Collection of facts not exactly science
I found the letter in the Tribune, “Fact vs. fiction ...,” very interesting. When I think of “scientific facts,” I see clean, perfect conditions using specially selected conditions and data to get the desired results. The results are only as good as the money used to fund the research and where the money came from.
I am not sure how or what methods these studies used to establish these clean results for industrial wind turbines (IWTs), but unless they did a boots-on-the-ground study under and around the IWTs for an extended period, they would have no real data of the results of living near an IWT. This would require gathering data for several months to several years, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It would be difficult to duplicate this in a laboratory setting.
The scientific research does not take into account the hundreds of lawsuits around the country and around the world to increase setbacks or shut down IWTs during certain times or limiting their hours of operation. The scientific research does not show the broken blade from an IWT lying in the day care center in El Reno, Okla., last month after a tornado, which conveniently did not make the national news. The scientific research also did not address the issue of property value loss — an issue the BZA thought worthy enough to include in its conditions of the Prairie Breeze project.
Scientific research does not take into account the fact that if the tax incentive money for IWTs was cut off or was never there, we would not be having these issues. I am sure “proponents” of these IWTs would strongly oppose if the government had come in and said, “Your land is good for a wind farm, we are setting one up and thank you for the use of your land.” It’s all about the money!
Gov’t will control leaseholders’ land
I have been silent on wind energy for a while; my colleagues have done a good job on the issue. I can no longer sit back on this issue!
Science teacher Bill White and former teacher Karen Tyner Adams both think this green energy is wonderful. My reaction to this is simply, “Why are countries changing their ordinances to much larger setbacks from homes?” Examples: Germany, 1.5 miles from homes; Australia, 3.1 miles, I can go on. They are some of the countries with three or four decades of experience on wind turbines.
Do you think it is because of animals or people that they made the change? I have two teachers in the family, and they both did their homework and are against wind turbines. At max, they are 30 percent effective. What do you think we will have to back them up with, so we can have electricity 100 percent of the time?
As for the Tipton County Wind Farm Communications’ letter, we had a farmer the other night tell us that upon receiving a contract from the wind turbine company, he took it to his attorney and asked him what he thought of it. The attorney said, “Do you want to have the government control your land for 30 years?” The normal answer is no!
The best this group can hope for is that we win. This will save their land from government control! This group also calls itself a wind farm group. The only farm part of this company is that it plants 300 tons of concrete in the ground for each wind turbine.
I thought good farm ground was to plant crops or raise livestock!