Re: wind farms
Date: 26 Feb 2005 at 18:54
> Slightly more impressive than a piece in this week's Maldon and Burnham
> Standard which cited disruption to badgers as a reason not to errect the
> turbines -- scraping the barrel for excuses a bit, really?...
Why are the windpower companies so silent on:
1 An ethical policy eg we do not use child labour/we compensate and treat fairly any person financially disadvantaged by our extremely profitable wind powerstations. None of the wind energy companies I contacted (and I tried quite a few) have any sort of ethical policy. They simply say that no one is ever disadvantaged by the development of a wind power station- it is just that some people whinge a lot. try telling that to the people who will be living underneath them.
2 The wind energy companies are constantly improving (read- making more profitable) their machines, but cannot give any information about the infrasound emitted by them. No research, no publically avaliable tests, no assessment of impact on human health. Why is that do you think??? Infrasound is scary-literally. At the right frequencies it can make you think you have seen something, and will set off your fight or flight reaction. That is why in some hauntings the cause has been found to be the effects of infrasound emitted by nearby electrical equipment. Just because humans cannot "hear" it with their ears does not make us insensitive to it. Elephants communicate over 10km across forest and savannah using infrasound and sperm whales use it to stun the giant squid they like to eat. And people living within a mile of a wind powerstation in Wales and Cornwall suffer depression, stress, anxiety, insomnia etc.....Something worth thinking about here I reckon.
3 The fact that there is plenty of scope to generate 5-10 times as much energy from offshore wind. It is just that it would take a little bit longer for the profits to come rolling in. Short term profits-go onshore. Long-term benefits-go offshore. We should not even have to be considering onshore. And the argument that it is necessary to put up with onshore to generate the income for offshore is just wrong- whole loads of offshore sites have been grabbed by various energy companies already and they seem confident of being able to make money out of them.
Ethics, infrasound and short term profit- the three key reasons not to have a wind powerstation on your doorstep (or even within a couple of miles).
Ps Remember Burnham, Latchingdon and Southminster residents. There are people out there measuring wind near to you, and taking surveys of soil etc. Measurments have already been made to see how the whole route of the pylons from Bradwell to SWF could be lined with these monster turbines. It may be Bradwell this week- your turn next. And I agree, worries about badger setts pale into insignificance next to these three I mention-and that does not even take into account the effect on birds. Arguments that less birds get killed by wind turbines than are killed by cars and cats are spurious. There is no M25 down on the marshes, precious few cats and it is the big birds- harriers and falcons - who get caught by the turbines, not the low flying birds most often caught by cats.
Messages In This Thread
-
Wind Farm Plans
Troller — 12 Jan 2005 at 20:52 -
wind farms
Catherine Newcombe — 5 Feb 2005 at 18:23 -
Re: wind farms
Tony — 6 Feb 2005 at 19:53 -
Re: wind farms
Cattherine Newcombe — 6 Feb 2005 at 22:18 -
Re: wind farms
Tony — 26 Feb 2005 at 16:23 -
Re: wind farms
Catherine Newcombe — 26 Feb 2005 at 18:54 -
Re: wind farms
Catherine Newcombe — 5 Feb 2005 at 18:30 -
wind farms
Julie — 1 Feb 2005 at 10:37 -
Re: wind farms
Keith — 5 Feb 2005 at 18:48 -
Re: wind farms
Catherine Newcombe — 6 Feb 2005 at 22:01 -
Re: wind farms
Chris — 7 Feb 2005 at 11:22 -
Re: wind farms
Larry — 13 Feb 2005 at 20:08 -
Re: wind farms
Larry — 13 Feb 2005 at 19:42