told you so
"Farmers flee as turbines trigger despair"
I hope all of you have noticed and take with utmost seriousness all my recent postings on these three webpages (1, 2, 3) on dangers from certain high frequencies. Now, related again to questions of scale and how it biologically measures up, read about the effects of inaudibly low ones.
Is it ever time that for central public policy purposes physics & chemistry get supplanted by biology & geography, and the influence of domineering financiers on research and deployments gets curtailed.
I wanted to post this as a comment at "Wind farm article response", a blogpage where I stirred up controversy over two years ago here , but for some reason we are unable to post to blogpages older than an as yet unascertained date. I asked our webmaster some time ago but he has failed to respond to this lacuna, probably too busy. There seems no reason to not enable aceess to adding to older webpages, in fact it would show continuity & responsibility as Greens stick with difficult issues until resolution.
Come to think of it, while I'm at it, might as well post here another unsuccessful attempt at posting on an older blogpage, this time on the oilsands.
[title:]
on Canada at the oildrum
[text:]
See yet another fine post from that contributor to that highly valuable site, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5666 ("World Oil Exports; US Oil Imports; and a Few Thoughts on Canada"), from which:
"• Why should Canada run the risk of a sudden decline in imports, and the US get secure oil?
• The price the US pays is artificially low, because of the pipeline structure. China would probably pay more.
• Oil sands producers should pay more in royalties than they are (even with the recent increase).
• The US takes the oil Canada exports, and sells gasoline for $2.50 a gallon. Canadians now pay $1.00 a liter at the same time US citizens pay $2.50 a gallon. It isn't fair that Canadians are taxed to keep consumption down, but the US isn't.
• When Canadians export oil to the US, the Americans get all of the refining jobs. If Canada kept the oil in Canada, it could keep the refining jobs for itself.
• Why should Canada get hit with a charge in our carbon emission calculations for oil it sends to the US? If Canada is going to be charged for the emissions, it should at least be using it itself. I expect these beliefs will become more widespread, as Canadians begin to understand the peak oil situation."
- Daryl Vernon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Science Needs to Guide Policy Decisions
I caution being very careful before jumping on the "wind-turbine syndrome" bandwagon. Many of us who have been involved with educating friends, family, colleagues on the issues posed by Global Warming in the past were confronted with traditional climate-change denial arguments. We backed up our assertions with science, and were eventually able to point to a growing scientific consensus which clearly demonstrated that humans were warming the Earth’s climate.
Currently, there is nothing like a scientific consensus about "wind-turbine syndrome". While that alone doesn’t mean we shouldn’t concern ourselves about it, policy decisions within the Party need to be formulated on the best science available to us.
Nina Pierpont is always mentioned in discussions about WTS (which makes sense, given that she coined the phrase). Her work has not been published in any scientific journal. It has not been peer reviewed. It does not meet the test of scientific rigour which might come as a surprise to many. Right now, it belongs in the realm of pop-science: a vague theory asserted for mass-consumption.
I, for one, am far from ready to suggest that the Green Party alter our policies promoting renewable energy. Let’s continue to monitor the science, and let our decisions be based on facts. Legitimate and needed wind energy projects throughout Canada are being high-jacked by NIMBY forces, either using Pierpont’s WTS for their own purposes knowingly, or scaring Canadians into thinking that current scientific thinking asserts that there is a danger to human health from infrasound.
"Sudbury" Steve May
Typical Corporate Response
Acciona may be keen to develop green energy and talk the green talk, but, according to this report, they behave just like all other "all for me" corporations. (Remember the tobacco companies? The effect of sonar on whales, [in the news today]?) "Its not our product that is causing this. There is no scientific proof."
Well, that may be true but are they willing to accept and research the issue without bias? Their website has nothing to say on the matter. At least the Australian government appears to be addressing the issue. Surely windfarms could, if proven necessary, be located away from housing.
Pierpont's response regarding
Pierpont's response regarding "peer review" can be found at http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?page_id=922 .
"Science" is a grossly misused term. If you follow the cell phone controversy, we have before us the most egregious example imaginable of "nothing like a scientific consensus", with industry-supported on one side, independents on the other.
The words I put in bold at the orignating blog piece, "It is high time to STOP IGNORING the myriad complaints that sensitive people have expressed about their bodily reaction", http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-16/it-takes-green-dangers-wir... , are what should drive public policy. When someone says, "it hurts", you just stop, step back, and reconsider. Pressing on anyway is akin to rape, a metaphor widely understood as applying to too much human activity on the earth.
Note the excellent title, "Bioinitiative", of the independent report on the dangers of cell telephony, about which GPC has already issued a statement, at http://www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/27.09.2007 . "The long-term effects of exposure aren’t known with certainty", is a quote from that press release, but certainty is definitely not required for public policy, should sometimes be EXCLUDED from it, on which see http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-22/bioinitiative#comment-10264 , which I might as well repost here in full for the lazy:
"responsibility to act"
Submitted by Daryl Vernon on 25 July 2009 - 10:29pm.From recent Alternatives Journal issue (35:3), closing the piece by Stephen Bocking (Trent U.), "Skewing Science: Four new books expose how government and industry maipulate science to fit their needs"
"...two challenges of environmental policy. One is to avoid defining political questions as matters of science, because that implies that unrealisitic standards of proof are needed before action can be taken, while also privileging those who are able to buy expertise. The second relates to making decisions in the context of uncertainty. Acting in a complex world means gathering information, evaluating the weight of evidence, taking precautions and adapting to change. Too often, the chosen approach has been to wait for absolute proof -- with the consequence being a toxic environment and loss of life. Even uncertain knowledge implies a responsibility to act."
As I said, biology & geography first, prime data for which must be people's saying, "it hurts". You don't wait for the epidemiologically-studied bullet hole to be found, or even in vitro "proof" to be found, you act when you see the gun being aimed, or better still on overhearing the plot. The engineering-led approach to problem-solving, to which our culture is overprone, leads to solving one problem by causing another. Financier-led approach too often means replacement problems come at you even quicker.commenting access fixed
Finally tracked down the problem with comment access being limited on old blogs. All fixed up now!
---
Matthew Clarke
Senor Web Developer
thanks, Matthew...
...but did you mean, "Señor Web Developer" ...?
indeed
Señor indeed. I've become quite attached to my typo! :)
---
Matthew Clarke
Senor Web Developer
bats don't like too big either
http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/windpower/Past_Meeting_Summaries/...
"bat fatalities have been found at every wind site that conducted
rigorous, post-construction bat surveys"
"bigger turbines apparently pose greater risks to bats"
"different scenarios of wind power expansion suggest
potential mortality rates of tens of thousands of bats per year"
"impact of wind turbines on the affected species of bats, therefore, appears to be far
greater than any other form of human-induced mortality"
The only real reasons we "need" monstrous hideous gigantesque wind turbines are failure of imagination & pandering to large investors.