20th September 2018
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

Negative effects are proven (Evelyn Morrison)

In a final reply to Mr Morrison’s comments, I would like to add the following information. Strobe and flicker effect are not “possible effects” but proven – ask any epileptic or migraineur.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change assessments for shadow flicker is based on industry standard computer modelling. The DECC claims that “in general shadow flicker is unlikely to have significant impact at distances greater than 10 rotor diameters.”
This is based on background research by A D Clark, a researcher for the Open University in 1991. He admits this was a short study concerned with only one relatively small turbine.

The government, ie DECC, refused a request by an individual to see the results of the Hayes McKenzie Partnership report 2006, claiming it was not in the public interest for these to be released.

Under a following Freedom of Information request it was shown that the then Government suppressed HMP’s expert advice to lower wind turbine noise limits intended to protect residents.

Germany actually appears to be the only country with a guidline that shadow flicker is negligible only at a distance of two kilometres away. However, the Neurosciences Institute, Ashton University 2008 states that “the risk of seizure does not decrease significantly until the distance exceeds 100 times the height of the (turbine) hub”.

Since the government is promoting building wind turbine energy – it is not likely to be in a hurry to get the NHS to delve into the health issues area, although the NHS did state in 2010 that studies are needed.

Environmental Protection UK, the World Health Organisation and many acousticians agree that the present noise levels will lead to increasing numbers of cases where people’s health will be damaged by low frequency noise and strobe from turbines. So it’s a case of not “if” but “when”.

Viking Energy did not bother themselves with a Public Health Impact Assessment – not strictly neccessary for planning but would be considered appropriate to do so by most concerned industries.

When I brought the health issues up at the full SIC meeting regarding the Viking Energy proposal, I was astonished that one of the nine councillors who happily voted the project through, admitted she knew nothing about the assosciated health problems. I question if any of the councillors even thought to research this area.

I could go on at length about the horror stories from people who have and are experiencing health problems as a result of living near these turbines and the underhand way that the wind industry is trying to belittle their genuine symptoms – not just in this country either.

Renewable energy is selective. It seems that we have to forsake our environment in order that cities can maintain their urbanite population’s inability to forgo any of their energy-wasteful lifestyle. Oh dear, my mistake, this project is not about saving the planet – it’s all about making money.

Mr Morrison has clearly stated he is in favour of the destruction of these beautiful islands in the lascivious quest for wealth at all cost. To me, this attutude beggars belief.

Evelyn Morrison
Setter,
Weisdale.

9 comments

  1. H Tait

    There is no consideration given to those who have to live with main street traffic so why should turbines be different. personally I love the sound of wind when out and about.
    I also wonder how many Shetlanders have actually walked from the top of Weisdale north as far as Voe.

    Reply
  2. phil smith

    In response to H Tait, i too love the sound of wnd, but what has that got to do with the NOISE of 145m turbines ?.
    As for the noise of traffic, Lerwick has it’s share of it but, compared to say London /New York ?? The Islands of Shetland are vey peaceful and quiet compared to most places in the UK and the 5 year plus construction phase of the windfarm / dynamiting of numerous large scale quarries, on top of the hillls etc etc will be a massive shock to everyone living here.
    If you want secure large scale energy security for the country that is low carbon , then a couple of Nuclear power stations would be ideal .
    Away from large centers of population and employing 3000 plus workers , about 2,950 more folk than a white elephant of a windfarm built to profit the greedy few benefiting from PUBLIC SUBSIDYS.

    Reply
  3. Brian Smith

    Tait – before replying to letters, it is important to read ’em.

    Reply
  4. I totally agree with what Evelyn has said regarding the single-minded, self conceited capitalist (encouraged further by the same inept Government, the Conservatives) who cares not about what damage short or long term they do to the environment as long as they make a profit in the process. Viking Energy are not doing Shetland any good at all, if anything, causing greater damage to not only the environment but also the economy, tourism and the ecology of these beautiful islands……..but who cares eh, as long as they make a profit. The want for money is the root of all evil, perfectly demonstrated by your average short minded, self conceited capitalist….. need I say more ?

    Reply
  5. S Winks

    Evelyn, I wonder how many in favour of this ludicrous scheme have actually bothered to read up on all the impacts if it. .. I believe that Perhaps there is also another evident but not officially classified condition to add to the, already long, list “money turbine syndrome” symptoms include desire to rape a land of outstanding natural beauty, conflict of interests, plundering trust funds for spurious schemes, destroying natural heritage, killing a thriving tourist industry, threatening wider public health, making Shetland a laughing stock to other rural communities who wouldn’t give the backers of the scheme office room etc. etc.

    Reply
  6. S Winks

    All the impacts “of it” even. .

    Reply
  7. Gordon Harmer

    Mr Spence should wake up to the fact that capitalists pay taxes on profits and they create jobs and employees pay tax and that’s how we survive. He should also wake up to the fact that it is not the Westminster Conservative Government who want Scotland and Shetland covered in windmills but the Holyrood based SNP party.
    Who’s to say that tourism will be damaged if large wind farms on the mainland are any thing to go by people will flock to Shetland to see our wind farm. Its this kind of nimby luddite green eyed attitude that will keep Shetland in the dark ages. Let Viking make a profit and a good one at that because the more they make the more Shetland and Shetlanders make. Need you say more, you didn’t say anything that was factual or sensible it was just a rant so maybe best if you stayed silent.

    Reply
  8. douglas young

    Largesse will not flow to Shetlanders, nor will we benefit from “subsidised” electricity. SSE will gain huge subsidy, not available to other forms of renewables, retain them, and pass on a “climate change levy” to individual bill payers. We will pay twice.
    As to capitalists paying tax, in the UK the largest companies pay substantially less ,in proportion, to small and medium income earners. Indeed, HM Revenue and Customs, is pursuing more and more low earners, and less and less corporate tax dodgers than ever.
    The requirement to “stay silent” should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

    Reply
  9. Gordon Harmer

    It was claimed by scare mongers that largesse would not flow to Shetlanders before the oil started to flow into Sullom, those scare mongers had to eat their words. We should be paying twice now for the expensive and air polluting method of power generation we employ at Sullom and Gremista. But do we, no the rest of Britain ( including capitalists ) subsidise us with the tax they pay. The request to stay silent was an answer to the question ” need I say more”? it is contemptuous to assume it to be a requirement. But if you feel the need please oblige as rhetoric does not an argument make.

    Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.