Health impacts of wind farms?

fclauson

Read http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submissions-WindEnergy/Unspecified/FileDownLoad,35130,en.pdf

Expert on wind farm noise

Also make a submission to DOE of your views

fits

Could you give a synopsis of the findings?

AngryHippie

can create debilitating symptoms

Christ, It's only 3 pages.

It says the measures put in place are not based best science available, will not work for every situation, are the highest thresholds out of all comparable countries and don't adequately protect residents.

Unless I read it wrong.

Either way, good to see some direct expert opinion on the situation without dragging shergar into it:rolleyes:

Grudaire

can create debilitating symptoms

AngryHippie wrote: »

Christ, It's only 3 pages.

It says the measures put in place are not based best science available, will not work for every situation, are the highest thresholds out of all comparable countries and don't adequately protect residents.

Unless I read it wrong.

Either way, good to see some direct expert opinion on the situation without dragging shergar into it:rolleyes:

While he does point out that 40db is the highest of the comparable countries - he doesn't actually specify whether it should be acceptable based on actual evidence.. (40db is not particularly loud, and it will only be 40db at it's loudest?)

It's an interesting peice of analysis though.

Oldtree

I do not want to vote

40db isn't that loud but at a constant drone it is enough to drive you mad when you cannot escape it. I had an experience that went on for years where the low drone of a digger went on 12 hours a day every day, and it is not a pleasant experience and will drive you to distraction.

fclauson

I do not want to vote

Grudaire wrote: »

While he does point out that 40db is the highest of the comparable countries - he doesn't actually specify whether it should be acceptable based on actual evidence.. (40db is not particularly loud, and it will only be 40db at it's loudest?)

It's an interesting peice of analysis though.

You need to understand the physics of it 40dbA depends if its LEQ, LA90 or what

Read http://www.masenv.co.uk/press/?page=press
and http://www.masenv.co.uk/publications

Mike is one of the most informed people on this topic

You need to write and point out that ETSU-R-90 is wrong in that it takes all of its calcs from the wind speed at the turbine

Why is this wrong:
Have you ever noticed at in the evening - overnight and early morning the wind drops off - ETSU-R-90 does not take account of this. For and understanding of wind shear see http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45455.pdf

fclauson

I do not want to vote

Oldtree wrote: »

40db isn't that loud but at a constant drone it is enough to drive you mad when you cannot escape it. I had an experience that went on for years where the low drone of a digger went on 12 hours a day every day, and it is not a pleasant experience and will drive you to distraction.

True and 40db at night is worse

plus a building will "attenuate" sound - that is get rid of the higher frequencies dues to windows and walls being in the way and leave the lower frequencies to enter properties

Turbines create a wide spectrum of noise and its these low ones (all be they very low in decibels) which can be very irritating

Oldtree

I do not want to vote

fclauson wrote: »

True and 40db at night is worse

plus a building will "attenuate" sound - that is get rid of the higher frequencies dues to windows and walls being in the way and leave the lower frequencies to enter properties

Turbines create a wide spectrum of noise and its these low ones (all be they very low in decibels) which can be very irritating

That sort of effect was really noticeable with the rock breaker. It was much louder inside the house than outside, I had put that down to a shared bedrock even though the works were over 500m distant.

I did admire a local (smallish by industrial standards) turbine put up adjacent to a farm and stopped to look at it and it wasn't until I turned off the engine that I noticed the woosh clearly from over 150m away. Would drive me nuts if I lived next to it.

fclauson

I do not want to vote

Go and read what people are saying

and make sure you have your say - otherwise you will have no excuse to complain later http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submissions-WindEnergy/

fclauson

I do not want to vote

fclauson wrote: »

Go and read what people are saying

and make sure you have your say - otherwise you will have no excuse to complain later http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submissions-WindEnergy/

BUMP - make sure you at least read the draft

fclauson

I do not want to vote

Attached is a letter from the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer to the Department of Environment on the health implications of wind turbines

Please vote - given the WHO definition of Health are Wind turbines

a) no threat to public health
b) can create debilitating symptoms (definition http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/symptom


WHO definition of Health (http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html)
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

In her review. the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer concluded that:
"wind turbines do not represent a threat to public health. However there is a consistent cluster of symptoms related to wind turbine syndrome which occurs in a number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines. There are specific risk factors for this syndrome and people with these risk factors experience symptoms. These people must be treated appropriately and sensitively as these symptoms can be very debilitating".

This information was received following an AIE request to the department of health

BrenCooney

can create debilitating symptoms

Thanks for that.
A correction, the letter is from the "Deputy" Chief Medical Officer.

AngryHippie

can create debilitating symptoms

IF you read it in it's entirety it does state that it poses no health risk if planning regulations are followed.

By the way, its a lit review. There is no new information there, the most recent peer reviewed information being from 2009. That's why I have had to poll for no risk to public health.

It is interesting the note the results from that dutch study, indicating that those who directly benefit from the turbine, have a lower probability of lodging complaints about it, or from suffering the phenomenon described as wind turbine syndrome in the US (not peer reviewed and highly criticized)

fclauson

I do not want to vote

AngryHippie wrote: »

IF you read it in it's entirety it does state that it poses no health risk if planning regulations are followed.

Yes - but the exam question was -
"we are re-writing the guidance - what input do you have" not
"do wind turbines have an associated health risk"

The wrong exam question got answered (with a very paradoxical answer)

BrenCooney

can create debilitating symptoms

the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer concluded that:
"wind turbines do not represent a threat to public health"

says it all.

fclauson

I do not want to vote

BrenCooney wrote: »

the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer concluded that:
"wind turbines do not represent a threat to public health"

says it all.

"there is a consistent cluster of symptoms related to wind turbine syndrome which occurs in a number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines."

where
symptom = "a physical or mental feature which is regarded as indicating a condition"
condition = "a person’s state of health or physical fitness"
syndrome = "a group of symptoms which consistently occur together"
Health = http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html


Surely does - as clear as mud

BrenCooney

can create debilitating symptoms

The first bit of the statement is unambiguous.
The second bit is fairly clear also.

Greensleeves

AngryHippie wrote: »

It is interesting the note the results from that dutch study, indicating that those who directly benefit from the turbine, have a lower probability of lodging complaints about it, or from suffering the phenomenon described as wind turbine syndrome in the US (not peer reviewed and highly criticized)

Here is an interesting case in Texas...

"In what may be an unprecedented move, 23 Texans who host wind turbines on their property have filed suit against two different wind farm developers, claiming that companies “carelessly and negligently failed to adequately disclose the true nature and effects that the wind turbines would have on the community, including the plaintiffs’ homes.”

This court challenge stands apart from most previous nuisance suits, nearly all of which been filed by non-participating neighbors of wind farms (ie, local residents who are not hosting turbines themselves). Most annoyance surveys suggest that wind farm hosts are less likely to be bothered by turbine noise than non-participating neighbors, and many wind projects make an effort to spread the financial benefits to include some non-host neighbors, because of suggestions that broader project participation will increase community acceptance. In this case, however, the plaintiffs are receiving lease payments and tax benefits that will exceed $50 million over the life of the projects."

http://aeinews.org/archives/2538

quentingargan

can create debilitating symptoms

A lot of illness is psychosomatic. That doesn't mean it isn't real, but if I hated wind farms (which I don't) and one was built near my home, I would probably find it depressing and frustrating to look out on them each day, and the anger associated with this would be debilitating and may affect my health. You could also argue that such effects are self-inflicted. If you have lost a campaign to block any development in your neighbourhood, it is difficult to live with that loss, but it has to be done. Cities are full of householders who have to live beside a development they objected to.

But here's the rub from that letter "Wind energy is associated with fewer health effects than other traditional forms of energy generation, and in fact will have positive health benefits". Acid rain? radioactive isotopes? climate change? I have to vote no for that reason. Most industrial developments have some health effect, but some are less than others.

Personally I find the prospect of climate change much more debilitating, and I am sure some climate sceptics will dispute any association claimed links between climate change and the series of exceptional storms that have swept our coastal communities. But the IPCC and the vast majority of the scientific community are agreed that the planet is in extreme danger if we do not massively curtail our use of fossil fuels. Wind, solar and hydro are all required in the mix across Europe, and Ireland has some of the best wind.

Markcheese

Fear is the big thing, fear can make you bitter and angry and sick ... fear of noises you can't hear,vibrations you cant feel, radiation
So take the fear away , put sensible testable limits on noise , vibration radiation, whatever , at set distances 4/500 meters , and write it into the planning permission or licence or what ever... If the company breaches these limits they fix it or shut down ...
If fear is a good enough reason to stop things you might as well close the country cos nothing can be done anywhere..
The same doomsayers and fearful franks who are terrified of infrasound , use their phones, drive cars,drink, smoke eat red meat ,climb ladders all risks of some kind but that's different ... They bought into that ??

BrenCooney

can create debilitating symptoms

Interesting read on the subject.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628850.200-the-sickening-truth-about-wind-farm-syndrome.html

fclauson

I do not want to vote

Markcheese wrote: »

.....
So take the fear away , put sensible testable limits on noise , vibration radiation, whatever , at set distances 4/500 meters , and write it into the planning permission or licence or what ever... If the company breaches these limits they fix it or shut down ...

Totally agree - but enforcement is the key
A) a planning authority should follow due process , consider the impacts, and agree a clear set of controls in the conditions of planning
the wind farm should build within those parameters , demonstrate compliance and continue to monitor
C) enforcement control must then be operated with military procission to ensure compliance

But a failure at.A) and ignoring culture at (b) and an ineffective (c) is where we are today

That is why the populous is so against wind farms

Compare that to say gas safety we have clear regulation, responsible fitters and draconian non compliance implications and it woks - so many industries are very well controlled but in the case of wind it's like the building regs up until recently - "self regulation works - doesn't 'it!!!!"

fclauson

I do not want to vote

Markcheese wrote: »

... set distances 4/500 meters ,

The Irish distance from turbine problem and why the industry is so against it - look at how much land is available based on distance

http://airo.ie/news/airo-mapping-asking-questions-new-wind-turbines-bill-0

BrenCooney

can create debilitating symptoms

With regard to setback distances it should be scientific based, not some random distance plucked out of the air or based on a "feeling".
Agree with compliance, self regulation is no regulation and it does turn people off any industry when they appear to not play by the rules. But that works both ways and if an emission is within a limit then that should be that, or if above a limit then there should be a set time frame for compliance to be met.

Markcheese

BrenCooney wrote: »

With regard to setback distances it should be scientific based, not some random distance plucked out of the air or based on a "feeling".
Agree with compliance, self regulation is no regulation and it does turn people off any industry when they appear to not play by the rules. But that works both ways and if an emission is within a limit then that should be that, or if above a
limit then there should be a set time
frame for compliance to be met.

What does set back distance matt
er if there are set noise /vibration limits ..
If someone puts up a small noisy turbine it'd have to be further away from houses than a large relatively quiet one , thing is though how do you decide background noise .... When does a sound become nusance ... I can hear road noise at 4 am (if I'm awake) doesn't bother me, nor the hum from my fish tank, but a fly buzzing round drives me nuts !! .

BrenCooney

can create debilitating symptoms

Sorry if my first sentence confuses. The set back distance should be the noise limit contour. In some places it will be big, in some places it could be smaller. If the topography is complex then the noise counter will be accordingly wiggly!

fclauson

I do not want to vote

Makechees - sort of agree- noise & flicker should be the primary with others secondary

The only other criteria is amenity and material asset impact - http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?article=l5

fclauson

I do not want to vote

BrenCooney wrote: »

Sorry if my first sentence confuses. The set back distance should be the noise limit contour. In some places it will be big, in some places it could be smaller. If the topography is complex then the noise counter will be accordingly wiggly!

Yes if these maps are actually accurate - ETSU-97-R has proved is self incapable in forecasting the correct predictive noise levels and is becoming seriously discredited.

Interesting on wind shear - and how it cannot be predicated by the standard log law method
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43150.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45455.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/32492.pdf

fclauson

I do not want to vote

BrenCooney wrote: »

Interesting read on the subject.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628850.200-the-sickening-truth-about-wind-farm-syndrome.html

and to keep the balance here is some people of have critiqued the above article
http://acousticecology.org/wind/winddocs/health/AEI_ExpectationsAndHealthEffects.pdf
and attached document

sawdoubters

heres the health defects

http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full

fclauson

I do not want to vote

Following an interesting lunch over the weekend with a selection of UK legal folk they proposed that I should push the view that now Irish government has formally recognised the presence of "Wind Turbine Syndrome" by way of the DCMO annotating such a point in her letter that every planning application as part of its EIA will nee have to address this point so as to comply with Article 3 if the AIE

"The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case and in accordance with Articles 4 to 12, the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors:
(a) human beings, fauna and flora;"

Where a planning authority has failed to identify and assess how many people have this syndrome within the area of a turbine installation they would have failed their statutory duty to fulfil their obligations under the AIE directive.

Markcheese

fclauson wrote: »

Makechees - sort of agree- noise & flicker should be the primary with others secondary

The only other criteria is amenity and material asset impact - http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?article=l5

Material asset impact.? .. A very slippery slope...I believe My house is worth less because of a new dairy farm near by,a forrestry plantation,my perfect view obscured by a bloody farmers house/shed ,I want compo... Or a factory in city gets built I think it devalues my neighborhood...
If it conforms to planning guidelines then tough ... And yes I have wind turbines relatively near my house...

BrenCooney

can create debilitating symptoms

Have never known a solicitor/barrister to refuse work.
I would'nt either if I was in their position, as you get paid if the case is lost or won.
It could be interesting if a court case is taken, especially when the DCMO's first sentence, "wind turbines do not represent a threat to public health" is read out in court.

djpbarry

I've merged the threads entitled "Wind farm noise - an experts opinion" and "Wind Farms-No risk to public health or can provoke debilatating symptons-YOU CHOOSE" into a new thread entitled "Health impacts of wind farms".

Macha

can create debilitating symptoms

For anyone who missed it, the European Commission came out with a report on EMF from pylons today. It didn't find any evidence of an elevated health risk.

The authors have launched a public consultation and are seeking feedback for anyone interested.

http://www.thejournal.ie/eu-commission-report-pylons-1298920-Feb2014/

fclauson

I do not want to vote

There was also a very interesting piece on Newstalk (about 8:20 today with Ivan Yates)

Prof Anthony Staples
http://www.dcu.ie/info/staff_member.php?id_no=3153

talking about a piece of work he did on this in the UK a few years ago on EMF and powerlines. Well worth a listen to as he was very crisp and clear, based on fact about what he thought the conclusions are.

Audio Link: http://newstalk.ie/player/shows/Breakfast/44542/do_pylons_pose_a_risk_for_children

djpbarry

There was also an article by Anthony Staines in the Indo a few days ago:

In an earlier phase of my career I worked on the UK Childhood Cancer Case Control Study – a very big study of why children get cancer.

Part of my work was on the electromagnetic fields in homes, some proportion of which comes from pylons. We measured the magnetic fields, from mains electricity, in the homes of several thousand children with, and without, a diagnosis of cancer. More than a dozen other studies, in several countries, have done something similar.

Epidemiologists, that is people who study the causes of health and disease, agree that the right way to make sense of the results of such studies is to pull all the results together. When this is done, what is found is that children living in homes with very high magnetic fields (less than 2pc of all houses), are at increased risk of getting childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL).

Their risk seems to be between 1.3 and 1.7 times the risk for most other children. Is this risk real? No one is quite sure. No one knows, yet, how magnetic fields might cause ALL in children, and there are always difficulties doing, and using the results of, this type of study.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/yes-pylons-will-raise-health-concerns-but-these-must-be-put-into-perspective-29963611.html

So in other words, even if there is an increased risk, the risk is still very, very low.

BrenCooney

can create debilitating symptoms

A large part of the problem is that alot of peoople dont seem to be able to differentiate between risks,
or that doubling of a risk may still leave it in the nearly improbable sphere!!
There was a brilliant diagram in a National Geographic a few years back composed of circles with the biggest indicating the risk of death, at 100% (we all die sometime), and then the risk of death by various means highlighted by smaller circles within the 100%.
Some of the highest risks were surprising.

fclauson

I do not want to vote

BrenCooney wrote: »

A large part of the problem is that alot of peoople dont seem to be able to differentiate between risks,
or that doubling of a risk may still leave it in the nearly improbable sphere!!
There was a brilliant diagram in a National Geographic a few years back composed of circles with the biggest indicating the risk of death, at 100% (we all die sometime), and then the risk of death by various means highlighted by smaller circles within the 100%.
Some of the highest risks were surprising.

Yes as attached

The issue is that NO RISK assessment was carried out in the case of wind turbines - the DoE only have a total of 5 records relating to "health implications of living within 5km of wind turbines". My AIE uncovered them all - and all dated within the past 6 months.

Given that turbines have been going through planning for some 15 years and the DoE state it is responsible for " the way that its programmes and activities impinge on the lives of every citizen in the State" how can this come close to "identify, describe and assess" their impact from a "human" perspective as required in every planning application.

BrenCooney

can create debilitating symptoms

What is the risk?
if the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer concluded that:
"wind turbines do not represent a threat to public health"
then what risk is left?

fclauson

I do not want to vote

BrenCooney wrote: »

the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer concluded that:
"wind turbines do not represent a threat to public health"

says it all.

She said threat and not risk - very different.
Threat is an "intent" to cause injury - and I sure no wind farm has that intent
Risk is a situation involving danger - and she has has identified that danger

Remember under the constitution you have a right to "bodily integrity"

The DCMO has clearly articulated there is a group of citizens who suffer symptoms which can be debilitating when they live near wind farms.

Thus they have an argument that the wind farms impact their "bodily integrity". (the DCMO has said as much)

As the state has a duty (because they must do nothing which infringes your right enshrined in the constitution safeguarding "bodily integrity" ) to protect that group and can authorise nothing which impacts on that.

The challenge is the DCMO has opened up an issue of her own making. She says there is no threat - but she also says there is a group who could become debilitated if they live near them.

Any logistician will tell you that the two parts of her statement conflict such that there are multiple outcomes (which is never good in pure logic but is fantastic for the law courts)

If the question "is there risks to citizens of the state" then we have a very clear set of answers
a) there is no threat
b) there is a group who are at risk if they live near wind farms

Neither sentence can be taken in isolation (as much as each side of the debate would like to have it) but when taken together they conflict.

So in summary we have made no progress in determining the risk to "humans" as required under the EU directive given the summary statement from the Irish DCMO.

BrenCooney

can create debilitating symptoms

Don't know what to say at this stage so I bow out of this debate.

AngryHippie

can create debilitating symptoms

The risk exists, as admitted by the DCMO, but it is a risk that can be controlled. There are risks involved no matter how you try and generate and transmit power.

If it could be shown that the risk in the case of wind turbines was the lowest risk exposure to the smallest number of people, then your argument here would hold no merit.

That is the basis that the research and advancement of planning for windfarms needs to pursue.

For the risks identified you apply the usual hierarchy of controls (in order)

1. Elimination of the source
2. Substitution for a less risky method
3. Isolate the source
4. Administrative measures to limit exposure
5. Protection from the risk (physical barriers, PPE Etc)

This is fairly fundamental stuff, if wind is the least risky way to generate power, then eliminating the source is off the cards.

You choose the least risky method of generating power from wind, and you isolate it in every case possible by a physical distance from people.
Beyond that, each location must be assessed on its own merits and accepted, rejected or modified in a similar manner.


That is, if health risks are the only basis for approval or rejection.
IMO, health shouldn't be the only criteria, but should definitely be one that doesn't get whitewashed. Aesthetics and Nimbyism on the other hand might get flushed down.

fclauson

I do not want to vote

AngryHippie wrote: »

....but should definitely be one that doesn't get whitewashed. ..

Very well put
Currently on the pro-wind say "no effect" and the anti-wind say "there is an effect"

This is not a binary issues - its a risk management one as you rightly say. Take a really simple example - a common kettle for boiling water - not a threat to public health but they have their risks.

With Wind turbines sweeping health issues aside will come back to haunt government - so as I have put in my submission to the DoH as part of each wind turbine development plan these risks need to be identified and managed (that's a legal requirement under the Aarhaus agreement) and today this is not happening.

The power boys want them at any health coast and the country dweller who suddenly has these things thrust upon them does not want them at all.

Balance, acknowledgement of the issues, and pragmatic solutions are required.

AngryHippie

can create debilitating symptoms

fclauson wrote: »

.....these risks need to be identified and managed (that's a legal requirement under the Aarhaus agreement) and today this is not happening.

If that is the case, then it is a show stopper. Legal injunction against whomsoever is performing the assessment and/or authorization of the development. That much is pretty black and white and could be taken as far as the EU. The lost time alone on that makes it a waste of time to pursue for the power boys and commercial entities driving it.

I dare say the threat of a serious legal challenge would be enough to bring them to the table with all stakeholders including residents.

If it isn't then they stand to lose any ISO certification credibility and their stake in the program.

Make it about $$$$ and they will listen.

Oldtree

I do not want to vote

djpbarry wrote: »

There was also an article by Anthony Staines in the Indo a few days ago:
Quote:

In an earlier phase of my career I worked on the UK Childhood Cancer Case Control Study – a very big study of why children get cancer.

Part of my work was on the electromagnetic fields in homes, some proportion of which comes from pylons. We measured the magnetic fields, from mains electricity, in the homes of several thousand children with, and without, a diagnosis of cancer. More than a dozen other studies, in several countries, have done something similar.

Epidemiologists, that is people who study the causes of health and disease, agree that the right way to make sense of the results of such studies is to pull all the results together. When this is done, what is found is that children living in homes with very high magnetic fields (less than 2pc of all houses), are at increased risk of getting childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL).

Their risk seems to be between 1.3 and 1.7 times the risk for most other children. Is this risk real? No one is quite sure. No one knows, yet, how magnetic fields might cause ALL in children, and there are always difficulties doing, and using the results of, this type of study.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/yes-pylons-will-raise-health-concerns-but-these-must-be-put-into-perspective-29963611.html

So in other words, even if there is an increased risk, the risk is still very, very low.

"Their risk seems to be between 1.3 and 1.7 times the risk for most other children." seems to confirm an increased risk of ALL and if it came to your child is any increased risk acceptable? "No one knows" then given the above would it not be prudent to err on the side of caution for your child?

periodictable

can create debilitating symptoms

Load of codswallop.
I lived smack in the heart of Manhattan for 10 years-nonstop noise from aircraft, traffic, sirens, construction. Took a while to get used to it but one day I realized I didn't notice it any more.
At the nub of the whole anti-windfarm thing is a belief that the countryside as is, is"pristine" and we ought not to change it.
Fact, the countryside/landscape we know is man made, and I wonder would the NIMBYs do without cell phones, masts, electricity, internet. Also the lifetime of the turbines is finite...20-25 years.

Oldtree

I do not want to vote

periodictable wrote: »

Load of codswallop.
I lived smack in the heart of Manhattan for 10 years-nonstop noise from aircraft, traffic, sirens, construction. Took a while to get used to it but one day I realized I didn't notice it any more.
At the nub of the whole anti-windfarm thing is a belief that the countryside as is, is"pristine" and we ought not to change it.
Fact, the countryside/landscape we know is man made, and I wonder would the NIMBYs do without cell phones, masts, electricity, internet. Also the lifetime of the turbines is finite...20-25 years.

I lived in London with a train station at the end of the garden, a motor way nearby and heathrow flight path over head, and yes I got used to it (with massive pylons down the road). Now that I am 14 years out of it I cannot sleep when I go to visit relations in Dublin due to the light and noise.

Yes the landscape is manmade, a managed one at that, but the point is how do we manage it? The nimbys of which you speak manage that landscape and would be more aware of it than townies .

We already have a structure in place for telephones, etc, are you suggesting that we take these facilities off nimbys until they agree to pylons?

It is worth bearing in mind that the uk no longer encourages turbines onshore and this seems to indicate to me that they understand that the onshore turbine gold rush is over and will leave behind a load of white elephants in the near future, is that our future a landscape full of white elephants remaining for all to see when the companies are long gone, like our ghost estates, along with unused/underutilised pylons streching as far as the eye can see.

Grudaire

can create debilitating symptoms

Oldtree wrote: »

It is worth bearing in mind that the uk no longer encourages turbines onshore and this seems to indicate to me that they understand that the onshore turbine gold rush is over and will leave behind a load of white elephants in the near future, is that our future a landscape full of white elephants remaining for all to see when the companies are long gone, like our ghost estates, along with unused/underutilised pylons streching as far as the eye can see.

Jumping to conclusions there Tbf

It's politically unpalatable, that's enough to tank the idea

djpbarry

Oldtree wrote: »

"Their risk seems to be between 1.3 and 1.7 times the risk for most other children." seems to confirm an increased risk of ALL and if it came to your child is any increased risk acceptable? "No one knows" then given the above would it not be prudent to err on the side of caution for your child?

I can understand that reaction, but 1.3 times a negligible risk is still negligible.

Do parents perform a similar risk assessment every time they strap their kids into a car, for example?

Oldtree

I do not want to vote

djpbarry wrote: »

I can understand that reaction, but 1.3 times a negligible risk is still negligible.

Do parents perform a similar risk assessment every time they strap their kids into a car, for example?

I would hope that people are cautious when strapping the kids in, like making sure belt on right, securely, no heavy items to bounce around the car should a crash happen and drive carefully, it the best we can do. Unfortunatly I have known people with All and other cancers and both the treatment and the disease, is nasty and not something I would wish on anybody, especially children, even 1 child.

This makes for interesting reading:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/A/Acute-lymphoblastic-leukaemia/Complications-of-acute-lymphoblastic-leukaemia.html