Seabeds and Turbines

From "The Examiner"


Challenge to Newsweek to correct omissions in their recent Wind Farm article
August 21, 4:10 PMWildlife Conservation ExaminerCathy TaibbiPrevious Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe Subscribe



Puffin. Photo: WikipediaFollowing is a letter penned by Jim Wiegand, Wildlife Biologist, in response to the recent Newsweek article I linked in my last story on the Queen Charlotte fight against a proposed prop-style wind farm. (Used with permission.)

I would like to preface that the fight isn’t simply to protect birds (as important as that is). The proposed construction will damage the local, economically vital crabbing industry and require the dredging and permanent destruction of crucial seabed – impacting ALL marine life in the area. See the letter below:

Delkatla Sanctuary Society

Box 246, Masset BC VOT IMO

THE NAIKUN OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY PROJECT will cause irreparable environmental damage to Hecate Strait

Naikun says “no significant adverse effects are expected” from a wind farm in Hecate Strait

NOT TRUE - In the first of five phases Naikun plans to:

Scour 100 square kilometres of the Dogfish Banks sea bed
Remove up to 320,000 cubic metres (approximately 32,000 dump truck loads) of the sea bottom to a maximum depth of 8 metres (24 feet). (Naikun’s Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate, Volume 2 – Project Design. Page 2-17).
This is one of the major halibut, crab and clam ‘nurseries’ in Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance. Removing this natural seabed will be devastating.
THIS IS ONLY THE FIRST PHASE –

§ The total wind farm area is actually 560square kilometres, most of which will be dredged.

§ Total estimated dredgeate of the seabed will be 1.15 million cubic metres (160,000 dump truck loads) to a maximum depth of 8 metres (24 feet).

§ Practically all the natural seabed of the Dogfish Banks will be stripped.

In addition, there are increasing concerns about the risks of the rotating blades on humans, including effects on the inner ear and emotional problems in children

1. sleep disturbance
2. headache
3. tinnitus (pronounced “tin-uh-tus"; ringing or buzzing in the ears)
4. ear pressure
5. dizziness (a general term that includes vertigo, lightheadedness, sensation of almost fainting, etc.)
6. vertigo (clinically, vertigo refers to the sensation of spinning, or the room moving)
7. nausea
8. visual blurring
9. tachycardia (rapid heart rate)
10. irritability
11. problems with concentration and memory
12. panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep

There are even concerns about the rapid heartbeat that accompanies exposure to the machines.

With all this in mind, I reprint the letter from Mr. Wiegand to Newsweek.

Editor, I read over your Newsweek story “Birds vs. Environmentalists? concerning the conflict between prop wind turbines and wildlife. I understand this problem better than most so I thought I would comment on the content of the story and provide additional background.

The Newsweek article is useless in solving the Prop turbine bird/bat mortality problem and dealing with the proliferation of the prop turbines across America. First of all NOTHING is said about new turbine designs. There are new vertical shaft turbine and other designs that produce far more wind energy than prop turbines. This is very important because this would also solve the bird mortality problem and produce more energy. Birds and bats fly around these designs and do not try to fly through blades spinning at 200 mph. It is absurd that this was left out of the article.

The use of the word “Mitigate” by the wind industry is a joke. The industry uses this term regularly and they claim to have a right to mitigate any environmental problem. This term is also used in all their Environmental Impact Reports. Anytime you see this word put out by the industry think of it as posturing, a legal dance, or a comforting hand holding session by the industry that goes nowhere.

Part of the mitigation process involves studies. Studies are important in the mitigation process for two reasons, first it is a good reason to stall for years and second studies can be slanted or rigged. This is how the industry dealt with the slaughtered birds of prey issue at Altamont pass. Look at the two golden eagle studies and the vertical shaft turbine comparison study for Altamont pass. These are published as being credible and scientific but they were rigged for the benefit of the wind industry. Anyone that tried to stop the killing at Altamont Pass was engaged in this entirely corrupt process. At this point any new studies are virtually meaningless. The problems are already known… birds and bats are not compatible with prop turbines and never will be. Blades tips that spin at over 300 ft or the length of a football field per second are much faster than any bird.

Committees and proposed legislation as mentioned in the article are also useless. It is just part of the posturing process. Look at this statement in the article.

“Mostly conducting research such as determining the extent to which an area being considered for wind development can harm wildlife. If the potential is great, the AWWI will recommend the project be abandoned; if there are less dangerous consequences, the committee may suggest certain measures to minimize any potential impact. Curtailment—or shutting down the turbines at times when bats or migratory birds appear and are more vulnerable to collision—is one such measure.”

The “AWWI will recommend” and “the committee may suggest certain measures”. These are carefully chosen words written by lawyers that mean absolutely nothing. It is again just industry posturing from our corrupt green friends.

The final statement in the article….."We understand that certainly there are impacts, but they need to be viewed in the larger context, "It's not wind energy versus nothing; it's wind energy versus some other form of energy which will also invariably have an impact—potentially more of an impact than a wind project.”

This is again, meaningless garbage used to rationalize the mortality issue. As we know and it does not state anywhere in the article is that a prop turbine wind farm targets and chops up protected species every time they put one of these projects into their critical habitats. Over 90% of the species killed by prop turbines are protected by laws.

Finally the article gives the wind industry the last word. This is very important because the last statement is used illustrate the slant of the article and persuade the readers. The article puts some of the problems out there but in the end it is made it look like the industry is aware of and handling the problems. In actuality the wind industry is just selling lethal and archaic technology, to a misinformed public. There is a much bigger and more important story here if you decide to run with it.

Jim Wiegand

OK, Newsweek, what do you say?