Let's also not forget those birds of prey. They keep down the mice and rabbits but they are being sliced and diced by those eco-friendly wind turbines. That's okay because those towering monstrosities are cleaner than nuclear power, or so they tell us.
Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey
By John Ritter, USA TODAY
ALTAMONT PASS, Calif. — The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades in one of the nation's first big wind-power projects.
But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors.
Do eco-nuts ever actually THINK before they act, or is that not a requirement of being a greenie? They want eco-fuels which leads to more people starving. Then they want more wind turbines which leads to more birds and bats dying. Then they try to save some birds by removing all the cats from an island, just to have the mice and rabbit populations explode, threatening the very birds they wanted to save. Then they talk about saving the polar bears by relocating them to Antarctica, which would kill off the penguins.
They are doing this to our planet without any proof that greenhouse gasses are even a problem. There is proof that bats are dying, there is proof that people are dying from malaria, but there is no proof that the earth is warming.
Fear is their motto, because they are like spoiled little children who have never grown up. They spike trees so they don't get cut down and then fly all over the world to protest against CO2, a naturally occurring substance, that plants and humans need for life. They buy phony carbon credits to salve their guilt. Why are they guilty? They are guilty because they are living, and this bothers them.
Nuclear power is a big no-no for them, why? They associate it with "war", and therefore it must be bad. The eco-nuts are just the long ago hippies dressed up in a new skin, called global warming. They listen to washed up politicians and bug guys who are busy lining their pockets with carbon credit money and living the high life.
If "dirty oil" companies have to pay for 500 ducks, then why don't "clean wind turbine" companies have to pay for thousands of birds? Double standards show that the eco-nuts are just that, nuts. Maybe we should start recruiting squirrels to pluck those nuts off their spiked trees and store them for the next long cold Canadian winter.
21 comments:
Man-made structure/technology
Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)
Feral and domestic cats
Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]
Power lines
130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]
Windows (residential and commercial)
100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
Pesticides
70 million [source: AWEA]
Automobiles
60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]
Lighted communication towers
40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]
Wind turbines
10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]
How does one charge a windmill? Just wondering.
Eco-fuels are a major piece of your very own conservative government's environmental policy.Write your MP to voice your opposition.
Most of your rant makes little or no sense. You speak of spoiled children. You sound like a teenager yourself.
Now Now Hunter - don't you know it doesn't count if it is something that the eco-nuts believe will save the world - well those animals died for a good cause.
Slice and Dice, Slice and Dice
Not only do those turbines kill birds but they also cause havoc with electrical devices such as pacemakers.
Living within close proximity to the turbines causes disruption in air volumes and changes atmospheric pressures unnaturally causing respiratory problems.
So much for short sightedness. Cheers.
Hunter, are you trying to paint a black hole green with this post? You should stop using swiss cheese for rhetoric.
You say,"Nuclear power is a big no-no for them (environmentalists), why? They associate it with "war", and therefore it must be bad."
Um, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island anyone?
And they are butt ugly,
row upon row of turbines littering our beautiful country.
Martins links show why people with tiny brains are called birdbrains,
and humans are at the top of the food chain.
Birds are stupid critters.
You know, if it weren't for Bob Rae, Ontario would have an abundance of clean electricity. Prior to Bob Rae's disastrous turn as our premier (shudder, shudder, recurring nightmares), the Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba governments were close to striking a deal which would produce an east-west grid.
Enter Bob Rae and he threw up so many conditions that the two otehr provinces walked away. We would not need wind power in Ontario if Bob Rae had not killed the deal...king of like how he killed our economy.
I do not understand why we are building homes, factories, and office buildings when we don't have enough electricity.
Stereo - both of those catastrophes were caused by long-term negligence.
You should know that the Candu reactor has a safety feature that others do not have - a mechanism to neutralize the material in the event of a catastophic problem.
Other than those two which you mentioned, have you ever heard of one in Canada? No.
Besides, all forms of energy generation and use carry risks. The risk from a nuclear generating station is minimal - if proper procedures are followed. So far, Canada has been a shining example. Go to Europe if you want to see nuclear reactors - tons of them. Ever hear of a huge incident?
Uh, no.
So, your point was?
Tday a bird, guess what kind, flew into the windshield of a small plane, smashing it, while it was in the air, causing a crash landing. Pilot ok.
Sorry, plane had to make an emergency landing in Florida. Pilot had slight head injury.
The amount of radiation released at 3 mile island was equivelent to that of receiving an x-ray, which is also equivelent to a 30 minute flight in a commercial airliner. Chernobol? Well, never leave the commmies to mind the store.
Wind turbines are much nicer to look at than, I don't know, say a coal fired power plant. But that's just me...
If you are reading this comment then you've already been subjected to dangerous levels of high-grade stupidity. Proceed immediately to the nearest critical thinking textbook and re-establish your powers of rational thought.
To be honest, I'm not even sure what you were aiming for with this blog post. It really is borderline insane.
Wilson, you really think they're ugly? It must be the little boy who remains in this 56 year-old body - I think they're neat. I've always been fascinated by anything that looks like a fan.
There's a turbine sitting out in a field somewhere in the Toronto area and it takes every bit of control to not stop on the 401 and gawk at it.
Eskimo: I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but here says that the typical dose at 30,000ft is about 4uSv per hour, and even the minimum value for a dental x-ray is 30uSv (and it goes up to 9000uSv). That means that the smallest DENTAL x-ray is still equivalent to about an 8-hour flight (and it would need to be consecutive eight hours at 30000ft). A medical x-ray will have higher levels still, so clearly your numbers are way off. You do not get an equivalent X-ray (by any definition of X-ray) for every 1/2 hour of flight.
3-mile island dose was about the same as a chest x-ray. This claims that a chest x-ray is about 8mrem = 80uSv, which is about the same order of magnitude as I suspected from the level of a dental x-ray.
Some research is suggested before you make ludicrous claims.
EoE:
both of those catastrophes were caused by long-term negligence.
Whaaaa? They were both largely caused by human error. I've never read that 'long-term negligence' was the cause of any of it.
Chernobyl was caused by human error where safety systems were shut off during a test and the warning system was ignored.
3-mile was actually a failure in the system, but it was not stopped in time because of poor operator training and ambiguous safety system design.
Does anyone here read about these things at all before they post?
Could we agree it would be preferable for power projects to harm as few living creatures as possible? And perhaps even that it would be preferable to develop more projects that do less harm? And that projects neglecting to take steps to prevent harm, should be held accountable for it? Or would you rather split hairs about acceptable harms?
Eskimo - thanks for the clarfication re: Three Mile Island. As for Chernobyl, it is as much a hazard today as it was back then. I forget which, but it may have been National Geographic, ran an article on it. The covers over the reactors are falling apart and water is leaching through and contaminating the ground. People still live there and the cancer rate is high but they persevere.
It's a very sad state of affairs knowing that this source of radiation has not been rectified.
When I was quite young, we visited the new nuclear station in Pinawa (Manitoba). You would not believe the safety precautions. Since then, safety has improved exponentially. Those who are against nuclear power are deluding themselves. Hydro power is clean but the effect on the environment can be devastating. Basically, power dams create a whole new ecosystem.
No matter how you slice the cake, we have too many people on this planet and we're living in ways that we were not meant to live. Wind turbines are not the problem. Power dams are not the problem. Cars are not the problem. We humans are the problem.
As for birds flying into the blades, within a generation or two, their flight patterns will change. Birds die more from cats on the loose in cities than from wind turbines.
Martin- you charge the windmill company, like they are charging the oil company, DUH!! That was the whole point of the post, but I guess it was too deep for you to understand.
SQ- How about all that flooded land that Quebec justifies as necessary for it's hydro plants, that's pretty ugly, even if it is covered in water now. How many ducks, deer, bears, moose, etc. did flooding that land displace or kill? At least the oilsands have been there for thousands of years, leaching oil into the river.
David- only someone with no intellect accuses other of something they clearly lack themselves.
Myster- You obviously understood the point I was making, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So, who is going to sue the wind farm companies???
"only someone with no intellect accuses other of something they clearly lack themselves"
Uhhh, did you just call yourself stupid?
David you just proved my point. Lack of intellect is not having any argument to make, except slagging those who do have an opinion.
If you are reading this comment then you've already been subjected to dangerous levels of high-grade stupidity. Proceed immediately to the nearest critical thinking textbook and re-establish your powers of rational thought.
To be honest, I'm not even sure what you were aiming for with this blog post. It really is borderline insane.
That's your idea of an intelligent comment????
I only posted it to show my readers the tactics of lefties. They have nothing to say, so they attack those who do with snarky, arrogant, I'm better than everyone else comments, like yours.
Get over yourself.
Update to plane and birds. Now it is reported that there was a flock of vultures that ran into the plane. Or did the plane run into a flock of vultures.
Post a Comment