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!