Comment posted Caithness wind farm rejection by newsroom.
Infrasound must count as an emission from wind turbines – and its impacts have been shown by some studies to be damaging to health in a variety of ways for those within its range. This needs additional independent and serious research before we commit so widely to wind power; and certainly to where we site wind farms.
This comment is actually an example of the sort of abusive response to rational concerns we were talking about.
We note you make no reference to the undeniable environmental and human damage done by the toxic waste produced from rare earth separation; nor to the disposal issues around turbine magnets and carbon fibre blades and tower sections – but simply cry a blanket ‘rubbish’ without the need to provide any evidence for the stance.
This is not good enough.
Our own researches have so far not found any solution to the safe disposal of the toxic fluid wastes from rare earth separation processes; or to the safe disposal of carbon fibre blades and sections when decommissioning of wind farms becomes necessary.
If you can cite research evidence for such solutions, we would be very glad to have it and, if it stood up to scientific scrutiny, would enthusiastically promote such knowledge.
newsroom also commented
- You’re quite right, Lowry.
We conceded the point because the connection between Reporter and government might loosely be regarded as rejection at government level – but not, of course, formally so.
- Of course you are quite right about KIlchattan and we will amend the article as necessary. A blind spot for which we gladly apologise – although more frequent rejections hardly support the case for wind farms.
In regard to the use of magnets in other products, the point is the degree of environmental damage, now and later, caused by a massive rise in the scale of demand – which has drive a 2000% price hike in rare earths.
- The issue of steel v carbon fibre is one of recyclability.
We assume you are not claiming that carbon fibre turbine blades would, if buried, become peat beds over an age or two as trees have done?
And the environmental and health damage from the toxic wastes from rare earth production are hugely multiplied by the massive demand for turbine magnets.
The fact that the cost of rare earths has risen by 2000% in the period of the rise of wind power installations does not reflect the rarity of those earths. It reflects a massive rise in demand in a context where China currently controls the supply and, as is the pattern in developing economies, is prepared for the peasant communities on the outskirts of Baotou to take the hit.
The volume of neodymium we needed before this period, to make magnets for things like shavers and laptops, was never at a level to drive such a price hike or produce such a volume of toxic waste as is now the case with the lake at Baotou. That demand and consequent price rise speak for the level of damage we are now running – if not yet in out own back yard – without stopping to think.
Recent comments by newsroom
- Time to stop to think – as the cult sweeps into Campbeltown
In the spirit of what you say, we have removed the joke which signed off the piece above.
There is a distinction between vigorous political campaigning and a level of proselytising that enters the territory of the formation of a cult.
This article is a genuine warning that that line has been crossed; and that sensible people need to consider whether they stay on the dangerous side of that line, join it or retreat from it – while retaining their wish to vote however they like.
- Time to stop to think – as the cult sweeps into Campbeltown
This is not ‘political involvement’ as such, as it is understood – because it is unilateral political involvement and it is being recruited hard, as these three simultaneous initiatives demonstrate.
- As he moves to Cabinet, former Transport Minister tells McGrigor options for the A83 ‘will be kept under review’
Thee are sections of the A83 at Rest and Be Thankful and at Achnatra, where this looks to be an issue.
- ‘And how much would this have cost an independent Scotland?’
Agreed. It was a very serious mistake to insist in the full face of the evidence that the prospectus was correct.
This produced three negatives:
- distrust in competence – because the logic of what was ging to happen was clear [and was spelled out, for example, in For Argyll's own 8-piece series from independent research of the worldwide oil and refining sectors] and denying that logic looked clueless and ham handed;
- distrust in integrity, where competence was assumed;
- resentment at being takes for idiots.
Had the lies on the possession of legal advice on Scotland’s potential EU membership not been told; had the prospectus not been calibrated on endless oil money to pay the bills for extravagant additional increases in benefits, with no increase in taxation; and had there been a well conceived alternative currency proposition, together those would have been worth at least another 5%.
- Clegg dreams of threesome coalition for Westminster in the face of the Groper’s revenge
Thank you db. Corrected to ‘…take some seats from both Labour and the Lib Dems’.
And re yours and Lowry’s remarks on Alan Reid’s position, he lost nearly 5% of his vote last time but both the Conservatives and Labour candidates were between him and the SNP candidate Mike Mackenzie, in fourth place.
This time, Alan Reid has nothing to thank his Leader for tonight.
Clegg’s declaration that the Lib Dems would happily shack up in a Labour coalition with the separatist SNP may well cause the fairly numerous Argyll pro-union voters [alarmed by the growth of support for the SNP since they failed to win the independence referendum] to find a safer place for their votes than the Lib Dems.
Where this happens, we would see the majority of those votes going to the pro-union Labour candidate rather than to the Conservative one, since that party is fielding a candidate untried at this level, from the islands and not widely known across Argyll and Bute.
The SNP in Argyll have too much to purge from the chaos of their betrayal of their electoral support in the local authority election in 2012. They may improve their vote but here, on evidence, they cannot be trusted to put local before party interests and are unlikely to take the seat.
The best bet is on either Alan Reid or the Labour candidate, Mary Galbraith – and it would be a foolish person who wrote off Alan Reid too early.
He may issue silly self promotional material and have developed in his public speaking a shouty manner than does not suit him – but he has been an intelligent, dedicated, unshowy hard working constituency MP whom people will not want to let down.
We do not see the SNP taking Argyll. We would see the Conservative vote fall after Gary Mulvaney’s impressive candidacy last time; but we cannot call it between Alan Reid and Mary Galbraith.
powered by SEO Super Comments