for these coronal discharges in 40-50 KV power supplies, where the clearances were tight and corona starts a breakdown process. I had to sit in the total dark for several minutes until I could see it, guided by the sound and possibly smell.

      The discharge from a big tesla coil is the same kind of thing, but high frequency AC. Faintly noticeable, unless you get a low resistance path to discharge it, like static discharge when you walk across the rug and touch a light switch. Or lightning.

      If you walk next to a big power line you may hear the discharge. If it freaks out the deer, too bad. They can cross under the line away from a discharge point.

  7. What about Infrared light? by nbritton · · Score: 1

    Can most animals also see infrared light? This may not be commonly known, but we, warm blooded animals, glow. Our body heat cause the emission of photons in the infrared spectrum, this is how forward looking infrared (FLIR) cameras work. Anyways, I was just wondering if animals can see other animals glowing at night.

    1. Re:What about Infrared light? by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thermal emissions from body heat are a fair ways into the IR range, around 8000-15000nm. For reference, human vision peters out around 700nm. I believe it's only possible to detect that with specialized sensory organs, such as pit viper's eponymous thermal pits.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:What about Infrared light? by ledow · · Score: 1

      If the TV program QI is to be believed, we actually bioluminesce too, and not just in IR (which is really just the visible artefact of heat).

      An awful lot of stuff bioluminesces too - an awful lot of deep sea fish, quite obviously, but there are millions of things that could be seen by something able to see light very well.

      "Pure" IR is hard to detect for an animal. UV is just a small extension into the parts of light that already produce huge bodily effects at even low levels (blindness, sunburn, etc.). You'll probably find more animals see us as glowing things in the normal visible spectrum than see us in UV, and a lot more things see us in UV than in IR.

  8. Re:Excuse by oodaloop · · Score: 1

    As opposed to the wacko conservatives who think we should keep destroying the environment including all of our food until we're all dead. Don't you just love exaggerated strawmen blanket statements? It's much easier than thinking.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  9. FUD? by agapeton · · Score: 1

    Anytime anything anywhere makes any sound or any motion my cat is scared out of her mind. That's just what animals do.

    1. Re:FUD? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      And is it the UV light or is it the sound that suddenly appears when there's a discharge that scares away the animals?

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  10. Magnetic fields too by tomhath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many animals can see or detect the Earth's magnetic field. I have to believe those transmission lines and arcing cause some serious anomalies in what they sense.

  11. Re:UV can cause cancer, this is known. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    There's a little bit more to it than that. UV is in virtually all normal light sources as well, it's the duration and intensity that are harmful. The reason animals are bothered would seem to be that there is a flashing light of a particular color in the otherwise dark night. You are probably at roughly equal risk if you frequent establishments that use blacklights.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  12. Using this to solve a problem by Badmovies · · Score: 1

    Apparently quite a few birds can also see UV. Knowing that, would it be possible to use a UV light system to steer birds away from windmills? It appears that bird deaths is a major problem point for the renewable energy source, so any passive way of warding birds away from them would be a good thing.

    --


    Andrew Borntreger
    Champion of cinematic disasters
    1. Re:Using this to solve a problem by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Apparently quite a few birds can also see UV. Knowing that, would it be possible to use a UV light system to steer birds away from windmills? It appears that bird deaths is a major problem point for the renewable energy source, so any passive way of warding birds away from them would be a good thing.

      Where I live is fairly windy all the freaking time, the South horizon is just an endless line of wind turbines. UV at the end of each blade might not be a bad idea.

    2. Re:Using this to solve a problem by mikael · · Score: 1

      At night-time, birds tend to fly towards light. Many downtowns with skyscraper office blocks end up with flocks of dead birds at street level due to birds flying towards the office lights. If anything you would need bright lights at either side of the wind turbines, so the birds could see a safe path to fly along.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:Using this to solve a problem by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It appears that bird deaths is a major problem point for the renewable energy source

      No it is not a "major problem", can we drop please that bullshit meme, smaller (fast spinning) windmills and windmills built on migration paths do kill birds and this was a minor problem in the early days that closed down a few mills. Modern windmills sited with a bit of forethought are no more likely to kill birds than a stationary skyscraper.

      Minor problem* - The number of birds killed by flying into windmills and other large buildings pales into insignificance when you consider the impact of domestic cats on birds.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Using this to solve a problem by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      My city (Melbourne, Oz) is on the upper edge of the southern ocean's "roaring forties", there are a few windmills dotted around the state but for some reason we are still fully reliant on brown coal for electricity, a mine that feeds the coal plants recently caught fire and burnt for a month resulting in the town of Morwell being partially evacuated due to the toxic cloud from the fire. Looking at it from a purely logical POV, it's fucking insane!

      The US is a paradox. From the very beginning of talks in the late 80's US foreign policy has sought to derail any coordinated global effort to curb GHG emissions, often being the sole roadblock to progress, yet at the same time they have (on a per capita basis) built more wind power capacity than anyone else?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Using this to solve a problem by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Birds land on power lines all the time. If there was an issue where birds didn't go near UV flashes, then why are they sitting on a UV flash generator?

  13. Don't confuse "near" and "thermal" IR. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Informative

    Thermal IR (the wavelengths emitted by things around body temperature) is really low-energy. It's hard to focus, and hard to detect, especially with a detector that's already in the same temperature range. Pit vipers, vampire bats and some other animals do it, but the mechanism's fundamentally different from normal vision, and doesn't provide much in the way of an actual focused image. (The pit viper's pit is sort of like a pinhole camera with a really big pinhole.)

    Near-IR, the kind of thing that cheap digital security cameras can see, is higher-energy. It can be emitted thermally, but you've got to get pretty hot (hundreds of degrees) to produce significant amounts. Go a little hotter, and you can produce visible light ("red-hot", "white-hot", etc.).

    Even near-IR is hard to pick up with a chemical process, though, the way retinal cells pick up visible light. I'm not aware of any animals that can see significantly further than us into the near-IR -- okay, a bit of Googling turned up one fish that can do it.

  14. VT is wrong reference by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    VT was in Designing Women: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

  15. Re:Excuse by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 2

    At first glance, I read that as "you and your elk"

  16. Great News! This protects Rudolph! by pollarda · · Score: 2

    This is great news! The UV flashes naturally warn the reindeer so that they won't land on the power lines.

  17. Corona vid by cstacy · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Corona vid by ledow · · Score: 1

      Well found. Looks like a very common problem, and useful to spot such things before they become a bigger problem anyway.

  18. Re:Excuse by PPH · · Score: 1

    Us right wing troglodytes want those caves all to ourselves. You left wingers can live up on the surface. Until we sound the sirens for lunchtime.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  19. Re:Actual hunter here by PPH · · Score: 1

    Its probably a matter of acclimatization. Deer that live near roadways get used to traffic (and get run over from time to time). Likewise, crows that aren't used to cars fly off as they approach while the ones that hang around roads just hop over to the fog line until they pass.

    The problem would be the effect on migrating herds. Animals that live around power lines get used to them. But an elk herd from some distance away might take some time getting used to them before crossing under.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Re:which animals? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Transformers aren't connected* to really high voltage lines. The kind that generate serious levels of corona.

    *Not the ones hanging on a pole. HV transformers typically sit in large switchyards.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  21. In other news by Dunge · · Score: 1

    Lightning scare children, the sky is blue, etc.. Seriously, is this news? Who didn't know this?

  22. A thought occurs ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... people are not entirely visually oblivious to the UV spectrum; most popular laundry detergents include UV reflection enhancers that make the clothes treated with them look brighter. Hunters often employ special detergents to avoid this and its affect on game. This leads me to wonder if those who claim to have adverse reactions, such as headaches, when in proximity to power lines might not, in fact, simply be more sensitive to UV spectra, and hence, these corona events.

    1. Re:A thought occurs ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The UV suff in laundry detergents does not reflect UV light. IT flouresces in the visible spectrum (blueish) when illuminated by UV light, thus actually making the clothes brighter (as long as UV radiation is present).

  23. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. by Immerman · · Score: 1

    >and require zero power to use

    Not quite. How does the noise get generated? Air gets pushed through the whistle as the car pushes through the air. And in doing so it increases the air resistance of the car, requiring the engine to put out slightly more power to maintain a constant speed. So those whistles are fairly directly engine-powered, and probably horribly inefficient - vortices which form around the around the whistles will increase drag, and well as disrupt the laminar flow of air over the car body, increasing the required power output of the engine by far more than the small amount of sonic energy generated. An electric sound machine under the hood could probably do the same jop far more efficiently

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and they aren't proven to work (as in people that have tested them haven't shown that they've done anything, but not scientifically enough to prove them quackery, just hint strongly).

    2. Re:There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Probably because the sound gets Doppler-shifted to too high a frequency for an approaching vehicle.

    3. Re:There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Probably because they wouldn't work, even if at the "proper" frequency.

    4. Re:There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on which part you pick to make fun of first. That the designed frequency isn't the delivered one is a pretty big issue - I put that at #1.

    5. Re:There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Or that the deer whistles are on the shelf next to the tiger-repelling rocks.

  24. Re:UV can cause cancer, this is known. by ledow · · Score: 1

    Compare your sentence to the following to work out why it's bullshit. And if you can't work out why it's bullshit, please take a beginner's science course:

    "There's acid in our stomachs! We're all going to dissolve away!".

    or

    "There's nitrogen in the air! You could suffocate!"

    The question is not WHAT it is - it's UV light - it's how much it is. We're SWATHED in UV light right now. No matter where you are, unless possibly you are miles underground and have turned all the lights off (but, to be honest, by then there are much more serious risks to your health).

    How much UV is it giving off? What energies? For how long? Focused where (inverse-square law springs to mind, having recently used it to explain similar crap about mobile phone towers)? How long are people sitting under it and how close?

    And, to be honest, nobody really WANTS to live under a giant sparking wire, but simple economics and land-use dictate that in some countries some people have to. The threat of the thing falling on your house / some kid climbing up the tower is a million times more dangerous than anything to do with a form of EM radiation it's given off, no matter what the frequency.

    For every unit of UV this thing is giving off to someone living hundreds of metres away behind a brick wall, I bet there's two units coming out of their house wiring / lighting / fish tank / other sources RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR HEADS.

  25. Re:which animals? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    There are high voltage transformers as well, but it takes larger critters than squirrels to short them out. Maybe a raccoon can, but more likely it has to be human sized.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  26. Re:Chickens and bees by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Not really. UV vision is pretty common among insects & birds. Additionally, it's pretty common in lizards and fish that live close to the surface. And don't get us started on the ridiculously overengineered eyes of the mantis shrimp.

    Among mammals, it's common in nocturnal species like mice & bats, and we've started to notice it in reindeer and have theorized that it might be common in snow-adapted species.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  27. Re:Excuse by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Just another excuse for wacko liberals to demand we abandon civilization and go back to our caves.

    Because, of course, there couldn't possibly be a technological solution to this. It's only "do it cheap" or "I hate America."

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  28. Hmm.. by slapout · · Score: 1

    Wonder if I can train my dog to tell me when the batteries in my remote are low

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  29. Re:UV can cause cancer, this is known. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    "There's acid in our stomachs! We're all going to dissolve away!".

    "Acid in your stomach is OK, so stop complaining about the acid I'm putting in your eye.

  30. Re:UV can cause cancer, this is known. by ledow · · Score: 1

    Which acid? How much? Where? In what concentration?

    You can miss the point all you want. What matters is NOT the substance, or the nature of the substance, as much as the concentration and the effects at that concentration.

    Acid in your eye? Try fusidic acid.

  31. Re:which animals? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    During the 80's I worked at a large nylon factory (1200 employees), they had two large HV transformers side by side under a chicken wire cage to keep humans and animals out. Somehow a possum (about the size of a racoon) found itself on the inside of the cage and was electrocuted, the shock threw it from one transformer to the other shorting out both. Damage bill was $50K plus a couple of days lost production.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  32. Bury all power lines? by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

    Probably prohibitively expensive, but it would be nice if, someday, all that shit was underground. It looks horrible and is susceptible to lightning strikes, airplanes, helicopters (and now drones), falling trees, hurricanes, tornadoes and terrorist sabotage. And again, it just looks horrible. We bury fiber, copper, natural gas and water lines, so why is all our electrical strung up like the crack baby of a Christmas tree and a giant spider?

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
  33. Re:which animals? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Yup, and as a non-electrical worker, the number one reason I hear for outages is incursions by animals. So they aren't bothered by the large transformers at the really high voltages either.

  34. Re:which animals? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    One near me was taken out by a snake. The snake liked the heat, stretched out, and took out the substation. I've also heard of them being taken out by rodents (larger ones), but that included some chewing action, not just a short.

  35. Re:which animals? by PPH · · Score: 1

    two large HV transformers side by side under a chicken wire cage

    That would be what we in the utility biz call "medium voltage". You don't really start to see corona until you get into the 60 kV and up range. That's "high voltage".

    Keep in mind that any animal like a bird that approaches a high voltage line (within a few inches) will experience the same E-fields that cause the corona on the conductor. This discharge is a local ionization at an object's surface and would feel like something between an itching sensation and a continuous static discharge (painful).

    Birds don't sit on HV lines.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  36. Not my cat!!! by Optali · · Score: 1

    Bastard loves the power cables of my PC !!!

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  37. Re:Atheists by omnichad · · Score: 1

    "The Word of the RNG." The world is not black and white. It's not even 16 color. UV is part of the spectrum.