Do wind turbines make You sick?

Wind Turbine Human Health Scandal: New Evidence

In today's episode of "Big Government: the Triumph of Central Planning"...

More rumblings of possible links between wind turbines and human sickness. What follows predictably may be something like this...

1) more studies;
2) law suits;
3) more restrictive federal regulations;
4) collapse of private wind turbine investment;
5) federal incentives to "rescue" the wounded wind turbine industry;
6) increased taxes to fund the incentives and "promote green energy".

Guilty plea in bird deaths at wind farms a first - New York News

Guilty plea in bird deaths at wind farms a first - New York News

Here's Your government at work, and I'm not making any of this up...

Between 2009 and 2013 165 birds were killed by wind turbines belonging to Duke Energy Corp.  Wind turbines... You know, those "environmentally friendly" 300 feet tall towers with giant, rotating blades, that are so wonderful to the feds that Your tax dollars are being used to subsidize their construction?

Well, federal law holds that when birds are killed by wind turbines this really is a BIG deal, and so the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Justice Department are cranking up some righteous indignation to prosecute the perpetrators of this carnage.  In a nutshell, if a bird snuffs it by colliding with one of Your federally subsidized rotating blades, and You don't have a federal permit to kill birds with rotating blades, Your kiester's in the chopper.  If You have the permit, it's still bad, but sort of permitted.  But it's a serious enough offense that if a bird approaches one of Your wind turbines, You need to SHUT DOWN the turbine in time to prevent harming the bird. If this means installing bird-detecting radar, and hiring field biologists to watch for birds, so be it.

Duke has had to "plead guilty" and pay $1 million in fines.  They also need to "draft a plan to reduce eagle and bird deaths" at its wind farms.  Oh, and every bird killed must be reported to the feds.

Apparently wind turbines are very good for the environment, unless You actually operate them.

Question: Do wind turbines kill as many birds as buildings, planes, trains, and motor vehicles?

Fukushima radiation levels

1) Fukushima Update

2) radiation risks -Wikipedia

3) Low Levels of Radioactive Material Begin to Be Detected Across Pacific -Wall Street Journal

Source 1 claims that a radiation level of 21.4 uSv/h (microSieverts per hour) was detected on 17 March 2011 at Fukushima City, 60km (~38 miles) west of the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

Source 2 claims that 100 mSv/yr (milliSieverts per year) are the "lowest clearly carcinogenic level".

Source 3 claims, "As a rule, doubling the distance from the source cuts exposure by a factor of four, says the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."

Conclusions:

1. 100mSv/year = ~11uSv/hour, which, accumulated over a year, represent a dosage at a "clearly carcinogenic level".
2. The 21.4uSv/h level reported at Fukushima City, 38 miles west of the nuclear accident, is approximately twice the "lowest clearly carcinogenic level". Note that this assumes a constant dosage at this level for an entire year.

Clarendon Hills Middle School wind turbine blows $51,000

Middle school starts up new wind turbine — Hinsdale news, photos and events — TribLocal.com: "

Sanity check: $51,000 for a wind turbine that produces $582 per year will recover its initial cost in 87 years, if we naively assume it can be maintained at zero cost. Even if we assume steep growth in the cost of electricity (7% per year) and zero maintenance, the break-even point still is at least several decades, much longer than the equipment will actually survive. Economically this project is unjustifiable, and amounts to $51,000 that no longer can be spent usefully inside the school building on teachers, books, lab equipment, or computers.

Who are the wind turbine's biggest beneficiaries? Follow the money.

Middle school wind turbine benefits equipment makers, not students

Turbine whips up interest - Triblocal - Voice of the town

Dear Editor,

The new, $24,000 wind turbine at Thomas Middle School poses some thorny questions: What is its economic value, and what is its educational value?

With a peak rated output of 2.4 kilowatts, this wind turbine can generate 57 kWh (kilowatt-hours) per day if there is constant wind. But wind isn't constant, and wind turbines typically operate at about 30% peak capacity.[1] This offers the school electricity worth about $1.38 per day at today's electric rates. Let's figure out when the turbine will "pay for itself". We start with several assumptions biased in favor of the wind turbine:

1. The equipment never requires repair or maintenance -such an assumption wouldn't be optimistic so much as foolish.
2. The total upfront cost of the installation is $24,000, or $10,000 per kW. Yes, $10,000 of this came through a State of Illinois grant, but we taxpayers still foot the entire cost. And let’s assume that if this sum were invested elsewhere, it could earn about 3% annually.
3. All the generated power is used productively by the school or returned to the grid. (Whether this is the case, the Trib article doesn't reveal.)
4. The cost of electricity today is about 8 cents per kWh. Let's assume it will increase steeply at 7% every year.

"Honey... did we buy the extended warranty?"

Given these assumptions, our wind turbine will “break even” in the year 2044, when today's 7th graders are 46 years old: that is, after 34 years operation without repair or maintenance, and only after a hypothetical tenfold increase in electric rates. Using more realistic assumptions, there's no reasonable hope that this project ever will recover its cost to taxpayers.

How will the wind turbine benefit our students educationally? Will they learn how wind turbines generate electricity? Great! But this can be taught in the classroom, and in hands-on labs with much less expensive equipment.

Will the wind turbine be used to teach students how to think critically, how to estimate the costs and benefits of such a project? Will they learn that some projects advertised as "green" actually waste more resources than they conserve: that sometimes "green" is only skin deep?

True conservation, true "green renewal", requires good use of our resources, and minimizing economic waste is part of the environmental equation. Our science students need to learn this, and we can teach the concept, but wasting money on unneeded equipment teaches a perverse lesson: that waste is good. In fact, we can teach science much better without our own turbine, because the funds wasted on this equipment could be better used to augment faculty, books, and labs... or to supplement next year's budget.

The solar panels installed at the school three years ago failed to generate much interest. Their economic benefit also has been uninspiring: a total generated output of 1252 kWh[2], worth only $100. Dare we ask what the solar panels cost to purchase and install? Have they proved to be a good investment either educationally or economically? Who profited most from the solar panels: the students, or those who sold the system? What other educational opportunities were lost when the solar panels were funded? What reason is there to believe the wind turbine will provide any greater benefit than the solar panels? How long will the wind turbine capture attention before there are proposals to buy the next New Thing?

Education dollars are precious and we can't afford to squander them. For the sake of our children we need to urge our schools to sharpen their priorities and make the best possible use of the available funds. We shouldn’t tolerate wasteful spending at the expense of our children.

________________________________________

[1] American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html.
[2] As of 9/13/2010. Arlington Heights School District 25: http://www.ahsd25.k12.il.us/schools/thomas/science/solarPanel.php, http://view2.fatspaniel.net/PV2Web/merge?view=PV/detailDC/HostedAdmin&eid=88637.

Caritas Internationalis clamors for climate control?

Caritas charges Japan, Russia attempting to subvert climate talks -Catholic Culture

Caritas Internationalis-- the consortium of Catholic relief agencies-- has charged that Japan, Russia, and other wealthy nations are attempting to subvert climate negotiations in Copenhagen by sidelining the controversial Kyoto Protocol. Referring to poorer nations' "fear that rich countries are trying to kill the strongest legal climate agreement we have," an Irish Caritas representative said, "As heads of state come to Copenhagen in this second week, it's up to rich countries to get the talks back on track by re-committing to the Kyoto Protocol."

"Abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be a step back for all countries, but especially for the world’s poorest. For them the negotiations are a matter of survival," added a Caritas representative from Scotland. "Vulnerable communities across the world need a fair, ambitious and binding climate agreement, of which the Kyoto Protocol is an essential element."

Caritas is pushing for the Kyoto Protocol? How will the world's poor be better off if the world's largest wealth-producing economies are strangled to death? Who, then, will provide the goods, services, and consumer markets that developing nations need in order to develop and prosper?

The worst scientific scandal of our generation?

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph

...Perhaps the most obvious [revelation]... is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws...

The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction - to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards...

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods...

...Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Whoops! It looks like the Warmers have been caught with their temperatures down. See who's feeling warm now.

But the Warmers are still after the greenbacks, so they won't easily be dissuaded from yoking the world to their Gospel of Warmth. To save the world, we and our children's children will have to give, give, give until it hurts.

Compact Fluorescent Lamps -what are the real costs?

Jack, thanks for Your informative article, Compact Fluorescent Lamp.

Here’s a CFL concern I’ve been thinking about but really haven’t seen addressed elsewhere…

When I flip a wall switch at home to turn on one or more CFLs, I often hear a pretty large arc in the switch: “snap!”. It’s not just one switch, this happens on different circuits. I suspect that CFLs perhaps have a rather high inrush current, and this may cause accelerated wear of switch contacts. Time will tell whether a few years down the road people will begin to discover that light switches are failing prematurely and need to be replaced. Bad switch contacts can pose a fire hazard, but many people may never recognize such a problem or its risk. Among those who do, many may never decide to seek repairs.

CFLs offer attractive savings in energy use to the consumer, but I don’t see that the disadvantages of CFLs are being addressed seriously in the public square.

It would be good to see more evaluation and discussion of these CFL concerns:

• How much health risk does accidental CFL breakage pose to consumers?
  
• At a national and global level how much mercury is projected to be released into the environment through CFL disposal? How might we manage CFL disposal to minimize this environmental damage?
  
• What is the risk of fire and smoke damage due to failure and abnormal overheating of CFLs?
  
• How does the rate of catastrophic failure compare between CFLs and incandescent bulbs?
  
• How do CFLs impact the reliability of electrical switches?
  
• How can CLF manufacturers and users address the unpleasant color rendering of many CFLs in home environments?
  
• Do CFLs pose a risk of UV damage to fabrics, home, and office furnishings?
  
• How do all these risks impact the long term economic, environmental, and health costs of CFLs?
  
• How will widespread adoption of CFLs impact power generation and distribution (-an issue raised in Your report)?
  

Thanks again for Your report, which is a helpful contribution to this discussion.

Media supports administration's interference in auto industry

Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet -My Way News

The U.S. auto industry hasn't yet been completely subjected to federal control, so in order to crush its chance to survive as a private sector industry, the federal government must impose more onerous restrictions. But the federal government doesn't have to do this on its own... it has the help of the fawning media, whose enthusiastic support and nearly constant refusal to investigate and criticize the administration's claims is obvious:

"Car companies are rewiring vehicles so components such as air conditioners and power steering pumps are powered by electricity rather than by the engine, saving fuel."

-Really? Where does the electricity come from? Electric power in today's cars is generated by an alternator, which is a device that converts mechanical energy from the engine into electrical energy. But some of the energy it uses inevitably is wasted in the conversion process, which is one reason why somethings in a car, such as the power-hungry air condition compressor, have long been powered directly by the engine, and not electrically. So why does now powering these items electrically necessarily reduce fuel consumption? ...this question isn't mentioned much less explained in this article.

"Rechargeable electric vehicles, which under government calculations could get 100 mpg or more, will help automakers meet the standards..."

"100 mpg" from an electric vehicle? 100 miles per gallon of what? Per gallon of electricity?? Who wrote this, a fifth grader?

And why, when hybrid and electric vehicles are praised in the press, do we never seem to hear anything about the long-term cost and environmental impact of manufacturing, recycling, and disposing of all the millions of tons of lithium, cadmium, and other toxic materials used in the batteries? Or the cost in increased injuries and loss of life associated with the widespread use of miniature clown cars sharing the road with trucks and larger, older vehicles?

Talking points for President Bush's State of the Union Address

President Bush, here are the points You need to make tonight:

The most basic function of a just government is the protection of basic human rights. Elective abortion denies these basic rights to our nation's posterity. Mr. President, deliver a bold, passionate moral argument to inspire and motivate the decent citizens of this country to bar elective abortions in all but the most extreme cases. C'mon, George, this is Your last term. Show us some guts.

Our national borders need to be protected. Terrorists are trying to destroy this country, and our borders are not secure. No more illegal immigration. Use the military if necessary to secure the borders. Revise immigration laws where needed. Enforce them aggressively.

End the war in Iraq by escalating the war. Escalate the intensity of military force to crush the terrorists in Iraq. Then declare victory and pull out.

Recover the passion for limited government. Drop harebrained, expensive, and unnecessary programs such as the manned mission to Mars. Cut taxes while slashing federal spending on notoriously wasteful programs such as welfare and education. Let the states and private charities fill the gap.

Kill Iran's program to develop nuclear weapons. With or without the cooperation of Euorpe. President Ahmadinejad appears to be a psycopath on par with Adolf Hitler. Stop him. If necessary, use force to prevent his creating international havoc, or else we will all pay dearly.

Contain North Korea. Neutralize its nuclear program. Isolate and neutralize its murderous dictator Kim Jong Il.

We are vulnerable to hostile foreign sources of energy. Open the Arctic National Wildlike Refuge and other natural resouces to resposible drilling for oil and gas. Encourage coal production and expand nuclear power generation.

Isolate and neutralize Hamas. Not a dime to the terrorists.

More to come, if I get a few minutes...