Opinions and axes to grind

Have your say

Stewart Boyle of Ringmer offers opinion and his idea of facts in a somewhat intemperate way. I’m afraid that I, like the 200 plus Ringmer residents who voted against the Glyndebourne wind turbine, cannot be decent as non-supporters of his views.

He refers to a report several years ago that said that noise and infrasonic noise had no direct health effects, but science and research has continued and things change. Remember several years ago, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and Al Gore were saying that by 2100 the sea levels would rise 20 feet, but in their last report the IPCC forecast a rise of about 18 inches. Noise is a problem to decent people in Ringmer and many others across the UK who are not deluded or liars with a particular axe to grind.

The problem with noise from wind turbines is not decibels but the constant rhythmic beat from the turbine blades. There was a torture simply subjecting the victim to the sound of water drops on metal without respite for long hours or days.

I have been twice to the Glyndebourne and on both visits there seemed to be no disturbing noise. The first time there was no wind and the second time the rotors were turning but the wind was less than 15mph. I’ll have to wait for a small gale of 35mph when the turbine will generating its rated capacity.

Referring to infrasonic wavelengths from wind turbines, an interesting test was set up.

In 2003 a group of 300 volunteers attended two concerts each with four musical items. At each concert infrasonic noise accompanied, unknown to the group, one of the items. After hearing the concerts the group were asked if they had felt anything unusual; 22 percent said that during two of the items they had experienced an assortment of effects including anxiety, nausea, fear and chest pains. This test only lasted at most two hours and the researchers had no particular axe to grind but it does suggest that there is a health issue.

By any engineering standards wind turbines are not going to solve our energy supply due to their intermittency. They are the only power system where the amount of fuel (wind) cannot be predicted or controlled both in quantity or timing. This problem also applies to CO2 emissions reduction for the believers of AGW.

The government’s target for 2020 and beyond will do nothing to prevent the climate disaster, whatever that is, but what is certain is that we are all being dragged into an energy supply disaster that will have more effect on the country than our current problems.

Now you may think that I’m scaremongering but we have been subject to this by the “warmists” abetted by the BBC, who slavishly peddle their line and most of our politicians.

Real science states that the greenhouse effect by increased CO2 levels is logarithmic, not directly proportional. Translated this means subsequent CO2 molecules have less effect than previous ones, this means that eventually they will not have any effect at all (it will have reached saturation point).

Now as we had reached a high CO2 level in 1998 it raises the question, have we reached that point when according to the Met Office published data there has been no increase in average global temperature for 14 years.

Stewart Boyle and interested decent readers will consider this effort and must draw their own conclusions.

Brian Beck,