"If these hidden subsidies were taken away, there would not be a single wind turbine built in Britain," says David Bellamy, a well-known environmentalist who has been tramping the Scottish countryside to oppose a massive wind project there. Wind power can't survive without massive subsidies, courtesy of you and me. Across Canada, Britain and Europe, a growing protest movement is arguing that wind farms are no good for the environment. They fear the 90-metre turbines will chop up birds, disrupt migration routes, destroy views, lower property values, even make them sick. Last night in Toronto, hundreds of anxious folks jammed a meeting called to discuss plans for a massive wind farm along the shore of Lake Ontario. Wind is clean, sustainable, renewable, free. David Suzuki, the patron saint of environmentalism, compares wind turbines to medieval cathedrals - the highest expressions of human achievement. All governments love wind power, because it makes them look so green. It's a monument to good intentions and civic virtue. On Toronto's waterfront stands a mighty wind turbine, its blades rotating lazily in the breeze (at least sometimes). ![]() ![]() Janicki, M.D., Ph.D., is a fellow of the American College of Cardiology. The last word on this issue should not be a few letters to the editor of the WDT, mine included. And the complexity and importance of the issues before us underscore the need for a comprehensive review by an impartial medical consulting firm. There are valuable lessons to be learned from the WHO and our NIH. Munk furthermore criticizes my letter with, "There has never been a single peer-reviewed study linking wind turbines to ill health effects in those living nearby." This statement is at odds with our National Institutes of Health (NIH), since its representatives have stated, "Wind energy will undoubtedly create noise, which increases stress, which in turn increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer." (Environmental Health Perspectives, volume 116, pages A237-238, 2008.) The NIH is not known to make strong statements without sufficient evidence. Babish led, page 21: "There is sufficient evidence of an association between road traffic noise and ischemic heart diseases." Ms. Quoting from the Cardiovascular Section which Dr. Babish also participated in the World Health Organization conference in Stuttgart, Germany, June 23-24, 2005. Munk) with: "This supports the hypothesis that chronic exposure to traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular disorder, particularly myocardial infarction (heart attack)." So the important message is: They quibbled about some details, but largely agree with one another that low-frequency noise may have implications for our health. ![]() Babish concludes his critical letter (cited by Ms. So the respective research teams agree that there is evidence linking low-frequency noise and heart attacks. Babish published a study suggesting men are at greater risk of heart attacks related to noise than women (Epidemiology, volume 16, 33-44, 2005). Willich's group had managed their data and took issue with the suggestion that noise affected women to a greater extent than men. Munk of Three Mile Bay responded to my letter by bringing to our attention a critique by Dr. that suggested low-frequency noise may be related to heart attacks and that women seemed disproportionately at risk. 9 letter to the Watertown Daily Times, I presented an article from the European Heart Journal authored by Dr.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |