waldo Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 Can't say I'm disappointed to see old Waldo getting schooled on so many fronts, hey? are you still... still... smarting Simple? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 The only reference I can find to support this claim are adverts in the 50s where 9 or 10 doctors recommended brand X. Saying that if you want to kill yourself you will do more slowly with Brand X is not the same as recommending smoking. I also saw another reference to a nurses association that recommended smoking to pregnant women keep the birth weight down. As bizarre as it is it does not suggest that smoking is 'good for you'. In retrospect, why would a doctor promote smoking in any case? And it was not about the carcinogenics it was about how smooth the smoke was, how refreshing it was. Studies came out, the tobacco industry got slapped. And even then they said there was no links between smoking and cancer. Now we know different. The tobacco pushed back and said there was no link, here look at their studies! But the tobacco industry could be trusted to tell you the truth right? Same mentality exists today with things like GMOs. Seemed like a good thing at the time, but ...... and the peer reviews .... We are only starting to understand the effects of wind turbines on the environment and ourselves. It's always a case of 'Well seemed like a good idea at the time, but we did not think it all the way through'. And why is this an issue? Agendas possibly. It's not surprising since you don't find an overall problem with nuclear energy (claiming zero emissions) and do not find an overall potential problem here with wind turbines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 Another opinion on Nissenbaum's paper; it appears they broke no new ground with their research.. http://www.canwea.ca/media/release/release_e.php?newsId=165 ya, I had noted the author affiliations when the link was first dropped - nothing like... 'unbiased sources' to tailor, per some of the critical review I've read, the smallest of sampling size, suspect randomness of sampling, a suggestion of physical health impacts without providing detailed assessment results, unclear statistical modeling to support the presented regression curves, no alternate and/or coincident causal ties to compromised mental health were considered, etc.. alternatively, a just released review/report the the Victorian Department of Health in Australia: Review rejects claims wind turbines cause health problems A review by the Victorian Department of Health has found that inaudible sounds caused by wind turbines do not have adverse affects on human health. Groups opposed to wind turbines claim that they can cause a range of health problems including sleeplessness, depression, hypertension, heart attacks and memory dysfunction. The review says sound can only affect health at levels that are loud enough to be easily heard. However it acknowledges that annoyance is a recognised health effect of noise and can contribute to other health effects such as sleep disturbance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 I did call it out...in my usual pithy style....and don't need your permission to do so...never did. Everybody gets a voice here as long as forum rules are followed, even when you don't like it. Local, provincial, and federal regulation of "windmills" and "windmill farms" can vary greatly, so the typical amount of great google copy and pasting doesn't always apply. no - you didn't call anything out; you weren't at all specific on any level, any account... again, as I said, "if you think something doesn't apply because a reference cite reflects on a particular location you take exception to, call it out... and be prepared to state why it doesn't apply - you know, something other than a/your predilection for trolling." If you have a regulatory based concern that something stated/quoted/cited, by anyone, doesn't apply to the OP... raise your manufactured concern. Until you can actually bring something concrete/specific forward... you remain, perpetually 'tilting at windmills'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 which frankly goes against he forum rules and guidelines. You're required to substantiate your claims. This is woefully lacking on the opposition's side and being thinly cloaked under the false notion of making their "own" arguments. no kidding... that's rich! They feel no need to provide substantiation... "These are my own words... my own argument, "they" say"! A few of the worst offenders, are those who regularly trot out the same ole, same ole... even though its been debunked in the past; often several times in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 no - you didn't call anything out; you weren't at all specific on any level, any account.. I didn't have to be as the general point and observation was obvious to all that passed geography class. Your wannabe comparisons did not serve you well for Kyoto or here. Just sayin'..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) It's not surprising since you don't find an overall problem with nuclear energy (claiming zero emissions) and do not find an overall potential problem here with wind turbines.It is cost vs. benefit. Nothing is zero risk and the question is always "do the cost/risks out weigh the benefits". When it comes to nuclear it is pretty clear the potential benefits outweigh the risks. With wind power the benefits are low to non-existent so the risks become more relevant. Edited June 3, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) it's simply too easy to shoot em' down... as I've done for eons now!You see this is a perfect example of your clueless and dishonest debating tactics. I made a very specific point: that you do not address the points made by a source but simply hurl ad homs at the source. You ignore that point completely and claim that your endless ad homs mean you presented a meaningful argument. It is delusional nonsense. I can also understand why you disparage putting an argument into your own words because that would require that you understand the material that you are parroting - something which is clearly beyond your capabilities. Edited June 3, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 I found this on the CBC. Whenever someone who doesn't actually live in the area affected says there is no scientific evidence linking the ailments to the suggested cause, I take it with a grain of salt. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/05/27/edmonton-bitumen-oilsands-peace-country-health.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 ... With wind power the benefits are low to non-existent so the risks become more relevant. Only if you are already opposed to wind power... there are very few benefits to BC with the northern pipeline and yet you criticized BC for its stance on the risks vs. rewards... even going so far as calling anyone opposed to the pipeline a "Luddite". But now you are concerned with bats and birds! LOL The term hypocrite comes to mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 There is a wind farm being built on northern Vancouver Island. http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/timberwest-looks-to-build-wind-towers-to-explore-island-s-power-potential-1.110413 http://www.seabreezepower.com/north_vancouver_island.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 It is cost vs. benefit. Nothing is zero risk and the question is always "do the cost/risks out weigh the benefits". When it comes to nuclear it is pretty clear the potential benefits outweigh the risks. With wind power the benefits are low to non-existent so the risks become more relevant. Nuclear power stations have risks and when things go wrong, everybody is having a bad day. You did not believe it when some experts said meltdowns occurred at Fukushima at the start and would only believe it after Tepco made the announcement, shrugging it off at the same time and downplay the radiation that is still coming out of that place. In a similar situation in Japan, with a quake and a flood, wind turbines don't go into meltdown. And you will still have to dispose of some toxic material through the life of the turbine, you don't have to worry about it being used as a weapon , and you don't have to worry about radioactivity when figuring out a solution that will safely store radioactive material for centuries. I've never been around wind turbines long enough to witness this infrasound, but I know that certain frequencies can have strange effects on people. But again it would have to be pushed out at more than 90db, can be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) Only if you are already opposed to wind power... there are very few benefits to BC with the northern pipeline and yet you criticized BC for its stance on the risks vs. rewards... even going so far as calling anyone opposed to the pipeline a "Luddite". But now you are concerned with bats and birds! LOL The term hypocrite comes to mind... Not so much bats and birds as people. I don't know what the minimum distance is that they can be placed from a resident(in Canada), but I remember a recent court case in the UK reduced it from over a km to quite a bit under a km (memory here). If people say they are suffering the effects of such close quarters, are they to be ignored? Especially for something that is generally there only so a government can say it is doing something, without actually doing something. Edited June 3, 2013 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) there are very few benefits to BC with the northern pipeline and yet you criticized BC for its stance on the risks vs. rewards.BC has legal and moral obligation to allow other partners in the federation to get their goods to market. If BC feels that the risk/reward ratio for the northern gateway is too large then the southern line should be expanded. I am not personally convinced the northern line is worthwhile. I would rather see a pipeline through Ontario + a pipeline through Vancouver. The only people I call Luddites are people who mindlessly oppose all pipelines under any conditions or who reject the notion that BC has an legal and moral obligation to find a way for Alberta to get its goods to the pacific coast. How would BC fare if Washington State and Alberta decided to prohibit the passage of BC products through their territory? I am sure people in BC would be up is arms (and rightly so). Edited June 4, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 I didn't have to be as the general point and observation was obvious to all that passed geography class. Your wannabe comparisons did not serve you well for Kyoto or here. Just sayin'..... since you acknowledge not being specific about anything, what was the offending post (or series of posts) that caused your ultra-sensitivities to kick in and resulted in your, as described, "general point and observation" post? Given the Ontario locale to the OP's 'wind turbine syndrome', what related post(s) took liberties with location? In your most generalized account, didn't you say something about a "regulatory concern"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 I made a very specific point: that you do not address the points made by a source but simply hurl ad homs at the source. citation request Buddy, like I said, in those rarest of rare occasions, when you actually do cite something, when instead of parroting you actually drop a link, your ready reference list consists of your favoured blog science denier sites. Those are the links I treasure! Come to think of it, I recall not long back you puffed up with a 'Bob Tisdale' gem... from WTFIUWT no less! Per norm, a guy with no understanding... out on the fringe!... just another of your "blog non-scientists" who remains unpublished to this day! Your kind of "expert"! . I can also understand why you disparage putting an argument into your own words because that would require that you understand the material that you are parroting - something which is clearly beyond your capabilities. you're deluded - your parroting is so pronounced, it's the principal reason you refuse to provide cite references to your forever unsubstantiated claims. Your personal criticisms of me are laughable... your long standing charade presence on this board has been one punctuated regularly with your ongoing nonsense founded on, "themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption, selling disaster porn, rent seeking, etc., etc., etc.". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) since you acknowledge not being specific about anything, what was the offending post (or series of posts) that caused your ultra-sensitivities to kick in and resulted in your, as described, "general point and observation" post? Given the Ontario locale to the OP's 'wind turbine syndrome', what related post(s) took liberties with location? In your most generalized account, didn't you say something about a "regulatory concern"? "Industry data" compiled at the national or even global level for installed "wind power" will not silence the growing criticism of how these "monstrosities" are being sited and operated as unquestioned sacrifices to the Gods of Green. The questionable cost vs. benefits are also getting closer scrutiny in Canada (e.g. Stromness Ontario (Haldimand County)) as people wise up and ask harder health, environmental, and government subsidy questions. Since you LOVE American references so much, here is a fun one that works at a very basic level: Edited June 4, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 of course... there were no posts! And again, why did you raise a concern about 'offending references' in conflict with the OP/Ontario locale? So, yours was a manufactured and unwarranted raised concern then, hey? are you really sure you want to highlight affects to pristine environments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 of course... there were no posts! And again, why did you raise a concern about 'offending references' in conflict with the OP/Ontario locale? So, yours was a manufactured and unwarranted raised concern then, hey? are you really sure you want to highlight affects to pristine environments? No, mine was a post just like any other member's. I will "raise a concern" whenever I feel like it, without regard to your "sensitivities". Cramming these windmills down local community throats has its share of problems that the Green police refuse to recognize. Sorry if Ontario strikes too close to home, but the 'global village' dodge and U.S. / EU references don't always work. And yes, I do want to highlight the impact, because other environmentally destructive sources provide lots more reliable (baseload) energy than do wind turbines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) This is a new peer reviewed study, but no one has suggested that turbines be anned. While we are at then, let's ban x-rays, smoke, air water and food.. People want longer set backs, to a minimum of 1.4 kms. Today in Ontario it`s only 550 metres. Wait until they want to put some close to your house and see how you feel. Seems to me the same people who whine about pollution don`t care about adverse health affects when it comes to projects they like and agree with. While I'm not sure about health effects, I can certainly say that these things negatively affect quality of living for people living nearby and make it harder to sleep for sure. As for 550 metres, some people don't even get THAT sort of consideration. This baby was just build a little while ago near my cottage and it's definitely not 550 metres away from us or some of the other cottagers and residents. http://london.ctvnews.ca/caw-turbine-in-port-elgin-starts-spinning-1.1213979I would say that the stupidity behind building a wind turbine directly above a tourist beach in a tourist town defies comprehension, but I'd be lying. I'm surprised by very little nowadays in terms of green energy fiascos. Equally unsurprising are how many 'for sale' signs have gone up for properties in the immediate area, including my own! Edited June 4, 2013 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) No, mine was a post just like any other member's. I will "raise a concern" whenever I feel like it, without regard to your "sensitivities". except what you raised was a baseless citation/reference concern, as you now acknowledge by not being able to provide an actual example in this thread. Cramming these windmills down local community throats has its share of problems that the Green police refuse to recognize. Sorry if Ontario strikes too close to home, but the 'global village' dodge and U.S. / EU references don't always work. dd And yes, I do want to highlight the impact, because other environmentally destructive sources provide lots more reliable (baseload) energy than do wind turbines. just who are the "Green Police" you repeatedly speak of... can we put a face to the name? reliable? Baseload? You really should familiarize yourself with capacity factors, hey? The only fossil-fuel based capacity factor that beats wind associates with coal plants... wind beats natural gas fired & oil. In fact, with the most recent advances in wind tech, wind's capacity factor is 3 times that of a natural gas fired plant. We've already dispatched the nonsense on reliability... even on a localized regional level, pooling the outputs from multiple wind farms significantly reduces the wind variability issue. (caveat: the reference to natural gas fired is with respect to conventional plants... not newer 'combined cycle' plant infrastructures.) . Edited June 4, 2013 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 except what you raised was a baseless citation/reference concern, as you now acknowledge by not being able to provide an actual example in this thread. Not baseless for thousands of residents in Ontario and other places. Your opinion matters no more than mine or theirs, which probably count more as residents in their respective jurisdictions. If you don't like the issues that I "raise", put me on ignore and have a nice day. The obvious alarmist shout-down techniques won't work here. Sorry wind and religious wind bags....welcome to the real world. Turns out that wind needs a concurrent generation capacity from another technology...that's what "we've learned". Pool that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted June 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) ......................... http://london.ctvnews.ca/caw-turbine-in-port-elgin-starts-spinning-1.1213979 I would say that the stupidity behind building a wind turbine directly above a tourist beach in a tourist town defies comprehension, but I'd be lying. I'm surprised by very little nowadays in terms of green energy fiascos. Equally unsurprising are how many 'for sale' signs have gone up for properties in the immediate area, including my own! Less than 550, that's not right. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/subject/wind_energy/ it shouldn't have happened. This is part of the problem, McGuinty took away the rights of municipalities to have any say in the matter. Not only that, environmental concerns don't matter when it comes to wind turbines. http://www.savethebluffs.ca/ I can`t imagine wind turbines at East Point Park, it would be a desecration. It seems there is enough opposition to this one to stall it. http://torontoobserver.ca/2012/09/29/scarborough-bluffs-wind-gauge-removed-from-lake-ontario/ and in my area http://www.protectnorthumberlandhills.org/ Edited June 4, 2013 by scribblet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 just who are the "Green Police" you repeatedly speak of... can we put a face to the name?. Hmm...I wonder. If you don't like the issues that I "raise", put me on ignore and have a nice day. The obvious alarmist shout-down techniques won't work here. Oh there we go. He was mockingly referring to you, but you knew that. Maybe a change in attitude is in order, or maybe your caustic attitude to anyone who disagrees with you or questions your position is an attempt to continue earning sarcastic labels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 I can`t imagine wind turbines at East Point Park, it would be a desecration. It seems there is enough opposition to this one to stall it. http://torontoobserver.ca/2012/09/29/scarborough-bluffs-wind-gauge-removed-from-lake-ontario/ It didn't really matter in Port Elgin. The streets surrouding the CAW complex were, with zero exaggeration, filled with STOP (the turbine) signs at every single address. There are large billboards all over town, large parts of the community are boycotting CAW products. the town council rejected it (and were overruled by the Ontario Municipal Board) AND the 550 meter rules were superceded to allow it to go through. You would have a hard time finding stupider places to put the damn thing, but there you go - Green Activism at it's best! http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/01/26/caw_faces_boycott_over_port_elgin_wind_turbine.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.