Residents in spin about turbines (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Residents in spin about turbines
10:40am Friday 30th July 2010 in News By Scott D'Arcy
Residents in spin about turbines
AROUND 100 residents attended an emergency meeting to voice their opinions on Honda’s plans for three 120m wind turbines at their east Swindon site last night.
Ad hoc protest group Ill Wind called upon residents in Stratton and South Marston to raise objections before the consultation period ends on August 13 at a meeting at the South Marston Hotel.
Honda, in conjunction with green energy firm Ecotricity, are looking to follow several other buisness in using green energy to power its plant, including the Green Park in Reading. The three turbines combined would produce enough electricity to power 5,300 homes a year, an Ecotricity spokesman said.
Residents’ main concerns centred around noise levels, ‘shadow flicker’ and the height of the turbines. Ill Wind displayed flicker and noise maps, provided by Ecotricity, for residents to look at.
Neil Burchell, chair of the campaign, said the group wanted to inform people about the facts surrounding wind farms and wanted residents to make up their own minds.
“What we want to do is to share with the villagers some of the concerns that have been raised,” he said.
“We know we need new ways of powering our homes and wind farms are clearly part of that but we do feel they need to be in the right place.
“I don’t think we can be accused of being those who say ‘not in my back yard’ – we have two industrial estates and a dual carriageway nearby.”
Mr Burchell said he had invited a representative of Ecotricity to the meeting but they had declined.
But he said he was hoping North Swindon MP Justin Tomlinson and a representative form Ecotricity could attend a working group meeting next Thursday.
Ann Ensure, of Rural England, said residents needed to write to the council to appeal for more time.
“We want an extension of timing to allow parish councils and working groups to tap into specialists who can look at this properly.”
Chris Bowdidge, 40, of South Marston said his main concern was for public health, particularly low frequency sound and vibrations.
“There is a concern about low frequency sound waves which don’t seem to have had any recognition and can cause lung and heart problems.”
Jill Hopes, 72, of Stratton, said she agreed with green energy but not with the proximity of the turbines.
She said: “I don’t want to oppose it or protest because I believe we need green energy but the size and distance of them is quite frightening.”
A spokesperson for Ecotricity told the Adver on Wednesday: “Throughout the development, Ecotricity and Honda have been available to answer any questions and all queries received to date have been answered personally.”
Comments(76)
real -life
says...
10:53am Fri 30 Jul 10
Old Town
says...
10:55am Fri 30 Jul 10
The Real Librarian
says...
10:56am Fri 30 Jul 10
.
So if they say that they are perfectly happy, you will shut up shop and go away will you? I don't think so.
Personally I think Wind turbines are quite beautiful. I would be quite happy to have one near my house.
politicrat
says...
11:12am Fri 30 Jul 10
Trend
says...
11:12am Fri 30 Jul 10
Bobfm
says...
11:26am Fri 30 Jul 10
dc the 2nd
says...
12:12pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Bobfm
says...
12:19pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Professor Donaldson should be renamed Professor Pandemic
robins69
says...
12:48pm Fri 30 Jul 10
P.W.T.I.S.M.
Synergie
says...
12:55pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Modern wind generators are quiet in comparison, and sure enough, the odd migratory bird will get twatted by one. There are strict rules regarding noise polution, particularly at night. If the three turbines are found to break these rules, the owners will be ordered not to use them at night.
Synergie
says...
1:07pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Bobfm
says...
1:25pm Fri 30 Jul 10
As for turbines at the Pub firstly, you clearly know the place well, NOT, we don't have a front garden. As for them being at the pub strangely enough I have already discussed the proposition with the Brewery several months ago and I would be more than happy to have one or two in my paddock. Nice try.
Red Grouse
says...
1:33pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Standing "right in a wind farm" is just where you hear least noise - that is why the wind industry always suggests standing under a turbine.
I have examined dozens of wind turbine planning applications, and I can assure you that many of them have difficulty meeting the ETSU-R-97 noise standards for turbines.
The problem is downwind, often at some distance. Just one example: at Deeping St Nicholas the Davis family have been forced to abandon their farmhouse due to amplitude modulation problems. Their house is 930 metres from the nearest turbine.
A Valuation Tribunal lowered their Council Tax banding in recognition of: "Significant detrimental effect"; "Nuisance real, not imagined"; "Potential sale price affected".
A chartered surveyor has written to the Davis family in the following terms: "I am not able to place a current market value on the property as I do not believe any prospective purchaser would want to inhabit the property, or, in the current climate whether any mortgage lender would be prepared to lend on the property."
Their insurer has backed them in taking the operator and landowner to the High Court. The case is likely to be heard this year.
liveinswindon
says...
1:36pm Fri 30 Jul 10
However, I do understand the NUIMBY's comments
Bobfm
says...
1:52pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Red Grouse
says...
1:55pm Fri 30 Jul 10
The comparison with tiny wooden sail-driven windmills is very silly.
The last government commissioned the Hayes Mackenzie Partnership (HMP) to look into the 'amplitude modulation' noise problem which occurs with some turbine arrays.
HMP are acousticians who work almost exclusively for the wind industry and who helped draw up the ETSU-R-97 noise guidelines.
They reported that the permitted 43 dB(A) noise limit was too high.
"The report said the best way to protect locals was to cut the maximum permitted noise to 38 decibels, or 33 decibels if the machines created discernible 'beating' noises as they spun .
"It has now emerged that officials removed the warnings from the draft report in 2006 by Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP), the consultants. The final version made no mention of them." (The Times, 13 December, 2009).
Environmental Protection UK have questioned a proposal to 'restrict' noise levels from smaller turbines to 45 dB(A). They say it, "flies in the face of the advice of experienced specialist practitioners in environmental health and acoustics, and recent World Health Organisation Guidelines published on night time noise and health ... Nuisance research shows that at the noise levels proposed they are 98% likely to cause complaints."
The Noise Act gives you protection against neighbours who are measured partying at 35dB(A) or above.
No ASBO's for turbines - they are excluded!
Jean Saunders
says...
2:11pm Fri 30 Jul 10
People of South Marston -- have no fears! Yes, you will be able to see them - but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I think that these modern turbines are elegant and graceful.
Al Smith
says...
2:29pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:I'm with bobfm here, please declare you're interest in this topic.
Red Grouse, you clearly have a more than passing interest.
-
In meantime I'll just assume you're some total and utter nutcase who spends his or her whole day writing stuff on newspaper websites like those of the bournemouth echo and the westmorland gazette (thanks google).
Red Grouse
says...
2:52pm Fri 30 Jul 10
According to my map Longcot is 2.5-3km from the five small (80m) turbines at Watchfield.
It would be surprising if you did have noise problems.
It might well be a different matter if you were within 1km of several 125m turbines.
There is obviously stupid misinformation by opposition groups who exaggerate the problems.
Similarly the wind industry refuses to accept well documented breaches of noise conditions and very real health problems caused all over the world by wind turbines that have been built too close to housing.
Nor can you read across the subjective experience of one wind build to another.
The only answer is to set sensible noise limits and separation distances.
In Scotland, like several other European countries, planning guidance (SPP6) sets a 2km separation distance from large trubine arrays. This is a sensible precautionary principle.
Similarly, the current noise limits, as Hayes Mackenzie Partnership have found in government-sponsored research, are not protecting people from turbine noise nuisance and severe adverse health effects.
Noise nuisance is not trivial and can result in the full range of medical problems listed by the WHO.
Red Grouse
says...
2:59pm Fri 30 Jul 10
You normally know you are winning the argument when people resort to ad hominem attacks and incoherent abuse rather than addressing the issues.
Al Smith
says...
4:35pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Red Grouse wrote:Declaring ones interest isn't hard.
Thanks, Al.
You normally know you are winning the argument when people resort to ad hominem attacks and incoherent abuse rather than addressing the issues.
-
For example bobfm is known for being a very active member of UKIP
-
Jean Saunders is known for being an active member of friends of the earth
-
You appear out of no where when an article is published about wind turbines (as you've done with several other online newspapers) and start quoting chapter and verse on the evils of wind turbines.
-
That's not normal and strongly suggests you represent an organisation of some form wishing to discredit windturbines or you have 'issues' that need to be addressed.
-
Perhaps I think that the reason you haven't declared your vested interest is because you don't have one and are actually 'unbalanced'?
Pseudo
says...
5:26pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Every report I've read also leads me to believe they are a waste of money.
They cost a fortune to install (the carbon footprint in construction must be enormous), they are inefficient and if there is too much or too little wind they do not work.
We need a few modern nuclear power stations rather than tens of thousands of windmills.
This will also save us buying nuclear power from France.
Jiver
says...
5:37pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Retired at last
says...
5:39pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Personally, I think wind turbines are an ugly scar on the landscape and serve very little purpose in the generation of electricity in this country. The spread of them should be resisted at all costs.
Nuclear power is the only way forward and the sooner all the tree huggers see that the better. The building of new nuclear stations should be started now in order to safegard electricity supplies in the future. If we try to rely on wind, then the lights will be going out in the very near future. I do not want to spend my twilight years stumbling around in the dark.
.
Uncannily my access code is 'send-fuel', how spooky is that?
I Too
says...
6:34pm Fri 30 Jul 10
No technical equipment is required, for the audio levels of these turbines, as most people have ears and transport, they can easily become aware that they are relatively quiet.
On the other hand "wind shear" is the sudden change of wind velocity, over a short distance (usually caused by buildings), nothing to do with noise measurement.
Amplitude modulation is a process of carrying noise electronically. most people will have experienced amplitude modulation (am) as a result of listening to an FM / AM radio.
Wind turbines do not present the total solution (yet?), but technology evolves. On a plus point, they present no explosive risks, nuclear fallout, or nuclear waste.
Bobfm
says...
6:42pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Red Grouse
says...
7:13pm Fri 30 Jul 10
In this context 'amplitude modulation' has nothing to do electronics or radio, but everything to do with noise propagation by turbines.
If you want an explanation look at 'Amplitude Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise. A Review of the Evidence' by Dick Bowdler, Published in Institute of Acoustics Bulletin Vol 33, no 4. Page 1. (Available on the Net - just google )
Wind shear is very important in modelling turbine noise because it affects perception of noise at ground level:
"The increase in wind shear due to atmospheric stability also has a significant effect on the sound emission, causing it to be substantially higher than predicted from near-ground wind velocity and a neutral atmosphere, resulting in a higher noise impact on neighbouring residences."
(from the abstract of G. P. van den Berg, 'Wind turbine power and sound in relation to atmospheric stability', University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands).
Nor can you necessarily 'hear' the full spectrum of turbine noise, some of it is at a frequency which is not audible. So your suggestion does not make much sense.
Many clinicians think that the low frequency element is responsible for many of the synptoms of 'wind turbine syndrome' affecting people around the world.
Retired at last
says...
7:38pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Jiver wrote:How about your mouth - that's even bigger!
Yes. Then the nuclear waste can be put in a skip, in your back garden.
Bobfm
says...
7:42pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Very interesting use of words, compare the above with words from the 1975 World Conference on Smoking,
' it is necessary to create the perception that environmental tobacco is harming those around smokers, especially children'.
The single most effective tool in the arsenal of those who wish to see something banned is to make others believe a health cause and effect. Ergo wind turbines cause physical harm, so they must be banned for the good of mankind.
Retired at last
says...
7:58pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:Oh do be quiet. This has nothing to do with your everlasting campaign to get smoking back in your little pub.
'Wind shear is very important in modelling turbine noise because it affects perception of noise at ground level:'
Very interesting use of words, compare the above with words from the 1975 World Conference on Smoking,
' it is necessary to create the perception that environmental tobacco is harming those around smokers, especially children'.
The single most effective tool in the arsenal of those who wish to see something banned is to make others believe a health cause and effect. Ergo wind turbines cause physical harm, so they must be banned for the good of mankind.
.
What a beligerent little opportunist you are!
.
Wind turbines are a complete waste of time - end of.
Phantom Poster
says...
9:53pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:Oh great, thanks for bringing smoking into yet another story. Surprised you couldn't manage to also get a comment in about having been a policeman, having a pub in South Marston, being a member of UKIP or having a son in the Navy (which I imagine is where they use pier to pier networking!).
'Wind shear is very important in modelling turbine noise because it affects perception of noise at ground level:'
Very interesting use of words, compare the above with words from the 1975 World Conference on Smoking,
' it is necessary to create the perception that environmental tobacco is harming those around smokers, especially children'.
The single most effective tool in the arsenal of those who wish to see something banned is to make others believe a health cause and effect. Ergo wind turbines cause physical harm, so they must be banned for the good of mankind.
Exactly what is wrong with "Red Grouse's" statement? To quote from Wikipedia:
"Wind shear itself is a microscale meteorological phenomenon occurring over a very small distance...... It is commonly observed near.... buildings, wind turbines......"
"Sound movement through the atmosphere is affected by wind shear, which can bend the wave front, causing sounds to be heard where they normally would not, or vice versa."
"perception of noise" (aka sound) is a common scientific term used in this context. See http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Sound
This has absolutely nothing to do with "create the perception" as used in social engineering terms.
What is the PRO-smoking doctrine?.....'it is necessary to create the perception that environmental tobacco is NOT harming those around them, especially children'.
'The single most effective tool in the arsenal of those who wish to see a smoking banned lifted is to make others believe that there is no health cause and effect' Ergo, passive smoking causes no harm and the smoking ban must be lifted.
I notice that you can't seem to come up with any direct arguments against "Red Grouse's" statements. And here was me thinking that you were an expert on everything! Feeling a bit out of your depth are you?
Phantom Poster
says...
9:58pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:I'm sure that your googled "facts" were the highlight of the presentation! God, I've never known anyone so pompous (well other than politiptat)
Given the nature of the flier sent out to residents, I kinda doubt the presentations were open minded. I sent information, medical research data and research findings to the organiser as I couldn't attend due to work commitments. I wonder if these were presented.
Phantom Poster
says...
10:01pm Fri 30 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:And if you repeat enought times that passive smoking is harmless then does that become true? You wish!
dc, it has become the acceptable 'health' mantra to repeat something often enough and it will be true, bird flu, swine flu to name but two. According to the experts half the world should be dead by now. And it only cost the UK £250 millions worth of wasted vaccine.
Professor Donaldson should be renamed Professor Pandemic
mr-m
says...
12:24am Sat 31 Jul 10
Bobfm
says...
8:37am Sat 31 Jul 10
OK so you didn't like the ETS analogy with regard to perception, what about creating the perception that binge drinking for men is 4 units ( 2 pints) and women 3 units ( 1 large glass of wine) in a day to justify a health clampdown.
It's all about creating the illusion as are the health scares over wind turbines. I do not believe wind turbines offer the solution to the UK's energy needs, I very much support the nuclear option.
The difference is Honda are seeking to reduce their overheads, as any sensible business would.
PP passive smoking is harmless except to those with pre-existing conditions, which could also be triggered by a multitude of other things widely used.
Bobfm
says...
9:31am Sat 31 Jul 10
AND IF PERSUASION, FRAUDS AND POLITICS DON'T WORK, WE'LL USE BRUTE FORCE
Quote by a senior World Bank economist:
"Policy based lending is where the bank really has power--I mean brute force. When countries really have their backs against the wall, they can be pushed into reforming things at a broad policy level that normally, in the context of projects, they can't. The health sector can be caught up in this issue of conditionality."
("The World Bank and world health: healthcare strategy," Kamran Abbasi, British Medical Journal, April 3 l999;318:933-936)
And we thought the Mafia only existed in Italy.
Retired at last
says...
9:55am Sat 31 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:You've lost the plot completely, what on earth are you babbling on about now?
Red Grouse I know you admired the WHO, so that must extend to their long term advisory partner the World Bank.
AND IF PERSUASION, FRAUDS AND POLITICS DON'T WORK, WE'LL USE BRUTE FORCE
Quote by a senior World Bank economist:
"Policy based lending is where the bank really has power--I mean brute force. When countries really have their backs against the wall, they can be pushed into reforming things at a broad policy level that normally, in the context of projects, they can't. The health sector can be caught up in this issue of conditionality."
("The World Bank and world health: healthcare strategy," Kamran Abbasi, British Medical Journal, April 3 l999;318:933-936)
And we thought the Mafia only existed in Italy.
Retired at last
says...
9:59am Sat 31 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:You just do not get it do you, why so many people turn against you?
Nice to see the usual suspects commenting on the article.
OK so you didn't like the ETS analogy with regard to perception, what about creating the perception that binge drinking for men is 4 units ( 2 pints) and women 3 units ( 1 large glass of wine) in a day to justify a health clampdown.
It's all about creating the illusion as are the health scares over wind turbines. I do not believe wind turbines offer the solution to the UK's energy needs, I very much support the nuclear option.
The difference is Honda are seeking to reduce their overheads, as any sensible business would.
PP passive smoking is harmless except to those with pre-existing conditions, which could also be triggered by a multitude of other things widely used.
Quite simply it's because you cannot ever stick to the story and invariably twist it around to suit your own particular political agenda. You brought up your stupid smoking bandwagon, then complain when people turn against you.
.
Just give it a rest and get a life will you?
Bobfm
says...
10:55am Sat 31 Jul 10
For someone who accuses me of not being very intelligent you show either a lack of intelligence or objectivity in your posts. It is interesting with so many other posters supporting turbines you pick on mine.
You are becoming as obsessive as the few others who stalk my posts. Is that intelligent?
Casual Observer
says...
11:10am Sat 31 Jul 10
You HOPE, since you've spent half your life breathing in other people's smoke.
Remember the stinging eyes and irritated throat after your punters blew smoke in your face while laughing at your stupid footwear and shiny bonce?
Poor Bob, he's convinced himself it was all ok.
Retired at last
says...
11:24am Sat 31 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:First of all I have read all the posts but yours tend to stick out likes asore thumb. How conceited of you to think that I should just focus on yours.
I suggest retired you read posts other than mine. I am directly responding to points raised by others. As for my use of the smoking ban comparison, that was perfectly valid, given the objections or justifications for not having turbines are on health grounds.
For someone who accuses me of not being very intelligent you show either a lack of intelligence or objectivity in your posts. It is interesting with so many other posters supporting turbines you pick on mine.
You are becoming as obsessive as the few others who stalk my posts. Is that intelligent?
I picked on your posts in particular because a) I couldn't understand the babbling nonsense and b) you just had to take the opportunity to bang on about your precious passive smoking campaign. You won't give up on that failed cause will you?
.
It really does highlight your low intelligence that despite waves of criticism from so many people (not all your so-called 'stalkers' (you should be so lucky, it's all in your tiny little mind)), you still persist in winding people up with your inane comments that so often veer off at a tangent and end up totally meaningless.
Like I said, 'you just don't get it'. do you? You do seem to be so bitter and unhappy - failing business, failing marriage, health problems, inability to cope with criticism? Whatever it is with anyone else, I would feel pity towards them - not in your case though and that's all I have to say on the matter regarding you. I'll not rise to your antagonistic and bombastic bait. This site doesn't revolve around your own flawed ego.
Always Grumpy
says...
11:39am Sat 31 Jul 10
I to am sick to death of this plonker forever going on about passive smoking at every opportunity. He doesn't know when to shut up. He must be the most despised poster on this site and the sooner the Adver pulls the plug on him the better it will be for everyone else.
It is because of the likes of him I very rarely add any comments of my own. No matter what anyone has to say he tries to shoot them down in flames with his never ending quotes from Google that invariably manages to include passive smoking, his grotty little pub, being an ex. policeman or whatever.
He is obviously someone with a pretty low intellect and a skin as thick as a rhino.
I think there should be a concerted campaign to get rid of him forever.
Bobfm
says...
12:34pm Sat 31 Jul 10
'failing business, failing marriage, health problems, inability to cope with criticism?' I haven't laughed so much in ages. I kinda think after 40 years of marriage I would know if it was failing, the business is fine, although like all in hospitality could be better. The latest figures for the SW show 5 months of an average decline of 20%. We are showing a 10% increase on the same period last year.
The health's not failing just stagnating now. As for criticism, don't mind that at all from those who comment on the topic, not me.
Back to article:
Bobfm
says...
1:27pm Sat 31 Jul 10
It is interesting on the front page of a group called Country Guardian, a pressure group speaking out about turbines, the likely source of RG's material, they make no attempt at disguising they are against Turbines whatever the conditions attached.
The BERR and other Government groups have produced well researched scientific data that rather shoots down in flames the health risks.
Interestingly the Health and Safety Executive, who advise such organisations as EHO's sets work place noise safety levels at 80Db's at the lower end of the scale and 85db's at the upper end with protection.
So 45 and 35 seem incredibly low, and equate to normal conversation levels amongst groups of people.
What I also found interesting is the low noise spoken of occurs naturally from storms, high winds, trees in the wind and Elephants.
liveinswindon
says...
1:29pm Sat 31 Jul 10
Maybe if you installed a wind turbine in a pub you could smoke, seeing as the ventilation would be amazing...
Phantom Poster
says...
1:56pm Sat 31 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:You bombard everyone with you own interpretation of googled statistics and yet you have absolutely no scientific based training (as we all know so much about your life, thanks to you!).
Nice to see the usual suspects commenting on the article.
OK so you didn't like the ETS analogy with regard to perception, what about creating the perception that binge drinking for men is 4 units ( 2 pints) and women 3 units ( 1 large glass of wine) in a day to justify a health clampdown.
It's all about creating the illusion as are the health scares over wind turbines. I do not believe wind turbines offer the solution to the UK's energy needs, I very much support the nuclear option.
The difference is Honda are seeking to reduce their overheads, as any sensible business would.
PP passive smoking is harmless except to those with pre-existing conditions, which could also be triggered by a multitude of other things widely used.
Again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the use of the scientific term "perception" in relation to acoustics and human interaction, as opposed to the social engineering context, which you are continually focussing on.
This is astounding for a man wow continually berates all of his critics intelligence. I explained the difference in the simplest way I could and yet still you couldn't seem to comprehend!
OK, lets try again. Wave forms are commonly measured using decibels. This is a logatithmic unit of measured which roughly corresponds to a humans PERCEPTION of the intensity sound or light. This is a measurable scientific term. What the hell has it got to do with general usage of the work in the english language?
You made the statement:
"Good grief, judging by the intellect levelled against me, if mine is low then what does that make yours, non existent I would think."
Unlike you I didn't google my answer. I didn't need to as I have an honours degree in physics.
...... so as you have a higher intellect than any of you critics (of which I am one), could you please give details of what post-graduate qualifications you have - preferrably science based.
Terence
says...
2:13pm Sat 31 Jul 10
liveinswindon wrote:Snooker halls will never be the same without a haze of smoke.
You have all just reminded me of the good old days when you could smoke in pubs, those were the days.
Maybe if you installed a wind turbine in a pub you could smoke, seeing as the ventilation would be amazing...
.
There wouldn't be enough wind in a pub to make the rotors turn... although, now that I think about it, there is one fabled pub I've heard about where it might be possible, the landlord of this inn is bellows out a hell of a lot of hot air daily and this just might be sufficient for your suggested indoor wind turbine.
Phantom Poster
says...
2:20pm Sat 31 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:Talk about going off at a tangent (and I'm not using the mathematical use of the word here!)
Red Grouse I know you admired the WHO, so that must extend to their long term advisory partner the World Bank.
AND IF PERSUASION, FRAUDS AND POLITICS DON'T WORK, WE'LL USE BRUTE FORCE
Quote by a senior World Bank economist:
"Policy based lending is where the bank really has power--I mean brute force. When countries really have their backs against the wall, they can be pushed into reforming things at a broad policy level that normally, in the context of projects, they can't. The health sector can be caught up in this issue of conditionality."
("The World Bank and world health: healthcare strategy," Kamran Abbasi, British Medical Journal, April 3 l999;318:933-936)
And we thought the Mafia only existed in Italy.
Amazing isn't it that you cherry pick any googled statistics you can find to support whatever you want. However, any which oppose them always involve some sort of conspiracy theory! You really are priceless!
Casual Observer
says...
3:52pm Sat 31 Jul 10
Terence wrote:haha - very good.
liveinswindon wrote:Snooker halls will never be the same without a haze of smoke.
You have all just reminded me of the good old days when you could smoke in pubs, those were the days.
Maybe if you installed a wind turbine in a pub you could smoke, seeing as the ventilation would be amazing...
.
There wouldn't be enough wind in a pub to make the rotors turn... although, now that I think about it, there is one fabled pub I've heard about where it might be possible, the landlord of this inn is bellows out a hell of a lot of hot air daily and this just might be sufficient for your suggested indoor wind turbine.
Bobfm
says...
5:48pm Sat 31 Jul 10
As for the comments you make about being selective, I would contend that those who present one side of a debate, by the very nature of debate would by definition be one sided, otherwise it wouldn't be a debate.
Let me make this clear I do not claim superior intellect, I merely respond to the claims by others that they are superior. You can continue to post your views, I will post mine, I will not be bullied, I have told the Advertiser I will not seek to 'goad' other posters, that doesn't mean I will bullied off this forum.
As I have said many times attacking someone at a personal level from a position of anonymity is the mark of a coward. So make your own minds up whether you fit into that category. Don't like my posts don't read them.
Casual Observer
says...
6:08pm Sat 31 Jul 10
Always Grumpy
says...
6:12pm Sat 31 Jul 10
You just cannot accept other peoples views and just try to counter every argument or point of view with something you've managed to download off the internet. I very much doubt whether you have any knowledge of your own, gained through work or study, but only that which you selectively pick through from Google or wherever.
Of course people are going to remain anonymous on here, that's the whole point of such sites as this. Nothing to do with cowardice - I'm certainly no coward nor will any of the other be.
That's a laugh saying you aren't here to goad people. You manage to do that everytime you post and when people respond in kind you then complain and try to get accounts suspended. What a nasty little person you are.
.
By the way, we're all still waiting for you to answer Phantom Poster's question about your academic qualifications. I suspect we'll be waiting quite a while for that one to be answered. Try Googling, you might find a qualification that suits you.
Bobfm
says...
6:26pm Sat 31 Jul 10
We live in a democracy because you choose not to validate your views and I choose to research mine, I am condemned, well I kinda think if you were at University your tutors would severely mark you down for just writing a two liner, 'this is what I believe so there'.
CO I am not playing the victim, it is clear for all to see what you and the cabals intentions are, the Adver clearly sees that. Yes this is ruing the forum. I have responded to an article that affects my village, I have a right to my view. How many of you live in South Marston, after all you have all previously said I shouldn't comment on areas of Swindon, so perhaps those who don't live in the village she 'butt out'.
AG please produce a goad on this thread. I have responded not initiated. As for PP's question I think I dealt with that. I will reveal my qualifications when others become transparent, and believe me I have quite a few qualifications.
Retired at last
says...
6:42pm Sat 31 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:A grade 5 CSE in Woodwork doesn't count as a real qualification:)
Am I missing something here, accepting some ones view doesn't mean you cannot disagree with them. The problem for you guys is that it is you who will not accept an opposing view.
We live in a democracy because you choose not to validate your views and I choose to research mine, I am condemned, well I kinda think if you were at University your tutors would severely mark you down for just writing a two liner, 'this is what I believe so there'.
CO I am not playing the victim, it is clear for all to see what you and the cabals intentions are, the Adver clearly sees that. Yes this is ruing the forum. I have responded to an article that affects my village, I have a right to my view. How many of you live in South Marston, after all you have all previously said I shouldn't comment on areas of Swindon, so perhaps those who don't live in the village she 'butt out'.
AG please produce a goad on this thread. I have responded not initiated. As for PP's question I think I dealt with that. I will reveal my qualifications when others become transparent, and believe me I have quite a few qualifications.
Casual Observer
says...
6:44pm Sat 31 Jul 10
Phantom Poster
says...
8:04pm Sat 31 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:Well choose to believe it if you want, frankly I don't really care.
PP given that you are anonymous I only have your word for it that you have such a degree, if I were anonymous I could claim all sorts of things. The difference is you could google to your hearts content and establish if I was telling the truth. I would not be afforded such luxury.
As for the comments you make about being selective, I would contend that those who present one side of a debate, by the very nature of debate would by definition be one sided, otherwise it wouldn't be a debate.
Let me make this clear I do not claim superior intellect, I merely respond to the claims by others that they are superior. You can continue to post your views, I will post mine, I will not be bullied, I have told the Advertiser I will not seek to 'goad' other posters, that doesn't mean I will bullied off this forum.
As I have said many times attacking someone at a personal level from a position of anonymity is the mark of a coward. So make your own minds up whether you fit into that category. Don't like my posts don't read them.
Though originally starting out in
physics, I now specialise in the field of internet security. You seem totally oblivious to our industrys recommendation not leave on-line a trail of personal information, which can be easily collated via search engines. But so far as you are concerned, self-publicity trumps all such concerns.
I any case, you've already been outed as having used multiple anonymous accounts, in clear breach of the registration terms and conditions agreed to when you sign up. So please don't hypocritically preach about anonymity!
Why exactly would you have to commit to the Adver that will not seek to 'goad' other posters, unless they contacted you because this is what you were doing?
I actually don't have any particularly strong views on wind-turbines and have never studied their local impact. However, superficially I couldn't see any glaring errors in the physics of what "Red Grouse" was describing.
However then we have a self-proclaimed pseudo-scientist such as yourself coming along trying to critisise it, because it doesn't fit in with what you have decided is true.
I didn't see you coming up with any reason for why the physics was wrong. Oh no, just that he used the word "perception" in relation to how humans hear sound - a standard scientific term... and you found out that OH MY GOD, the anti-smoking and anti-alcohol industry have some reports which use that word as well!!
Do you have any perception of how stupid you have made yourself look?
Guess what - "Red Grouse" included the word "the" in his posts. I have done some extensive research and found that Shakespeare also used this word in many of his works. Because of this I come to the conclusion that Shakespeare was anti wind turbines!
With your view on global warming, I was quite surprised about your support of the Honda turbines. But then I noticed your post:
"strangely enough I have already discussed the proposition with the Brewery several months ago and I would be more than happy to have one or two in my paddock"
..... so that's what it comes down to. You want some turbines on your grounds and as an ailing business, you wouldn't be doing that unless there was money in it. So if Honda don't get planning permission then it could to scupper your efforts!
Life must be so much simpler when all your morals are based on the bottom line!
Phantom Poster
says...
8:58pm Sat 31 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:What is it with you and your discovery of the word "cabal"!
Am I missing something here, accepting some ones view doesn't mean you cannot disagree with them. The problem for you guys is that it is you who will not accept an opposing view.
We live in a democracy because you choose not to validate your views and I choose to research mine, I am condemned, well I kinda think if you were at University your tutors would severely mark you down for just writing a two liner, 'this is what I believe so there'.
CO I am not playing the victim, it is clear for all to see what you and the cabals intentions are, the Adver clearly sees that. Yes this is ruing the forum. I have responded to an article that affects my village, I have a right to my view. How many of you live in South Marston, after all you have all previously said I shouldn't comment on areas of Swindon, so perhaps those who don't live in the village she 'butt out'.
AG please produce a goad on this thread. I have responded not initiated. As for PP's question I think I dealt with that. I will reveal my qualifications when others become transparent, and believe me I have quite a few qualifications.
There are admittedly a number of people on here who are critical of your views. However, do you really think that we all communicate with each other secretly - maybe meet up in the pub at weekends and discuss our strategy for the following week?!
This all fits in with your paranoia that any scientific report which doesn't fit in with your view must be backed by the pharmaceutical industry or some other such bogey men.
Why don't you and politiprat just form your own cabal?
Phantom Poster
says...
9:41pm Sat 31 Jul 10
Bobfm wrote:Well I've got a degree, I know who I am and yet I can't google anywhere which confirms that I have a degree. I can see it in my Linkedin profile, but I could easily have made that up!
PP given that you are anonymous I only have your word for it that you have such a degree, if I were anonymous I could claim all sorts of things. The difference is you could google to your hearts content and establish if I was telling the truth. I would not be afforded such luxury.
As for the comments you make about being selective, I would contend that those who present one side of a debate, by the very nature of debate would by definition be one sided, otherwise it wouldn't be a debate.
Let me make this clear I do not claim superior intellect, I merely respond to the claims by others that they are superior. You can continue to post your views, I will post mine, I will not be bullied, I have told the Advertiser I will not seek to 'goad' other posters, that doesn't mean I will bullied off this forum.
As I have said many times attacking someone at a personal level from a position of anonymity is the mark of a coward. So make your own minds up whether you fit into that category. Don't like my posts don't read them.
So tell me Bob, as you are not anonymous - if you have a degree or any such qualification, how would I google it?
Casual Observer
says...
10:02pm Sat 31 Jul 10
"cabal", "kinda", "avatar" - Bob likes to impress with his erudite wordsmithery!
(as if)
Phantom Poster
says...
10:04pm Sat 31 Jul 10
"I will reveal my qualifications when others become transparent, and believe me I have quite a few qualifications."
Bob also said again:
"I could claim all sorts of things. The difference is you could google to your hearts content and establish if I was telling the truth."
So how do we do that Bob? I've googled and can't find any of your qualifications! Were you telling porkeys?
I Too
says...
10:06pm Sat 31 Jul 10
I'm glad I missed most of this "debate"
Somewhere, amongst all the squabbling and irrelevant campaigning, it was mentioned that 35db is comparable to conversation levels.
So there you have it. No statistics or technical terms required. No need to mention weather phenomenons (that are independently louder than the turbines anyway).
Just get out more, go listen to a turbine, and stop worrying about a harmless device.
Wether they are effective enough is a whole new debate. I suspect Honda have done their sums on that matter though.
Phantom Poster
says...
10:12pm Sat 31 Jul 10
I Too wrote:Listen from where?
Gosh!
I'm glad I missed most of this "debate"
Somewhere, amongst all the squabbling and irrelevant campaigning, it was mentioned that 35db is comparable to conversation levels.
So there you have it. No statistics or technical terms required. No need to mention weather phenomenons (that are independently louder than the turbines anyway).
Just get out more, go listen to a turbine, and stop worrying about a harmless device.
Wether they are effective enough is a whole new debate. I suspect Honda have done their sums on that matter though.
Phantom Poster
says...
10:24pm Sat 31 Jul 10
http://tiny.cc/36gjt
Phantom Poster
says...
12:21am Sun 1 Aug 10
Red Grouse
says...
3:08am Sun 1 Aug 10
Your, or my, personal views on noise levels are not of interest or consequence.
This is all about legal thresholds for permitted noise.
In rural areas the planning authorities are supposed to set a 35dB(A) or 40dB(A) threshold for modelling turbine noise at nearby dwellings.
The problem is that this is seldom properly done or, when turbines are built, enforced.
Many 'problem' turbines have been measured at c. 60dB(A) at neighbouring dwellings.
Nor are turbine developers required to measure low frequency noise, which is a particular problem with wind turbines. The dB(A) measurement only covers the audible part of the sound spectrum.
Low frequency noise can have drastic effects on people's health, especially on children and the elderly.
The decibel scale is logarithmic, so every 3 dBA doubles the noise and every 10 dBA means a ten-fold increase.
Many years of in-depth research are embodied in the WHO Regional Office for Europe's 'Night noise guidelines for Europe'.
The guidelines provide evidence on how exposure to night noise can damage people’s health, and recommends guideline levels to protect health.
The recommended limit is an annual average night exposure not exceeding 40 decibels (dB), corresponding to the sound from a quiet street in a residential area. Sleepers that are exposed to higher levels over the year can suffer sleep disturbance and insomnia.
Long-term average exposure to levels above 55 dB, similar to the noise from a busy street, can trigger elevated blood pressure and heart attacks. One in five Europeans is regularly exposed to such noise levels.
You are quite right that a loud conversation or a passing lorry may be louder than 35dB(A), but that level of noise does not go on all night in your bedroom in a regular pulsing beat that is close to the frequency of the human pulse.
This is what prevents people sleeping and induces stress and ill-health.
So, building turbines that you know are very likely to stop people sleeping and/or disturb their sleep is to knowingly damage their health.
We do not expect our government to allow that.
As previously mentioned government is quite keen to protect us from noisy neighbours.
The Noise Act (1996), states:
"3. The permitted level of noise which may be emitted during night hours from an offending dwelling or from offending premises shall be—
(a) where the underlying level of noise does not exceed 24 dB, 34 dB;
(b) where the underlying level of noise exceeds 24 dB, 10 dB in excess of that underlying level of noise."
So, if an Environmental Health Officer measures the noise from your neighbours at 35dB(A) in a quiet rural area at night action will be taken against the offender.
Needless to say, turbines are excluded!
Bobfm
says...
9:15am Sun 1 Aug 10
The simple reality is just one turbine will be the village side of Honda, the others will be the Stratton side, so it would appear that the 'noise' that is claimed from the factory will mask the turbine noise anyway.
I spoke to someone who was at the meeting, yesterday, and he stated that the concerns seemed to be focused on the 'leaflet' sent out as opposed to individuals previously having concerns. As his wife commented, we don't express our views one way or the other, it's safer that way in the village.
g5wq
says...
10:35am Sun 1 Aug 10
the tallest structure in swindon at present is the David murray john building which is 83m total height .
the turbines will be some 42m taller than the david murray john building , so i hope this gives you some idea of the real SIZE and scale of them and just how far the turbines will be visible from across the town .
these turbines take 95 years to pay back and become "green " again after you take into account the amount of pollution caused by manufacturing and transporting them from europe .
are these turbines going to be running in 150 years time , i think not , i doubt they will run for any more than 25 years before they require replacing .
the blades have been found to require frequent replacement too , all you have to do is search and read the information thats available .
we have a large population of red kites and buzzards living in this area east of swindon and they fly everyday over the honda site hunting for food or to get lift in thermals generated from the large expanse of tarmac or factory roof .
if you look on youtube for wind turbines you will come across information and footage where birds of prey have been killed in california by the turbine blades , where it is illegal to kill birds of prey , and they have changed the law in california to protect the birds and reduce deaths
the owners of the turbines in california have been forced by law to stop the turbines at certain times of the year when the birds are most active and also they have had to remove turbines that are in the birds flight paths .
the height of many of these turbines has also been changed in many cases because certain birds of prey fly at a particular height when hunting .
we also have a large Bat population in south marston , located near the church , there is also evidence of bat deaths being caused by the air pressure variations from the turbine blades causing the bats lungs to expand and kill them when they fly near the turbine blades , this is same kind of thing that divers experience when they get the bends .
there is a rook flightpath across the honda site , to stanton woods and the woods at hunts rise where they roost , there are only approx 820,000 breeding pairs of rooks in the uk compared to around 10 times that many for crows .
the turbines are 1.8mw types but if you read any information about them you will see that due to the irregular pattern of british weather these turbines will only make 600kw output at best .
honda state that the turbines will make enough energy to power 5300 homes but in fact thats incorrect, they will only make enough for 360 homes at above figures .
the electricity made from these particular turbines is NOT going to be used to power peoples houses, it is going to be used to power part of a car factory .
so in other words the people living in this area will still be powering their homes by non green energy sources .
if the villagers applied to place 3 wind turbines on the village playing fields i bet the application would be refused .
if local residents applied to place small wind turbines on their houses this would also be refused permission .
if we applied to put wind turbines on the hills south of the village , ie next to the ridgeway ,this will be refused .
the best way to stop the planning application from going through is for everyone from the local area to go to the planning meeting and object to the proposed project .
that is what the people of cricklade did when there was an application to build a "wood chip burning" power station at calcutt , and the project was stopped and planning permission rejected .
.
Bobfm
says...
10:53am Sun 1 Aug 10
This potentially would bring 40 x 8 wheel lorries per day between 6 am and 10 pm. The energy produced would again not be used for local benefit but for commercial gain ( nothing wrong with that).
As for bird deaths once again it seems the truth is stranger than fiction, apparently.
Collisions with wind turbines account for about one-tenth of a percent of all "unnatural" bird deaths in the United States each year. And of all bird deaths, 30 percent are due to natural causes, like baby birds falling from nests . So why the widespread misconception that labels wind turbines "bird-o-matics"? It all starts with California, raptors and the thousands of old turbines that make up the Altamont Pass wind farm.
http://science.howst
uffworks.com/wind-tu
rbine-kill-birds.htm
/printable
The article shows the extent of deaths caused by other man made structures and puts the small number in context.
Kineasy
says...
11:07am Sun 1 Aug 10
Red Grouse
says...
11:55am Sun 1 Aug 10
Altamont is the worst but there are plenty of problems with modern turbines being put up in places where they kill birds.
There are huge numbers of migratory birds being killed by turbines in Navarre, Spain (see:GURELUR, http://www.gurelur.o
rg/ENG/proy-energia-
eolica.php).
An official post construction survey of the wind facility on the Tug Hill Plateau in Lewis Country, N.Y., USA concluded that some 2,200 to 4,094 birds and bats were killed by 120 turbines during the 5-month study period in 2006.
Ignoring seasonal variability (as well as shortcomings of methodology), that would extrapolate to 8,580 to 15,967 birds and bats killed over a whole year. That’s up to 23 birds and 59 bats per turbine per year.
A turbine array on Smøla, in Norway, has been responsible for wiping out almost the entire local population of white-tailed eagles (http://news.bbc.co.
uk/1/hi/world/europe
/5108666.stm).
A recent Canadian newspaper report noted:
"Last month’s guilty verdict against Syncrude in the deaths of 1,606 ducks at an oilsands tailings pond received international media coverage.
"Meanwhile, little attention has been paid to 1,982 bird and bat deaths at Canada’s second-largest wind farm, Ontario’s Wolf Island Eco-Power Centre.
"According to a monitoring report in May, the nearly 2,000 bird and bat deaths during the first eight months of the wind farm’s operation involved 33 birds species and five bat species. No charges have been laid." (Calgary Herald, 10 July, 2010).
Even single small turbines cause problems occasionally:
"A £20,000 wind turbine brought in to make a Portland primary school more environmentally friendly has been turned off because it was killing seabirds.
"Headteacher Stuart McLeod, of Southwell Community Primary School, said they 'tried everything' to solve the problem but had no choice but to shut it down.
"We were told by the manufacturer to expect maybe one fatality a year but it killed 14 in six months so we took advice and made the decision to turn it off." (Dorset Echo, 3 July 2010).
They had the same problem at Plymouth Aquarium and removed the turbines.
Ditto at Tescos in Barrow.
The list is very long indeed. The RSPB have tended to be very pro-wind and are somewhat compromised by the very large sums they have received from their deal with Scottish and Southern Energy, through the 'RSPB Energy' scheme so should be viewed with caution. There are many examples of them favouring developers and letting them get away with inadequate bird surveys.
Bobfm
says...
7:08pm Sun 1 Aug 10
Utility transmission and distribution lines, the backbone of our electrical power system, are responsible for 130 to 174 million bird deaths a year in the U.S.1 Many of the affected birds are those with large wingspans, including raptors and waterfowl. While attempting to land on power lines and poles, birds are sometimes electrocuted when their wings span between two hot wires. Many other birds are killed as their flight paths intersect the power lines strung between poles and towers. One report states that: "for some types of birds, power line collisions appear to be a significant source of mortality."2
Collisions with automobiles and trucks result in the deaths of between 60 and 80 million birds annually in the U.S.3 As more vehicles share the roadway, and our automotive society becomes more pervasive, these numbers will only increase. Our dependence on oil has taken its toll on birds too. Even the relatively high incidence of bird kills at Altamont Pass (about 92 per year) pales in comparison to the number of birds killed from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. In fact, according to author Paul Gipe, the Altamont Pass wind farm would have to operate for 500 to 1000 years to "achieve" the same mortality level as the Exxon Valdez event in 1989.
Tall building and residential house windows also claim their share of birds. Some of the five million tall buildings in U.S. cities have been documented as being a chronic mortality problem for migrating birds. There are more than 100 million houses in the U.S. House windows are more of a problem for birds in rural areas than in cities or towns. While there are no required ongoing studies of bird mortality due to buildings or house windows, the best estimates put the toll due collisions with these structures at between 100 million and a staggering 1 billion deaths annually.
http://www.awea.org/
faq/sagrillo/swbirds
.html
I am certainly not in favour of deliberately killing any wild life but the type of scare tactics you are indulging in is wrong. One study in the US aside from the disproportionate one already highlighted showed that, 'The same report, by the conservation group Nature Canada, said studies at other wind farms have turned up kill rates of one to two birds per turbine annually.' http://tinyurl.com/2
vee94w
And these are groups trying to find cause and effect.
Bobfm
says...
7:22pm Sun 1 Aug 10
http://www.currykerl
inger.com/studies.ht
m
mr-m
says...
12:24am Mon 2 Aug 10
seems to me the people of south marston want their cake when it suites them.
it isnt kites and bats you need to worry about, its the greedy vultures living there is what the problem is !!.
im all for wind turbines, at least one good use for them is to blow away the bad stench coming from south marston
Red Grouse
says...
1:02am Mon 2 Aug 10
Bobfm and a razor blade is all that the wind industry needs for victory.
As a parting gift, can i leave this for anybody with a sense of humour: http://www.examiner.
co.uk/news/local-wes
t-yorkshire-news/201
0/07/31/kirklees-cou
ncil-s-wind-turbine-
woes-deepen-86081-26
967147/
It sums up the key features of the great wind bubble!
Bobfm
says...
8:00am Mon 2 Aug 10
Extensive German research has revealed that 'average' turbines, at 80 metres have a 10 year incident rate of 1.5, with an average down time of just 1.5 days. Even gearbox failures only account for 6.3 days down time.
Many newer systems are computer monitored for signs of problems and scheduled maintenance eliminates the potential for breakdown.
http://tinyurl.com/2
uyenhj
RG, it really didn't take a lot of research to see that your various claims did not stand up to examination. I would hope my fellow residents would question, what appears on the surface to be very biased information imparted so far.
It seems to me when all things are considered we are left with one element that cannot really be scientifically evaluated and that is the Aesthetics of the things. You either like them or you don't.
Bobfm says...
10:48am Fri 30 Jul 10