If you click on the post you will find an article on the current wind controversy which includes discussion on the issue in the Town of Union. The audio and video of these discussions can be found on the Evansville Observer on the right side under Town of Union Meetings---and you can even subscribe to get future audio by RSS and access all the past available by clicking the "XML" link.
One of the commenters on the article praised it for being "balanced." In reviewing the article, I find it infected with "spin."
The Town of Union task force that investigated the wind turbine issue produced a voluminous report with much evidence from all over the world---the World Health Organization and many European countries have data as old as twenty years on this issue.
Thus: The statement that the health effects are just "anecdotal" is just a public relations spin---there is evidence. The Town of Union found it. The State of Wisconsin did not---and did not because they did NOT look for it.
Secondly: The notion is advanced near the end of the article that folks that are opposed to wind all of a sudden get sensitive to noise---a little psychosomatic thing. I think not. Rather-----I believe that the sleep disturbance effect on the young which has an effect on language acquisition and the effect on the elderly with balance and the middle aged with high blood pressure and heart disease are matters that need to be reviewed by health researchers and not politicians.
The research in the Town of Union study group file suggests that the set back should be 1.5 miles. The ordinance proposed by the study group made it 1/2 mile. A strong case could be made that that is far too close a set back given the research available.
I love wind. I love a good night's sleep. I want both. I want balance. That is my kind of balance.
The white shoe public relations firms have been hired. The are fast at work. It is time for concentration on the facts of the issue before us and not just the spin.
That is how I see it.
And YOU?
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As one who conducted hours and hours of research for the Union Township, I wish to set the record straight on the ½ mile recommendation for setbacks in Union Township. People seem to fail to understand the Committee’s setback recommendation.
ReplyDeleteOur ½ mile recommendation is the bare minimum. We would prefer 1 mile setbacks. After reviewing all of our research, I personally, would require the distance be 1.5 miles from any inhabited structures to ensure safety.
The ½ mile setback we keep reading about is the bare minimum and is consistent with the work of the National Research Council.
It is my hope that the Union Town Board will implement a setback much greater than ½ mile.
Scot McElroy
Union Township Research Committee member