Re: ‘Ask hard questions, seek straight answers on Port Granby wind energy plan’, editorial opinion, durhamregion.com, March 1, 2012.
Your editorial is a poorly informed piece. For most people, doing the research is an almost insurmountable task.
Wind plants do not provide the benefits that are claimed: safe, reliable electricity needed by modern societies, reduction in emissions and fossil fuel use, sustainable jobs, and a secure future. They are damaging to our financial stability, economies, local flora and fauna, and our future well-being. The basis for this is well established in the community of independent, international energy experts. An example of such is a Canadian resident Vaclav Smil, who is amongst the foremost.
Another is Dr. Bob McMurtry, a renowned Canadian physician who leads the international battle by doctors in establishing the growing, peer-reviewed evidence of the risks to human health of industrial-sized wind turbines. Their uphill fight is against opinions held by some in the medical community and the general public.
Their struggle reminds me of the classic issue of disinfecting hands before moving between patients in maternity wards in the 19th century. Due to the lack of a history of scientific “evidence”, this was ignored as not a valid reason for the high incidence of mothers dying. I have heard a pharmacologist say that if there were similar indications today of a drug being as harmful as wind plants, it would immediately be removed from use until sufficient study deemed it safe. What makes the difference? The wind issue is politically charged. It is a story of unproven benefits that sells well to the public.
Canada and Ontario already are among the world leaders in low-emission electricity generation. The only way for Ontarians to eliminate reliance on nuclear generation and keep emissions in check is for us all (hospitals, businesses and homes) to cut our electricity use by 50 per cent.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding