Prove it, Mr. Governor
Credit: Mark J. Cool Falmouth, MA ~~
In a local newspaper the Massachusetts Sec. of Energy and Environmental Affairs Richard K. Sullivan Jr. illustrates the “head-in-the-sand” doctrine that has come to define the disconnect between State government and citizens concerning wind turbine siting and public health.
“While the panel’s work will be valuable in the creation of setbacks and other standards for wind energy projects, the Patrick administration does not believe at this point that there are major health affects from turbines, Sullivan saidÂ….”
With the state wind turbine siting hearings soon to invade the 4 C’s campus, the real facts are: State boards have been offered numerous reports from credible sources, institutions, acousticians and medical clinicians from around the country and indeed the world, all demonstrating the plausibility that industrial wind turbines negatively affect human wellness if poorly sited.
The Patrick administration, as well as Falmouth, has ready access to citizen sufferers as examinable evidence. Yet, the Governor and other legislators cling to the creation of “setbacks” and “other” standards for wind energy projects, all the while, marginalizing any need to re-analyze health standards.
I was taught that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure.
Prolonged and unnecessary suffering in Falmouth, and elsewhere in the state, must stop! The Department of Public Health must employ a full epidemiological study using a fractured Falmouth. Proof, one way or the other, will either remove the health obstacle to renewable energy goals, or force a major siting redesign. “Falmouth Wind Experiment” conclusions do not address the underlying root problem, health impact!
This administration’s buffoonery and slavish attachment to farcical wind energy goals and ineffectual regulatory compliance cannot continue to sacrifice the health and well being of some citizen’s.
Unless of course, the Governor and his subjects are calling us in Falmouth liars? It’s time the Governor proves what he implies. Or, does the “proof” pose to be too politically embarrassing?
