Dear Nancy and Susan, I extend my sincere apologies that you felt threatened by my email. It was intended to express my respect for what you do and simultaneously a concern that not all appropriate information is being considered relative to industrial wind.
I apologize also for sending the email in all caps. I do not appreciate and have never intentionally used all caps in my communications. In review, I believe that when I attached the list of sponsors from “KidWind,” the email automatically converted to caps without my noticing. I have and had no intention to “shout.”
Your response to my spontaneous and private email is, however, unfortunate. I am offended, also, by the resulting ill-considered unprofessional response on the part of David Rainville and The Recorder.
There were no known attempts to reach me via phone or email as claimed by Mr. Rainville and his quoted selections were inappropriately edited and taken out of context.
I wish to confirm my intended respect for what you are doing and accomplishing. Many are appropriately impressed with your goals and programs. In addition to using “please” three times, I conclude with “my humble and otherwise respectful opinion.” “KidWind” and nothing else was the subject of my note.
In light of what has transpired I offer some context for my remarks: I recently have had a private meeting with William Gran, at his request. Mr. Gran is a member of the Greening Greenfield Film Committee and teaches “Introduction to Global Warming” at Greenfield Community College. Industrial wind was a large part of our conversation, which I believe included “KidWind” and my concern for its use at the Hitchcock Center for the Environment in Amherst.
As related to Mr. Gran, I had met previously with the full staff of the Hitchcock Center on the subject of industrial wind. To my understanding, they are now more discriminating in their choice of source materials and not relying on “KidWind.”
My text-corrupting attachment of sponsors was to make certain you are aware of the major wind-promoting corporations that are in collaboration with our National Renewable Energy Laboratory and our Department of Energy. They all sponsor “KidWind.” In their materials, beyond basic physics’ facts, one message prevails – “Industrial Wind is Great” – with no known or appreciable downsides! Some claims of fact are at minimum greatly exaggerated, others simple untruths.
All of this reminds me of Monsanto’s similar and ongoing effort to brainwash our young: “Facing direct opposition from the public, biotechnology giants like Monsanto and Dow are now making a disturbing attempt to brainwash developing minds into accepting their genetically modified foods using blatant lies and propaganda. In a last ditch effort to potentially sway public opinion, the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) has launched the ‘Biotechnology Basics Activity Book’ for kids. With the intent to be used by ‘agriculture and science teachers,’ the activity book spreads absurd lies about GMO crops – even going as far as to say that they ‘improve our health’ and ‘help the environment.’” – Natural Society March 22, 2012. As a long-time environmental educator, living a demanding and complex life has not exempted me from my sometimes blind trust and gullibility that our governments and our corporations are looking out for our best interests. I am now certain that our state and federal governments are not taking care of us! For many, that reality is simply too terrifying to consider. Already burdened, we consider it an unfair obligation to manage personal preservation, largely unaided.
It was not until the past few years that I dug below the surface to discover “the other story” about industrial wind. The magnitude of the wind power hoax perpetrated on societies around the world is unprecedented, as far as I can discern.
That industrial wind will fall of its own weight I have no doubt! But how many New England ridge lines, individuals’ lives, property owner nest eggs and state and national economies will need to be sacrificed before it fails? The thousands of anti-wind organizations around the world attest to the ultimate wisdom residing in the people, including Franklin County people. We need to make sure our youth are in this growing army of self-aware and self-actualizing citizens.
This context, I hope, begins to articulate why I have written to you personally. Knowing what I now know, I can no longer sit idly by and be part of perpetuating the cruel hoax that industrial wind will make any discernable difference. In so many, if not all measurements, industrial wind will, as many predict, make climate and CO2 matters worse!
Certainly everyone has the absolute right to think and believe as he/she wishes, and no one is required to come to the conclusions and convictions I have reached relative to industrial wind. Environmental education has been a large component of my life and career. As educators, we (including newspapers) have the added obligation to be discerning, inclusive and open-minded.
In this complex age, we need critical thinkers knowing there are always two or more sides to an issue. “The Precautionary Principle” needs to be exercised, where we do not implement a technology (such as industrial wind) until it is proven safe and effective. Our environmental education needs also to model this axiom.
Nancy and Susan, with all of the current local discussion as well as articles in The Recorder and Independent, you may not be excused from being more discerning about what you place in front of innocent and trusting youngsters. Any age group is sufficiently able to grasp some aspect of the message that as citizens we must seek out and be interested in alternative views for any subject. I extend continuing respect for what you are undertaking with the plea to be more discerning and inclusive especially in relation to industrial wind.
A safe forum where all views on industrial wind are included is necessary!
Walter Cudnohufsky is an Ashfield resident.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding