Negative effects are proven
Credit: The Shetland Times, www.shetlandtimes.co.uk 20 May 2011 ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
In a final reply to Mr Morrison’s comments, I would like to add the following information. Strobe and flicker effect are not “possible effects” but proven – ask any epileptic or migraineur.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change assessments for shadow flicker is based on industry standard computer modelling. The DECC claims that “in general shadow flicker is unlikely to have significant impact at distances greater than 10 rotor diameters.”
This is based on background research by A D Clark, a researcher for the Open University in 1991. He admits this was a short study concerned with only one relatively small turbine.
The government, ie DECC, refused a request by an individual to see the results of the Hayes McKenzie Partnership report 2006, claiming it was not in the public interest for these to be released.
Under a following Freedom of Information request it was shown that the then Government suppressed HMP’s expert advice to lower wind turbine noise limits intended to protect residents.
Germany actually appears to be the only country with a guidline that shadow flicker is negligible only at a distance of two kilometres away. However, the Neurosciences Institute, Ashton University 2008 states that “the risk of seizure does not decrease significantly until the distance exceeds 100 times the height of the (turbine) hub”.
Since the government is promoting building wind turbine energy – it is not likely to be in a hurry to get the NHS to delve into the health issues area, although the NHS did state in 2010 that studies are needed.
Environmental Protection UK, the World Health Organisation and many acousticians agree that the present noise levels will lead to increasing numbers of cases where people’s health will be damaged by low frequency noise and strobe from turbines. So it’s a case of not “if” but “when”.
Viking Energy did not bother themselves with a Public Health Impact Assessment – not strictly neccessary for planning but would be considered appropriate to do so by most concerned industries.
When I brought the health issues up at the full SIC meeting regarding the Viking Energy proposal, I was astonished that one of the nine councillors who happily voted the project through, admitted she knew nothing about the assosciated health problems. I question if any of the councillors even thought to research this area.
I could go on at length about the horror stories from people who have and are experiencing health problems as a result of living near these turbines and the underhand way that the wind industry is trying to belittle their genuine symptoms – not just in this country either.
Renewable energy is selective. It seems that we have to forsake our environment in order that cities can maintain their urbanite population’s inability to forgo any of their energy-wasteful lifestyle. Oh dear, my mistake, this project is not about saving the planet – it’s all about making money.
Mr Morrison has clearly stated he is in favour of the destruction of these beautiful islands in the lascivious quest for wealth at all cost. To me, this attutude beggars belief.
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding