"In heaven there is only Communism; and why should it not be our aim to prepare ourselves in this world for the society we are sure to enter there? ... All distinctions of rich and poor are abolished. The members have no care except for their own spiritual culture. Communism provides for the sick, the weak, the unfortunate, all alike, which makes their life comparatively easy and pleasant. In case of great loss by fire or flood or other cause, the burden which would be ruinous to one is easily borne by the many. Charity and genuine love one to another, which are the foundations of true Christianity, can be more readily cultivated and practiced in Communism than in common, isolated society." --Schoolteacher, Zoar, Ohio
"There is a freedom from the frivolities of fashion, from arbitrary restricitions, and from the frenzy of competition; we meet our fellow-men in more sincere, hearty and genial relations; kindred spirits are not separated by artificial, conventional barriers; the soul is warmed in the sunshine of a true social equality." --On the Community of Bethel, Missouri
from American Communities, by William Alfred Hinds, 1878
tags: anarchism
March 13, 2006
Finnegans Wind
I, but a poor mimic, dedicate this peace to Stan Moore, RIP
-- Its a criime shem, our Shun emits. Yore no is us goot ass a yass. Mimountin loons larch end immoovabull, ond yur edifyce shaks in sham. Thy wryot of nays 'll here r reitchus aye un timble to arth.
-- Shant, his Shim reparts. Hiss win dys up. Hiss hedd hass croktt ass hiss towrinkss pinn. Hee well nutt phall fo hee hatt nott riss. Hat shut! Oun mus born!
Issy, shunned and shemmed, combed her feathers and powndered her meathers and she lupt hem all. For she wood soar what the fusses. But shee cood knowt soar so fasses the wind turnd them ill. The sheman herd and will aveher weep. The shunnon just fload in his muddeyed bink.
tags: wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
-- Its a criime shem, our Shun emits. Yore no is us goot ass a yass. Mimountin loons larch end immoovabull, ond yur edifyce shaks in sham. Thy wryot of nays 'll here r reitchus aye un timble to arth.
-- Shant, his Shim reparts. Hiss win dys up. Hiss hedd hass croktt ass hiss towrinkss pinn. Hee well nutt phall fo hee hatt nott riss. Hat shut! Oun mus born!
Issy, shunned and shemmed, combed her feathers and powndered her meathers and she lupt hem all. For she wood soar what the fusses. But shee cood knowt soar so fasses the wind turnd them ill. The sheman herd and will aveher weep. The shunnon just fload in his muddeyed bink.
tags: wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
March 12, 2006
"Wind Turbine Syndrome"
Here is a picture of the d'Entremont home in Pubnico, Nova Scotia, where their ancestors have lived since the 1870s. Daniel and Carolyn d'Entremont, with their 6 children, had to abandon it on Feb. 21, 2006, because of "wind turbine syndrome," the cluster of symptoms being found around the world where people live near giant wind turbines.
Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y., has interviewed them as part of her research into this problem. She testified before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee on March 7. A 68-KB PDF of her testimony is available at AWEO.org. Here is an excerpt.
Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y., has interviewed them as part of her research into this problem. She testified before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee on March 7. A 68-KB PDF of her testimony is available at AWEO.org. Here is an excerpt.
Three doctors that I know of are studying the Wind Turbine Syndrome: myself, one in England, and one in Australia. We note the same sets of symptoms. The symptoms start when local turbines go into operation and resolve when the turbines are off or when the person is out of the area. The symptoms include:tags: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbinesNot everyone near turbines has these symptoms. This does not mean people are making them up; it means there are differences among people in susceptibility. These differences are known as risk factors. Defining risk factors and the proportion of people who get symptoms is the role of epidemiologic studies. These studies are under way. Chronic sleep disturbance is the most common symptom. Exhaustion, mood problems, and problems with concentration and learning are natural outcomes of poor sleep.
- Sleep problems: noise or physical sensations of pulsation or pressure make it hard to go to sleep and cause frequent awakening.
- Headaches which are increased in frequency or severity.
- Dizziness, unsteadiness, and nausea.
- Exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, and depression.
- Problems with concentration and learning.
- Tinnitus (ringing in the ears).
Sensitivity to low frequency vibration is a risk factor. Contrary to assertions of the wind industry, some people feel disturbing amounts of vibration or pulsation from wind turbines, and can count in their bodies, especially their chests, the beats of the blades passing the towers, even when they can’t hear or see them. Sensitivity to low frequency vibration in the body or ears is highly variable in people, and hence poorly understood and the subject of much debate.
Another risk factor is a preexisting migraine disorder. Migraine is not just a bad headache; it’s a complex neurologic phenomenon which affects the visual, hearing, and balance systems, and can even affect motor control and consciousness itself. Many people with migraine disorder have increased sensitivity to noise and to motion -- they get carsick as youngsters, and seasick, and very sick on carnival rides. Migraine-associated vertigo (which is the spinning type of dizziness, often with nausea) is a described medical entity. Migraine occurs in 12% of Americans. It is a common, familial, inherited condition.
... Data from a number of studies and individual cases document that in rolling terrain, disturbing symptoms of the Wind Turbine Syndrome occur up to 1.2 miles from the closest turbine. In long Appalachian valleys, with turbines on ridge-tops, disturbing symptoms occur up to 1.5 miles away. In New Zealand, which is more mountainous, disturbing symptoms occur up to 1.9 miles away.
In New York State, with its mixed terrain, I recommend a setback of 1.5 miles (8000 ft.) between all industrial wind turbines and people’s homes or schools, hospitals, or similar institutions. This setback should be imposed immediately for turbines not yet built.
March 11, 2006
Letters about Londonderry and Manchester
The recent votes in the Vermont towns of Londonderry and Manchester against erecting giant wind-powered generators have naturally generated letters to the state's newspapers. One writer to the Burlington Free Press, while recognizing the concerns of communities as serious, nonetheless considers wind power as a "chance to locally control some of our own power supply, rather than to rely on others for much of our power." The problem is, we can't control the wind. So we would either rely on other sources as much as ever, or turn to them only as needed (which would be most of the time) and pay a premium for that "independence."
Another writer expressed her recognition that wind turbines should directly benefit the communities hosting them, not serve as mere generators of "green tags" for far-off investors. Unfortunately, as Enron recognized when they invented the concept, green tags are the only thing the turbines reliably generate. That writer also described visiting large wind facilities, "the cattle undisturbed," as if that is model behavior for all of us.
There have been other letters responding to Rob Charlebois of Catamount Energy complaining about "a sophisticated advertising campaign against his project" in Londonderry and that "we have work to do at educating the public about the benefits of the project." The letters note that Catamount hired a PR firm, ran large ads in several newspapers, and made several mailings. The Glebe Mountain Group sent out postcards once and paid for only a few advertisements in the local weekly. They also note that Charlebois is up against real education, which the pablum from his PR firm can't stand up to. One writer sums up:
Finally, a letter in Friday's Brattleboro Reformer frankly states, "[T]he PSB [public service board] should not consider this vote result." He goes on:
tags: wind power, wind energy, Vermont
Another writer expressed her recognition that wind turbines should directly benefit the communities hosting them, not serve as mere generators of "green tags" for far-off investors. Unfortunately, as Enron recognized when they invented the concept, green tags are the only thing the turbines reliably generate. That writer also described visiting large wind facilities, "the cattle undisturbed," as if that is model behavior for all of us.
There have been other letters responding to Rob Charlebois of Catamount Energy complaining about "a sophisticated advertising campaign against his project" in Londonderry and that "we have work to do at educating the public about the benefits of the project." The letters note that Catamount hired a PR firm, ran large ads in several newspapers, and made several mailings. The Glebe Mountain Group sent out postcards once and paid for only a few advertisements in the local weekly. They also note that Charlebois is up against real education, which the pablum from his PR firm can't stand up to. One writer sums up:
... A few of the things we learned are: Industrial wind plants will not replace conventional power plants. Conventional power plants do not run as efficiently when they have to back up intermittent wind electricity. Wind generated electricity does not significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Wind turbines make noise, which, in a mountain environment, can be focused and amplified unpredictably. The tips of wind turbines, which travel up to 191 miles per hour, are a threat to birds and bats.The sheer size of the machines is probably the most surprising aspect to people who have not been forced to look into the issue. The Glebe Mountain Group used an effective graphic, which is on line at www.rosenlake.net/vwv/sizecomparison.html.
Finally, a letter in Friday's Brattleboro Reformer frankly states, "[T]he PSB [public service board] should not consider this vote result." He goes on:
"In the end, the PSB must act in the interest of all Vermonters, not on one town's public opinion, regardless of whether that local opinion was the result of a poll, an amendment to the town plan or any other means of expression. Otherwise any town could hold a vote, or amend its plan in order to block a needed transmission line, communications facility or power generation facility. This would lead to chaos in Vermont's plans to provide power and communications to support economic growth.This is an ironic sentiment so soon after town meeting day, praised by all (a little too desperately, in my opinion, especially in its fear of the other essential part of free democracy, the secret ballot) as democracy in its purest glory. This appeal to the "greater good" is the essence of fascism, particularly when the greater good is revealed to be only the good of the "greater": large corporations and their investors.
tags: wind power, wind energy, Vermont
March 10, 2006
What domestic spying means
A piece in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times describes the last time extensive domestic spying was uncovered, by the theft of FBI records on March 8, 1971, by activists who then anonymously mailed them to journalists and politicians. The case was never solved, and political spying by the FBI was sharply curtailed.
Now we know that the Bush administration appears to have continued the Pentagon-planned Total Information Awareness data-mining spy program -- which was canned in the face of justifiable outrage -- under the much more secret National Security Administration. Just as J. Edgar Hoover marked his fellow citizens as enemies of the state for acting against bigotry and inequality, and by doing so justifying any criminal action against them, so the big W has revived that "privilege" for himself and his corporate cronies.
This time, however, the only outrage is its being technically illegal. So Congress rushes to make it "legal" and journalists breathe a sigh of relief.
tags: anarchism, ecoanarchism, anarchosyndicalism, animal rights
Now we know that the Bush administration appears to have continued the Pentagon-planned Total Information Awareness data-mining spy program -- which was canned in the face of justifiable outrage -- under the much more secret National Security Administration. Just as J. Edgar Hoover marked his fellow citizens as enemies of the state for acting against bigotry and inequality, and by doing so justifying any criminal action against them, so the big W has revived that "privilege" for himself and his corporate cronies.
This time, however, the only outrage is its being technically illegal. So Congress rushes to make it "legal" and journalists breathe a sigh of relief.
tags: anarchism, ecoanarchism, anarchosyndicalism, animal rights
March 8, 2006
Sutton strongly rejects industrial wind power
At town meeting yesterday, Sutton (Vt.) voted 120 to 23 against the proposal by Italy-based UPC to construct six giant wind turbines on their ridgelines. This sent a clear message to the select board (which asked for the vote), which was inclining favorably to the development after UPC offered them $100,000 a year for ten years.
And in neighboring Sheffield, one pro-wind member of the planning commission was voted out in favor of a new member opposed to the same project, which would see 20 of the 400-ft-high machines on Sheffield's ridges.
Sheffield had a town vote on Dec. 1, 2005, which the developers won 120-93 with old-fashioned vote buying, but since then the planning commission (which was then generally supportive of the project) made a broader survey. They found that two-thirds of the respondents opposed and one-third supported wind power development on the ridgelines. Earlier in 2005, Ridge Protectors sent a petition to everyone on the Sheffield grand list. Of the 436 petitions sent out, 346 were returned with signatures against the UPC project.
Londonderry voted 425 to 213 on February 24 against investor Diamond Castle–owned Catamount Energy's proposal to erect 19 420-ft-high turbines on Glebe Mountain. Yesterday, they approved $100,000 to fight the project, and one member of the select board was replaced by a clear opponent of the Glebe Mountain proposal.
Manchester, whose Little Equinox ridge is targeted by Endless Energy of Lowell, Mass., held their town meeting on Saturday and voted by voice to oppose the project.
In contrast, a survey of voters at Readsboro's town meeting found that support for expansion of the Searsburg facility (the existing 11 200-ft-high machines to be supplemented with 20-30 340-ft-high machines) into their town was strong at 191-31. There is another proposal for Readsboro (the "Deerfield" project) involving 20-25 new turbines. As reported, it is unclear what exactly the Readsboro residents thought they were responding to.
In other town meeting news, four towns joined Newfane (the only one to have warned the article) to call on Representative Bernie Sanders to begin impeachment of George Bush. Montpelier and Burlington voters rejected a call to stop adding fluoride to the water, preferring weak bones, Alzheimer's, and cancer in the name of stronger tooth enamel. And Burlington elected a new mayor using instant runoff voting to ensure a majority preference.
tags: wind power, wind energy, Vermont
And in neighboring Sheffield, one pro-wind member of the planning commission was voted out in favor of a new member opposed to the same project, which would see 20 of the 400-ft-high machines on Sheffield's ridges.
Sheffield had a town vote on Dec. 1, 2005, which the developers won 120-93 with old-fashioned vote buying, but since then the planning commission (which was then generally supportive of the project) made a broader survey. They found that two-thirds of the respondents opposed and one-third supported wind power development on the ridgelines. Earlier in 2005, Ridge Protectors sent a petition to everyone on the Sheffield grand list. Of the 436 petitions sent out, 346 were returned with signatures against the UPC project.
Londonderry voted 425 to 213 on February 24 against investor Diamond Castle–owned Catamount Energy's proposal to erect 19 420-ft-high turbines on Glebe Mountain. Yesterday, they approved $100,000 to fight the project, and one member of the select board was replaced by a clear opponent of the Glebe Mountain proposal.
Manchester, whose Little Equinox ridge is targeted by Endless Energy of Lowell, Mass., held their town meeting on Saturday and voted by voice to oppose the project.
In contrast, a survey of voters at Readsboro's town meeting found that support for expansion of the Searsburg facility (the existing 11 200-ft-high machines to be supplemented with 20-30 340-ft-high machines) into their town was strong at 191-31. There is another proposal for Readsboro (the "Deerfield" project) involving 20-25 new turbines. As reported, it is unclear what exactly the Readsboro residents thought they were responding to.
In other town meeting news, four towns joined Newfane (the only one to have warned the article) to call on Representative Bernie Sanders to begin impeachment of George Bush. Montpelier and Burlington voters rejected a call to stop adding fluoride to the water, preferring weak bones, Alzheimer's, and cancer in the name of stronger tooth enamel. And Burlington elected a new mayor using instant runoff voting to ensure a majority preference.
tags: wind power, wind energy, Vermont
March 6, 2006
Manchester opposes wind power
The town of Manchester, Vermont, convened a special meeting Saturday night to discuss and vote on the wind power project on Little Equinox Mountain proposed by Endless Energy. By a voice vote at the end, the people of the town chose to oppose the project. They also approved $150,000 to fight it.
The Village Planning Commission had already done its homework, as represented by the statement below.
()()()()()()
From The Manchester (Vt.) Village Planning Commission's Policy Statement on the Proposed Little Equinox Mountain Wind Farm:
At a Special Meeting of the Commission held on Saturday, Feb. 25, to discuss the results of the recent Wind Forum, the Commission concluded, unanimously, that the proposed project should not be supported because:
1. The project violates both the Town and Village Plans of Development.
2. The project's detriments outweigh its benefits to the Manchester Community.
3. No pollution reductions will result because of the "Green Tag" sale.
... Several fundamental contradictions have concerned us from the outset:
a. Why are we discarding the preservation requirements of our Plans of Development? The Manchester Town Plan of Development states: "Structures shall not be permitted on or near mountaintops and ridgelines, so that these features are preserved in their natural state." Similarly, the Manchester Village Plan of Development says: "The natural and irreplaceable resources such as the scenic backdrop of Mount Equinox should be preserved." The proposed five-turbine installation is in clear violation of those provisions of the Plans.
b. Can we continue to keep an open mind about the Endless Energy Corporation proposal when its representatives have not been forthcoming on fundamental issues, such as financial viability and wind farm construction expertise, and have misrepresented other facts relating to the proposed development?
THEREFORE, unless convincing new information emerges to the contrary, the Manchester Village Planning Commission feels compelled to oppose the proposed wind farm at Little Equinox Mountain, based on the following facts:
1. The proposal contradicts both the Manchester Town and Manchester Village Plans of Development.
2. The five turbine structures will permanently debase the natural beauty of Manchester's highly scenic asset, our Equinox ridgeline, due to their 390' height and 300' rotor span.
3. The windmills would present a visual and noise threat to the entire community, especially to residents on Bentley Hill, Ormsby Hill, Lathrop Lane, and McCooey Drive. These problems might well become seriously detrimental to property values in those areas and beyond.
4. Several of Manchester's most visually sensitive attractions would be negatively affected by the dominating presence of the turbines; these include Equinox Pond, Hildene, Union Street, and large sections of the Battenkill.
5. By far, the financial beneficiaries of the Wind Farm enterprise would be Endless Energy, its investors, the Burlington Electric Company (BED), and BED customers, whereas Manchester would be virtually left out of the money. Specific estimates, based on the best available information including Endless Energy' 20 year contract with BED, are:
Developer benefits:
Endless Energy's revenues $43 million
Unnamed investors' profits $27 million
BED Green Tag Revenues $25 million
Investor Fed. Tax Loss Benefits $18 million
Fed. Renewable Energy Tax Credit $5.5 million
Manchester Town revenues:
Manchester Town Tax (excl. educ.) $20,000 per year: $400,000 total over 20 yrs.
Manchester "Dowry": $30,000 per year: $600,000 total over 20 yrs.
Manchester Electric Rate Savings: NONE ...
6. Under present FAA rules, at least three (possibly all five) of the turbine towers would be required to display flashing red lights night and day.
7. Endless Energy's claim that the proposed wind farm will reduce pollution is negated by the fact that the "Green Tags" sold to out-of-state power companies would allow their oil and coal-burning plants to continue to pollute the air on a kilowatt for kilowatt basis compensated by this wind farm's output. ...
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont, environment, environmentalism
The Village Planning Commission had already done its homework, as represented by the statement below.
From The Manchester (Vt.) Village Planning Commission's Policy Statement on the Proposed Little Equinox Mountain Wind Farm:
At a Special Meeting of the Commission held on Saturday, Feb. 25, to discuss the results of the recent Wind Forum, the Commission concluded, unanimously, that the proposed project should not be supported because:
1. The project violates both the Town and Village Plans of Development.
2. The project's detriments outweigh its benefits to the Manchester Community.
3. No pollution reductions will result because of the "Green Tag" sale.
... Several fundamental contradictions have concerned us from the outset:
a. Why are we discarding the preservation requirements of our Plans of Development? The Manchester Town Plan of Development states: "Structures shall not be permitted on or near mountaintops and ridgelines, so that these features are preserved in their natural state." Similarly, the Manchester Village Plan of Development says: "The natural and irreplaceable resources such as the scenic backdrop of Mount Equinox should be preserved." The proposed five-turbine installation is in clear violation of those provisions of the Plans.
b. Can we continue to keep an open mind about the Endless Energy Corporation proposal when its representatives have not been forthcoming on fundamental issues, such as financial viability and wind farm construction expertise, and have misrepresented other facts relating to the proposed development?
THEREFORE, unless convincing new information emerges to the contrary, the Manchester Village Planning Commission feels compelled to oppose the proposed wind farm at Little Equinox Mountain, based on the following facts:
1. The proposal contradicts both the Manchester Town and Manchester Village Plans of Development.
2. The five turbine structures will permanently debase the natural beauty of Manchester's highly scenic asset, our Equinox ridgeline, due to their 390' height and 300' rotor span.
3. The windmills would present a visual and noise threat to the entire community, especially to residents on Bentley Hill, Ormsby Hill, Lathrop Lane, and McCooey Drive. These problems might well become seriously detrimental to property values in those areas and beyond.
4. Several of Manchester's most visually sensitive attractions would be negatively affected by the dominating presence of the turbines; these include Equinox Pond, Hildene, Union Street, and large sections of the Battenkill.
5. By far, the financial beneficiaries of the Wind Farm enterprise would be Endless Energy, its investors, the Burlington Electric Company (BED), and BED customers, whereas Manchester would be virtually left out of the money. Specific estimates, based on the best available information including Endless Energy' 20 year contract with BED, are:
Developer benefits:
Endless Energy's revenues $43 million
Unnamed investors' profits $27 million
BED Green Tag Revenues $25 million
Investor Fed. Tax Loss Benefits $18 million
Fed. Renewable Energy Tax Credit $5.5 million
Manchester Town revenues:
Manchester Town Tax (excl. educ.) $20,000 per year: $400,000 total over 20 yrs.
Manchester "Dowry": $30,000 per year: $600,000 total over 20 yrs.
Manchester Electric Rate Savings: NONE ...
6. Under present FAA rules, at least three (possibly all five) of the turbine towers would be required to display flashing red lights night and day.
7. Endless Energy's claim that the proposed wind farm will reduce pollution is negated by the fact that the "Green Tags" sold to out-of-state power companies would allow their oil and coal-burning plants to continue to pollute the air on a kilowatt for kilowatt basis compensated by this wind farm's output. ...
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont, environment, environmentalism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)