The Post the Standard Times Censored

On Feb 2, The Standard Times posted the following, but only after blunting the pointed end of the stick used to rebut Brian Bowcock’s unscrupulous attack. Here’s the full article written by Curt Devlin that the S-T censored to protect Fairhaven town officials. As an editorial note, Bob Unger, the chief editor is a resident of Fairhaven. Although he is decidely pro-wind in his editorial bias, he has admitted privately that he would never want a wind turbine at Fort Pheonix or anywhere near his home…

=========================

In his tirade in the S-T on the 27th, Brian Bowcock described the Wind Forum crowd as hostile.  But in a report on the 25th titled “Fairhaven Wind explains project to civil crowd”, Beth Purdue reported that attendees “were both orderly and civil, listening intently to information presented”. Clearly, Mr. Bowcock is misrepresenting turbine opponents as fanatical and hostile to deflect attention from the fact that turbines were shown to be neither safe nor economically sustainable.

He has also completely distorted my comments to avoid the still unanswered ethical questions about the siting of large industrial turbines in dense residential neighborhoods. While I did describe the turbines as an ominous experiment on human subjects; I did not link any actions by anyone to the Nazi atrocities as he claims.

As with Ms. Purdue’s report, anyone who wishes can check by watching the forum on the public access TV. Fortunately for my sake, Mr. Bowcock was unable to shut the cameras off this time due to his leg injuries.

I did introduce questions prompted by the Nuremberg Code at the very end of my remarks, but I only described the historical context of the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals because I asked the audience and they were not familiar with it.  Since I was not granted sufficient time to explain why this ethical code is altogether fitting and proper to discuss in the context of an experiment on human subjects, let me do that now.

The Nuremberg Code is a set of stringent ethical guidelines for protecting the human rights and safety during experiments on human subjects. The principles embodied in this code are the basis for the U.S Code of Federal Regulations for the U.S Dept. of Health and Human Services regarding all federally funded research. As such, it is the model adopted by the National Institute for Health (NIH) and used by Institutional Review Boards for ethical research protocols on human subjects, as well as the foundation of the Helsinki Declaration, widely considered to be the cornerstone of ethical research on humans. Unlike these more modern versions, the Nuremberg Code was written in simple, non-clinical terminology.  This makes It is the perfect vehicle for posing very serious ethical questions with an audience that is not medically trained, especially questions about whether it is fair to subject Fairhaven residents to the adverse health effects by forcing them to live near industrial turbines against their will.

After spending most of my talk showing that there is overwhelming and compelling evidence that turbines do make many people sick, it would be unconscionable to avoid these ethical questions– as Mr. Bowcock, Mr. Sylvia, and Mr. Murphy have done and continue to do. When Mr. Shah, Fairhaven Wind, stated that if one of the turbines catches fire the plan is to just let them burn out; Tim Francis, the Fire Chief, made no comments and expressed no concern. Apparently, if you live near the turbines, you have to hope the wind does not blow in your direction while an industrial-class fire rages some 275 feet in the air. Mr. Shah assured listeners that turbine fires are rare, but conceded that the Wind Wise estimates of 75 in the last five years are probably correct. The latest was in Scotland less than two weeks ago. Town officials seem comfortable rolling the dice with the health and safety of their experimental subjects.

As Mr. Crotty speculated in court, “Maybe there’s harm; maybe there isn’t”. Who is really dangerous, here? Who is really reprehensible?

Mr. Bowcock asks “What next? Charge the people involved with crimes against humanity?” It is interesting that he is concerned about this. If he feels the need to defend himself from such charges, some good answers to a few these questions may help:

  • Did you notify residents about potentially serious illness from exposure to turbines?
  • Did you give residents a chance to opt out of this experiment?
  • Did you take every reasonable precaution to protect public health and safety?
  • Did you ensure that turbines are far away from residents, schools and recreation?
  • Do you have plans to monitor health to see if people are getting sick?
  • Do you have plans to stop the turbines when people do get sick?
  • Will you compensate people for any injury or harm caused by them?

A no answer to any of these is ethically reprehensible in my view.

One more point to awaken you from your autocratic slumber, Mr. Bowcock. I do not need anyone’s permission or approval—least of all yours—to discuss infrasound, health or morally bankrupt officials. I am not a legal expert, but I am confident that it says so in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Post the Standard Times Censored

  1. mjoecool says:

    The Absence of Journalistic Truth

    (READER FILL IN THE APPROPRIATE NEWSPAPER), by the absence of coverage (i.e. letters, guest editorials) shows that the press has removed itself from any thoughtful discussions of the relevant HEALTH issue surrounding poor Wind Turbine siting.  The neighbors and citizens who have the backbone to publicly oppose the town on this issue have been abandon by their Selectmen, their Board of Health and most of the Press.

    The newspaper(s) consistently fail to report the world-wide HEALTH discussions accurately and thoroughly, or even report them at all. This leaves the readers with a slanted view of what is transpiring, let alone why the issue has become so controversial.  It’s not all about the money, as many newspaper and politician, would have you believe.  The basic issue is simply health protection for myself,  my family and neighbors.

    The “Wind Power Grab” reported in the Cape Cod Times article of October 27, tried to portray the issue involving Falmouth’s municipal turbine operations and the submitted Town Meeting Health Protection Article by neighborhood residents as a function of a town energy revenue stream and possible fiscal liabilities.

    Malarkey!  The issue is a function of fundamental societal decency.  The essence of the issue is whether a community values the personal well-being of those in the community or thwarts an indifference because of greed.

    Most of the residents who have offered their opinion, in the hopes to inform other readers, have spent considerable time discussing and evaluating the wind issues. This reader doesn’t know which is worse, the lack of investigative journalism, or the pre-packaged and choreographed “forum of wind news” that the (READER FILL IN THE APPROPRIATE NEWSPAPER) sponsor.

    What ever happened to “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in journalism?
    (READER FILL IN THE APPROPRIATE NEWSPAPER) more often than not, exemplifies just jumping on the bandwagon of flawed project. Doing so is much easier than doing the rigorous analysis required to press the MA Departments of Environmental Protection and Public Health into doing their jobs – protecting the citizen.

    The assumptions and promises of this project need to be re-scrutinized. The promise of “little to no adverse impact” from the Falmouth Feasibility Study, as my symptoms will affirm, has not held up. It’s been a sick “Wheel of Fortune” game. The Press, the politicians and the public, all can be heard chanting “Big Spin, Big Spin, Big Spin” each time the proverbial dice are rolled on a wind project.

    Regardless of where newspaper editors or readers stand on the issue, we are all in support of lowering energy bills, expanding the use of alternative energy and eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels. However, the (READER FILL IN THE APPROPRIATE NEWSPAPER) demonstrates an ignorance to the ever evolving HEALTH concerns and unanswered HEALTH questions remaining after the Mass Wind Science Report.

    “It is our civic and humane duty to attend to core virtues of protecting what each of us would instinctually personally defend – our HEALTH.”
    Mark J. Cool
    Falmouth, MA

  2. mjoecool says:

    The Absence of Journalistic Truth

    ( FILL IN THE APPROPRIATE NEWSPAPER), by the absence of coverage (i.e. letters, guest editorials) shows that the press has removed itself from any thoughtful discussions of the relevant HEALTH issue surrounding poor Wind Turbine siting.  The neighbors and citizens who have the backbone to publicly oppose the town on this issue have been abandon by their Selectmen, their Board of Health and most of the Press.
    The newspaper(s) consistently fail to report the world-wide HEALTH discussions accurately and thoroughly, or even report them at all. This leaves the readers with a slanted view of what is transpiring, let alone why the issue has become so controversial.  It’s not all about the money, as many newspaper and politician, would have you believe.  The basic issue is simply health protection for myself,  my family and neighbors.
    The “Wind Power Grab” reported in the Cape Cod Times article of October 27, tried to portray the issue involving Falmouth’s municipal turbine operations and the submitted Town Meeting Health Protection Article by neighborhood residents as a function of a town energy revenue stream and possible fiscal liabilities.
    Malarkey!  The issue is a function of fundamental societal decency.  The essence of the issue is whether a community values the personal well-being of those in the community or thwarts an indifference because of greed.
    Most of the residents who have offered their opinion, in the hopes to inform other readers, have spent considerable time discussing and evaluating the wind issues. This reader doesn’t know which is worse, the lack of investigative journalism, or the pre-packaged and choreographed “forum of wind news” that the (FILL IN THE APPROPRIATE NEWSPAPER) sponsor.
    What ever happened to “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in journalism?
    ( FILL IN THE APPROPRIATE NEWSPAPER) more often than not, exemplifies just jumping on the bandwagon of flawed project. Doing so is much easier than doing the rigorous analysis required to press the MA Departments of Environmental Protection and Public Health into doing their jobs – protecting the citizen.
    The assumptions and promises of this project need to be re-scrutinized. The promise of “little to no adverse impact” from the Falmouth Feasibility Study, as my symptoms will affirm, has not held up. It’s like a sick “Wheel of Fortune” game. The Press, the politicians and the public, all can be heard chanting “Big Spin, Big Spin, Big Spin” each time the proverbial dice are rolled on a wind project.
    Regardless of where newspaper editors or readers stand on the issue, we are all in support of lowering energy bills, expanding the use of alternative energy and eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels. However, the ( FILL IN THE APPROPRIATE NEWSPAPER) demonstrates an ignorance to the ever evolving HEALTH concerns and unanswered HEALTH questions remaining after the Mass Wind Science Report.
    “It is our civic and humane duty to attend to core virtues of protecting what each of us would instinctually personally defend – our HEALTH.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s