View Full Version : Thurso high school wind turbine
Green_not_greed
13-Dec-08, 11:57
Friday 12 December's Groat carried a planning application for a wind turbine at Thurso High School. Its not a Causeymire-sized monster nor is it a Tesco's toy. The tower is 10.7m high and the blade diameter 5.5m, 6kW generating capacity, and from the discussion I had with the planning office its to go in the school playground.
Given that the French have declared a 500m exclusion zone around some of their turbines on safety grounds, and continued reporting of pieces of blade and ice being thrown from wind turbines, it would not seem a sensible suggestion to put one of these in a school playground.
I support wind farms and think they do a good job. BUT i draw the line at putting one in a school playground, that is just plain wrong!! With all the PC brigade up in arms about everything this for once would be a good thing to get concerned about, its totally bonkers!!!!!
Bad Manners
13-Dec-08, 12:08
I have to agree with Hotrod4 whilst I have no objection to wind turbines I think the siteing of one in a school playground seems a step too far. I do hope the planing authority do look carefully at the saftey aspect of this and hope common sence prevails
anneoctober
13-Dec-08, 12:09
Friday 12 December's Groat carried a planning application for a wind turbine at Thurso High School. Its not a Causeymire-sized monster nor is it a Tesco's toy. The tower is 10.7m high and the blade diameter 5.5m, 6kW generating capacity, and from the discussion I had with the planning office its to go in the school playground.
Given that the French have declared a 500m exclusion zone around some of their turbines on safety grounds, and continued reporting of pieces of blade and ice being thrown from wind turbines, it would not seem a sensible suggestion to put one of these in a school playground.
This HAS to be a joke? Who dreamt this one up ? [disgust]
And are you thinking that when the wind is high enough to shatter the blades the children will be running around the turbine? Perhaps Thurso's kids will be indoors keeping warm instead!
Green_not_greed
13-Dec-08, 13:08
And are you thinking that when the wind is high enough to shatter the blades the children will be running around the turbine? Perhaps Thurso's kids will be indoors keeping warm instead!
They don't just break in bad weather.
http://ventdubocage.net/ecosse5.htm
Melancholy Man
13-Dec-08, 14:09
From the article:
Last month the revolutionary eco-friendly school lost its green energy supply after a damper, used to control the blades, came off when bolts broke.Clarification please. This link appears to come from a site dedicated to Green policies and antipathetic to wind-farms, so it is reasonable to assume bias. Plus, no offence to the Sunday Post, it is not a peer reviewed engineering journal.
Lastly, nothing in the article suggests the parts came off at high-speed or caused any disruption other than the inconvenience of a halt in power supply. As even the article shows, other schools have had turbines located close by, so presumably risk-assessments have been made.
Why should a school be an especial no-no? I doubt there'd be free access for children, and imagine there are schools located close to electricity sub-stations. Thurso High School is on, er, a main road.
Given that the French have declared a 500m exclusion zone around some of their turbines on safety grounds, and continued reporting of pieces of blade and ice being thrown from wind turbines, it would not seem a sensible suggestion to put one of these in a school playground.Note that G.n.G., after admitting this would be a relative tiddler of a turbine, goes on to link it to others of unspecified size. My gut reaction is that this is as 'serious' as the shredding of birds.
Green_not_greed
13-Dec-08, 15:07
My gut reaction is that this is as 'serious' as the shredding of birds.
So birds don't count then?
I suggest you read through the document linked here
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/fullaccidents.pdf
Wind turbine accident data with accidents from every size of turbine and about every location you can think of, including schools. The Sunday Post link was used as it is relevant - its a Scottish School with a turbine which had an accident. Bolts broke and a piece of metal weighing several kilos fell off - luckily when the school was closed.
Its not a risk I want to take with my children, who are at Thurso High School.
Melancholy Man
13-Dec-08, 15:41
So birds don't count then?You are aware that the claim is based, almost exclusively, on obsolete equipment at Altamont Pass Windfarm in California? Or did you read a negative comment about 'em, disengage reason and believe it?
I suggest you read through the document linked hereYou're having a laugh, aren't you? This is yet another amateur {1} website which comes from a position of opposition. The Internet is awash with sources which can 'prove' anything the searcher wishes them to. This is why I am requesting independent, verifiable texts.
Wind turbine accident data with accidents from every size of turbine and about every location you can think of, including schools.Okay, let's look at the accidents. I hate to break it to you, but people sometimes die in workplace accidents and not every piece of machinery works flawlessly. The couple of deaths I saw are no more a condemnation of windfarms than a road-worker who electrocutes himself on an exposed cable is on road-repairs.
A turbine blows over, or a piece falls off. Are you going to apply the same reasoning to the Vodaphone mast in Thurso?
So, the conclusion from this list is that it's not safe to be directly under a turbine or fiddle with his components unprotected. Does the school janitor allow children to play in the boiler room?
This is meaningless, and comes from the basic logical fallacy of assuming X to be wrong and finding evidence to fit this hypothesis.
Bolts broke and a piece of metal weighing several kilos fell offAnd, I think, that is all you know. A verbatim reading of a single Internet page. Not enough.
- luckily when the school was closed.I will ask this more out of hope that expectation, but please provide evidence that this came off at high speed. It would require considerable force to propel an object several kilos in mass on a horizontal trajectory. Nothing I see here suggests this object went in any direction other than straight down. I would assume children weren't playing direct beneath during the day.
Its not a risk I want to take with my children, who are at Thurso High School. You might as well keep them swaddled in cotton-wool if you applied your antipathy to windfarms to other areas.
{1} I mean this in the sense simply that it ain't professional. And I mean that in the sense that it is not subject to academic and/or transparent editorial control.
Green_not_greed
13-Dec-08, 16:13
You are aware that the claim is based, almost exclusively, on obsolete equipment at Altamont Pass Windfarm in California?
No it isn't. Try this for size
http://www.bio.ucalgary.ca/contact/faculty/pdf/Barclay07Tur.pdf
A stack of bird and bat fatalities across North America.
It seems you're the one having a laugh. Do you have any children at the High School?
Green_not_greed
13-Dec-08, 16:29
Vestas, who make wind turbines and know a thing or two about them, provide the following advice for their operators and technicians working on a 3MW V90 turbine
"Do not stay within a radius of 400m (1300ft) from the turbine unless it is necessary. If you have to inspect an operating turbine from the ground, do not stay under the rotor plane but observe the rotor
from the front.
Make sure that children do not stay by or play nearby the turbine."
The full maual can be found at
http://www.windcows.com/files/Vestas_complete_manual.pdf
While a 3MW turbine is far bigger in capacity that the one proposed for the High School, I think you'll agree that the principle is the same.
Are children more expendable than technicians? I don't think so.
Let them erect it - then sue them for every penny when it starts dropping parts all over the place......
Or they could put up three of the 2.5 kW Energy Ball V200 (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/swedish-energy-ball-spherical-silent-home-wind-turbine.php) - far more suited for use in an urban environment. A 2.5 kW Energy Ball V200 costs about £5,500 each - wonder how much the 10m single device costs?......
Green_not_greed
13-Dec-08, 18:28
A 2.5 kW Energy Ball V200 costs about £5,500 each
Thats quite pricey for what it is. You can get 2kW ones on eBay for about £1200
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2000-watt-Wind-Generator-turbine-with-inverter_W0QQitemZ270302944856QQcmdZViewItemQQptZU K_BOI_Industrial_Tools_Generators_ET?hash=item2703 02944856&_trksid=p3913.c0.m22
Melancholy Man
13-Dec-08, 19:06
Look at me, I can Google! I can link to U.R.L.s!
No it isn't. Try this for size
You didn't consider the use of the qualifying "almost exclusively", did you?
To be honest, I would be surprised if you have read that article. It came in the top 20 for three separate googles I made, and the top for one of them. Even if you have read, you persist in basic failures in critical appraisal. It validates your predetermined opinion, so is offered without comment (analyses of study design, discussion conclusion).
All it proves is that, at the sites examined, X-number of birds or bats died. In the very second paragraph of the Introduction, it states that bird deaths were highest at now-obsolete equipment (including California!), and have now reduced. So, my statement was correct. For a wider conclusion, you need cross-referenced articles or, at the very least, primary research and not secondary research.
We’re talking about bats now? That was not what you said before. In my experience, changing the parameters of discussion and constantly introducing new information is bad debate. It would be relatively easy to install devices for repelling bats. You have also, I note, declined to comment on where the part dropped from and where it fell. Do you know?
There is also the small matter of, just as with your childish attempt to brand me of not caring about birds (go back and read what I wrote), that they and bats and other mammals experience much, much greater disruption and threat of death from other areas of human activities, e.g. roads, urban activity.
If mass wave-energy were adopted, I’d wager we’d hear Green campaigners (never mistake these for environmentalists) bemoaning the threat to dolphins or fish or marine birds. To become het up about a finite number of bird and bat fatalities and not the far greater tally an average car which notch up than an average turbine makes sense if one is concerned only with finding evidence to fit one's predetermined conclusion about wind farms.
Do you have any children at the High SchoolI know! Let's restrict participation in this to anyone who has children at the school, or whom GnG has vetted.
This rather sinister comment, alone, should disqualify you from further participation. Accusing opponents in an argument of not caring for children is one of the cheapest and most disreputable tactics of all. In fact, it ceases to be an argument in the classic sense, and becomes simply a slanging match. Please don’t present yourself as the arbiter of concern for children.
Green_not_greed
13-Dec-08, 20:33
Let's restrict participation in this to anyone who has children at the school.
Lets not.
I am concerned about the safety of my children. Simple as that. Don't take things out of context. As for the rest, I'm not even going to respond.
Melancholy Man
13-Dec-08, 20:49
Lets not.Then, what was the relevance of asking me if I did?
I am concerned about the safety of my children. Simple as that. Don't take things out of context. Oh, that's so cute, you've done it again! The same implication that not to follow your position uncritically is to be unconcerned about the safety of children. Please provide evidence that the component in question was on a blade, and therefore would have travelled horizontally assuming there was sufficient force, and not on the body of the turbine so would have fallen straight down; or that there was free access directly below the turbine, so exposing children to the risk of falling objects.
As for the rest, I'm not even going to respond.That probably has summat to do with it being a response to your erroneous argument and attempts at distraction.
This HAS to be a joke? Who dreamt this one up ? [disgust]
What with this and Northener leaving I am beginning to wonder if I have been asleep, missed Christmas and woken up on April 1st! :eek:
Cinderella's Shoe
13-Dec-08, 21:26
Its not just Thurso school. There are numerous planning applications across the Highlands for turbines at schools - check out the planning applications at Highland Council website.
So its not a joke. Unfortunately.
Melancholy Man
13-Dec-08, 21:46
To tell the truth, I am agnostic about windfarms. This application should be treated as any other, without partisan opinions getting in the way. A helicopter lands in the school playing fields, for instance. I mean, how dangerous is that!
Cinderella's Shoe
13-Dec-08, 22:12
To tell the truth, I am agnostic about windfarms. This application should be treated as any other, without partisan opinions getting in the way. A helicopter lands in the school playing fields, for instance. I mean, how dangerous is that!
I think the difference is that pupils would be told that a helicopter was coming and could clear the area. Unless an area around a turbine was fenced off or restricted to pupils, there must be a risk if they were in that area - whether something fell down in a straight line or was thrown at an angle.
I think the recommendation from Vestas to its own staff speaks volumes.
Melancholy Man
13-Dec-08, 22:30
That a restriction zone being proposed is so basic I didn't think it needed mentioning. GnG's comment speaks volumes:
While a 3MW turbine is far bigger in capacity that the one proposed for the High School, I think you'll agree that the principle is the same.This takes some real disingenuity to come out with. While the shock delivered after climbing an electricity pylon is far greater than sticking a 9 volt battery on one's tongue, I think you'll agree the principle is the same.
Yes it is. So?
Green_not_greed
13-Dec-08, 23:05
That a restriction zone being proposed is so basic I didn't think it needed mentioning.
Really? If one is being proposed at Thurso I am unaware of it.
The Dearburn Primary school in Bo'ness - where a turbine part fell off in 2006 - had no fence around the turbine. Photos on the web clearly show this.
You know when you buy a desktop fan it has a guard surrounding the blades.........
I just mentioned this to my daughter who is in THS and she say "ARE YOU MAD" that says it all for me:lol:
Melancholy Man
13-Dec-08, 23:40
If one is being proposed at Thurso I am unaware of it.Oh, really, you must have asbestos cheeks to come out with that guff! By your own admission, all you have is cursory planning announcement which you saw yesterday and, maybe, a couple of 'phone calls.
And, of course, it's clear you would not be mollified by an exclusion zone.
The Dearburn Primary school in Bo'ness - where a turbine part fell off in 2006 - had no fence around the turbine. Photos on the web clearly show this. Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me you are basing your position on documented reports and not a few photographs on t'Interweb. Legislation based on single cases make bad law, and you have changed the terms of your position throughout to validate the syllogism of turbines = bad.
There are high winds in Caithness, with the oft realized risk of street furniture or building material blowing off. In 2000 or so, a barn roof was lifted off at Forss and deposited some distance away. Are you going to be up in arms about the danger of this, or is it only unsubstantiated claims about wind-turbines which you suspend reason for?
P.S. Could it be that this is to be situated in the old animal pens?
Green_not_greed
14-Dec-08, 00:42
By your own admission, all you have is cursory planning announcement which you saw yesterday and, maybe, a couple of 'phone calls.
I had a long chat with the Wick planning office, which is how I know the size and output of the proposed turbine. And make. And location (no its not near the animal pens....Tesco now own that). I have not seen a plan as its not yet avalable in Thurso.
And, of course, it's clear you would not be mollified by an exclusion zone.
I'd consider a suitable-sized and fenced exclusion zone as a minimum requirement.
Last month, professional safety consultants advised Manchester City not to install a turbine near their ground due to the likelihood of ice forming on the blades and being thrown off. They suggested a 100m exclusion zone around it - and in such a built-up area that was impossible, so they dropped the proposal.
Given your cynicism over anything to do with wind turbine safety, I'll bet you think that was far-fetched and an over-reaction. However, the very next week in Cambridgeshire, lumps of ice weighing several kilos landed in a carpet showroom carpark, about 60m from a nearby turbine. Man City's decision was therefore seen as justified.
Green_not_greed
10-Feb-09, 09:32
Yesterday in Ohio, a school wind turbine lost its blades. Parts landed in the student car park. Is this the risk we want to take at Thurso High School?
http://www.sanduskyregister.com/articles/2009/02/09/front/1142179.txt
There are 3 large turbines on the Tesco carpark in Barrow-in-Furness right in amongst the cars where folk are moving about with their shopping and kids. No one seems to bother.:roll:
I bet I'd see an accident with a car before I'd see a blade fly off and hit some kid, if I waited long enough.
If there are any experts on risk analysis, how long would I have to wait under a turbine before I would get hit by a blade?
No fuzzy answers please, show working:lol:
Green_not_greed
10-Feb-09, 15:10
I bet I'd see an accident with a car before I'd see a blade fly off and hit some kid, if I waited long enough.
Such a responsible attitude - and from a father too!
There are 3 large turbines on the Tesco carpark in Barrow-in-Furness right in amongst the cars where folk are moving about with their shopping and kids. No one seems to bother.
Thats not the case - I've been there - so cut the crap. There are two turbines, infamous for their slicing and dicing of passing seagulls and splattering their remains across the nearby car park. That's right - they are not IN the car park but in an adjacent fenced off area.
ASDA have recently withdrawn plans to construct a similar turbine on the grounds of public safety.
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/1.342886
Such a responsible attitude - and from a father too!
I am responsible for the environment for which my child inherits so I'll take no crap from a climate change denier.
Thats not the case - I've been there - so cut the crap. There are two turbines, infamous for their slicing and dicing of passing seagulls and splattering their remains across the nearby car park. That's right - they are not IN the car park but in an adjacent fenced off area.
ASDA have recently withdrawn plans to construct a similar turbine on the grounds of public safety.
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/1.342886
That is the case, I've been there and seen them for myself, the fenced off area is small and surrounded by parking slots. They don't seem to be putting off shoppers as I was really struggling to get a park...
Seagulls are real health hazard in Barrow so anything to keep their numbers down is a good thing.
http://www.barrowbc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=323
ASDA still intend to erect a turbine, the webpage you supplied doesn't state why on what grounds the original plans were withdrawn, if it was on the grouinds of public safety then I welcome it.
Green_not_greed
10-Feb-09, 19:04
I am responsible for the environment for which my child inherits so I'll take no crap from a climate change denier.
Climate change denier ? At first glance I thought it was a new type of trendy stocking!
Something appears to be happening with weather patterns - I think that's pretty undeniable. Whether its part of a natural cycle or man-made has never been conclusively proven one way or the other, though again I think to deny that man has influenced the planet and atmosphere is rather blinkered.
So climate change denier - no.
But I can think of far better ways to reduce our CO2 emissions than covering vast tracks of land in wind turbines. In that aspect - unlike some -I have not been brainwashed.
GNG
So climate change denier - no.
Whether its part of a natural cycle or man-made has never been conclusively proven one way or the other
GNG
You have mentioned before that you think that GHGs don't have a significant effect on the Earth's climate yet anthropological GHGs are very likely to be responsible for most of the warming the last century.
So I would say you were a climate change denier.
Whether its part of a natural cycle or man-made has never been conclusively proven one way or the other, though again I think to deny that man has influenced the planet and atmosphere is rather blinkered.
Conclusive proof? Science doesn't deal in conclusive proof, that is a term for a courtroom or a church gathering and even when that proof is given then it can be unreliable. But do we need undeniable proof to take action? Can we prove that cigarettes are bad for our health or can radiation be proved to cause a cancer? Can it be proved that God does or doesn't exist? None of these can be proven. Yet conclusive proof is not needed for us to take action.
But I can think of far better ways to reduce our CO2 emissions than covering vast tracks of land in wind turbines.
You're right, but nobody wants to do them.
I notice no one has mentioned that it could possibly have educational benefits to the pupils. Could inspire a whole new breed of engineers who improve wind turbine technology to stop blades falling off in the school play ground. :)
Green_not_greed
11-Feb-09, 09:22
So I would say you were a climate change denier.
I say, I say, I say....... gosh you are SUCH a joker!
I say, I say, I say....... gosh you are SUCH a joker!
Fact is..how can someone who denies the effect that GHGs have on the Earth's planet (which goes against all scientific evidence and research) then stand up and claim to be the voice of what is good for Caithness in terms of renewable energy and keep any credibility?:roll::confused
A school's curriculum is based upon sound information of the day and kids are being instructed on the environment and climate change. It seems strange then that the chairman of the local anti-windfarm organisation makes an objection to the school's turbine and he is also seems to be a climate change denier. I think people will see through all the bluster and see that he is allowing his antiwind views cloud any sense of concern over the kids safety. The risks are obviously being overstated.
Since cars will be a bigger hazard than wind turbines, what next? We'd be more effective in protecting kids if we insisted that parents and teachers aren't allowed to enter school grounds in their cars!!
Even Chance
11-Feb-09, 10:08
Another debate on the windfarms.
What a load of keich!
Windfarms are the best thing to happen around here. Caithness should be stuffed with them.
Would you rather High Schools installed a Nuclear Reactor in the gym??
In this new "Improved" (aye right!!) PC world, we are wrapping everything we can in cotton wool. Its pure nonsense.
Let them have their turbine. Im sick of folks complaining about them. I wish I could afford to install one on top of my house. The more the better!
Green_not_greed
11-Feb-09, 11:00
It seems strange then that the chairman of the local anti-windfarm organisation makes an objection to the school's turbine and he is also seems to be a climate change denier.
More jokes!!!! Or as usual are you completely short of facts? Who is a chairman and of what?
....claim to be the voice of what is good for Caithness in terms of renewable energy
Hmmmm - that's the role you've obviously seen yourself in for some time. Don't worry - the challenge won't come from me. You're hardly impartial in any case when in the pocket of local windfarm developers.
Hmmmm - that's the role you've obviously seen yourself in for some time. Don't worry - the challenge won't come from me. You're hardly impartial in any case when in the pocket of local windfarm developers.
Please explain yourself, if you are saying that I am being paid by wind developers then you are flying very close to the wind of a libel accusation. I am not being paid or will ever be paid by any windfarm developer. I have never asked or nor been offered any payment, my motives are totally ideological for the good of the planet.
This is the sort of attitude that kept me away from the Org for the last few months.
Green_not_greed
11-Feb-09, 12:51
This is the sort of attitude that kept me away from the Org for the last few months.
And that was a shame 'cos we really missed you.
Please explain yourself, if you are saying that I am being paid by wind developers then you are flying very close to the wind of a libel accusation. I am not being paid or will ever be paid by any windfarm developer. I have never asked or nor been offered any payment, my motives are totally ideological for the good of the planet.
I never mentioned money.
I never mentioned money.
you said I was in the pocket of windfarm developers, it amounts to the same thing. Are you going to retract and apologise that remark or are you going to have a lack of personal fortitude and dodge the issue like you usually do?
Green_not_greed
11-Feb-09, 13:40
you said I was in the pocket of windfarm developers, it amounts to the same thing. Are you going to retract and apologise that remark or are you going to have a lack of personal fortitude and dodge the issue like you usually do?
"In the pocket of" = under the influence of or working closely with.
Now surely you're not going to try and wriggle out of that one......
"In the pocket of" = under the influence of or working closely with.
Now surely you're not going to try and wriggle out of that one......
I think you owe me an apology and/or retraction of your comment or are you a coward?
Idiom Definitions for 'In someone's pocket'
If a person is in someone's pocket, they are dependent, especially financially, on them.
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/in+someone's+pocket.html
Green_not_greed
11-Feb-09, 14:51
So are you denying that you are working closely with local windfarm developers?
So are you denying that you are working closely with local windfarm developers?
I'll explain everything once I get my apology. For now, working with someone is not being in their pocket, your definition is in error.
thebigman
11-Feb-09, 15:16
Passed the High School yesterday and the bairns were all throwing snowballs at eac other, given the concern about ice shear mentioned here should all the kids not be locked in when it snows?
Green_not_greed
11-Feb-09, 15:46
For now, working with someone is not being in their pocket.
So you admit you're working with windfarm developers - well at least we now know that your opinion isn't exactly impartial.
As for definitions, well....
in someone's pocket or in the pocket of someone
= (disapproving) : under someone's control or influence
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/pocket
So you admit you're working with windfarm developers - well at least we now know that your opinion isn't exactly impartial.
As for definitions, well....
in someone's pocket or in the pocket of someone
= (disapproving) : under someone's control or influence
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/pocket
No, I am not admitting anything, what control or influence is that specifically? You are twisting again. Where's my apology or are you not man enough to do it? Have you no common decency? I think we'd all think more of you if you did apologise.
Passed the High School yesterday and the bairns were all throwing snowballs at eac other, given the concern about ice shear mentioned here should all the kids not be locked in when it snows?
They've gone one better than that, they've just closed the school.;)
Green_not_greed
11-Feb-09, 17:04
No, I am not admitting anything, what control or influence is that specifically? You are twisting again. Where's my apology or are you not man enough to do it? Have you no common decency? I think we'd all think more of you if you did apologise.
Oh dear...did you stamp your foot or jump up and down when you typed that?
I have nothing to apologise for - you've seen my definition and I stand by it.
You brought up money, I didn't. Rather interesting, I thought.
You brought up money, I didn't. Rather interesting, I thought.
Again, you are flinging mud and hoping it will stick without any evidence to support your claims.
While we are on the subject of money, it is your household that actually has the wind developer's money flowing through it.
Funny that you are happy to take the money from them and yet object to their developments. Now that community benefit is filtering down into our communities, are you just bothered about yourself and shut the door behind you without a thought for anybody else?
Rather interesting I thought...but it is just another double standard, nothing new there then:roll:
People in glasshouses...
Green_not_greed
11-Feb-09, 17:42
While we are on the subject of money, it is your household that actually has the wind developer's money flowing through it....
Obviously not.
Obviously not.
Are you denying that?:roll:
I'm not posting on this thread again. I'm not closely working with wind developers, that is a ridiculous claim, so I'm not in anyone's pocket, just standing up for what I believe in.
Bottom line is that you are overstating the risks to children at Thurso school to further your anti-windfarm viewpoint and using the kids as pawns in order to do so. That is quite pathetic imo.
George Brims
11-Feb-09, 21:00
Is a wind turbine preferable to an oil well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Hills_High_School
Green_not_greed
11-Feb-09, 21:36
Bottom line is that you are overstating the risks to children at Thurso school to further your anti-windfarm viewpoint and using the kids as pawns in order to do so. That is quite pathetic imo.
A rather cheap parting shot.
Everything has its place, and most types of industrial development - as well as what we all do every day - carry some risk. Large industrial complexes are usually sited well out of the way of where people live, and where they congregate. Some windfarms are well placed in that they are well away from peoples homes and hence minimise risks to those around them - for example, Camster is about 2.5km from the nearest house.
I have been concerned for some years at the risks which industrial-sized wind turbines can pose to those immediately around them. There is absolutely no need for them to be close to houses, schools or buildings - there is ample room away from communities. The trouble is, developers prefer the cheapest installation option and so like to place them close to existing power lines. Thats putting profit above safety and showing little regard for risks to the public.
I see absolutely no reason why children at Thurso High School - or people anywhere else for that matter - need to be exposed to additional and unneccessary risks when turbines could be built in more suitable safer locations.
http://www.skills4.net/courses/Energy/Intermediate_2.aspx
This course will be available to S5 and S6 pupils in Thurso and Wick high schools from August.
Sorry but i agree with Rheghead on this, you are being somewhat dramatic. This isn't a giant sized turnbine
I asked my daughter about what she thought about a Turbine at the school, she attends THS, she was all for it.
then also considering the educational and employment elements, "green jobs" are one of the few growth industrys at the moment, especially for caithness. With proposed plans for the tidal energy project it would be a good option for young people to consider looking at something like this for future employment. Unemployment and poverty at the moment possess a far higher risk to young people today than installing a small turbine at THS.
Melancholy Man
22-Feb-09, 17:01
Please explain yourself, if you are saying that I am being paid by wind developers then you are flying very close to the wind of a libel accusation.
I doubt Rheghead is sewn onto your vest. If Greenie mentioned your actual name, here or in other media, the potential would be there (although you're not wealthy or famous enough to make use of this country's ridiculous libel laws).
Thats not the case - I've been there - so cut the crap. There are two turbines, infamous for their slicing and dicing of passing seagulls and splattering their remains across the nearby car park. That's right - they are not IN the car park but in an adjacent fenced off area.
Just for your info, Greeny, the turbines ARE in the carpark as I described. So I'm not the one talking crap. Have you really been there? :roll:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/Rheghead/russell009.jpg
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/Rheghead/russell004.jpg
Maybe they were once in the field adjacent to the car park but the car park has expanded since?
The turbines were put up about 2 years ago onto the carpark.
I suppose it could be argued that they are still standing in very small fields - the concrete plinths appear to be surrounded by soil and greenery and a fence.... :)
I suppose it could be argued that they are still standing in very small fields - the concrete plinths appear to be surrounded by soil and greenery and a fence.... :)
Yeah the puny reason for an excuse will be on those lines.:roll:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.