Recently, Lindsay Gordon was asked by Beth David if she thought the turbines constitute an “ominous human expert”. Of course, Beth David misquoted me as usual. What I actually said was we are about to embark on an ‘ominous social experiment’, one that will be conducted on human subjects and which puts the health of some at risk for the highly dubious benefit for others. This is exactly what the turbines are—a profoundly unethical experiment on unwilling human subjects.
Ms. Gordon responded to the question without a moment’s pause. “To the first part, absolutely not.” she said. Apparently, she is savvy enough to realize it would not be popular to publicly agree with me.
In her next breath, however, Ms. Gordon went on to say that “I think we need to be aware of all the health concerns for everybody and if people do have health effects from them to make sure that we are investigating that.” So, if I understand correctly, we should wait and see if people get sick and then investigate that outcome very carefully. Sounds like an experiment to me.
She went on to say that we should be “proactive“ to find out about ill health effects and that “we [presumably the BoH] should take the lead in communicating about these effects.” She then immediately contradicted herself by saying “it’s premature because it hasn’t happened and we’re hoping it doesn’t, but that would be my approach.” Which approach? Pro-active or wait-and-see?
Surely, Ms. Gordon must recognize that it would be a breach of her duty and promise to protect people, to wait and see. Does she see any obligation to take decisive action before people start getting sick, especially when there is overwhelming evidence that they will? She must be aware that there is compelling evidence that some people get seriously ill from continuous exposure to industrial wind turbines?
If she was concerned enough about public health to attend the wind forum, perhaps she heard me cite numerous, peer-reviewed studies from highly respected physicians, physicists, acoustic engineers, public health experts, indoor environmental experts and distinguished scientists, such as Harry (2007), Frey & Hadden (2007), Phipps (2007), Pedersen (2008), Pierpont (2009), Phillips (2010), Salt (2010), Krogh (2011), Nissenbaum (2011) and McPherson (2011). They all agree that turbines cause illness.
Perhaps, Ms. Gordon would be interested to learn that an article, recently published in the prestigious British Journal of Medicine, reported that:
“In a survey of people residing in the vicinity of two US wind farms, those living within 375-1400 m reported worse sleep and more daytime sleepiness, in addition to having lower summary scores on the mental component of the short form 36 health survey than those who lived 3-6.6 km from a turbine.”
In case, Ms. Gordon needs more evidence of known health dangers, I would remind her that more than 50 people in Falmouth, MA, many of whom live much further away from turbines than Little Bay residents, reported serious adverse health effects—some of which have become life threatening.
Not an ominous social experiment? Here is a quotation from the CEO of Vestas to the Minister of the Environment in Denmark complaining about their new infrasound regulations:
“…low frequency noise (regulations) will … increase the distance requirements to neighbours… In a small country such as Denmark this means that a significant number of projects will not be viable…whilst maintaining a satisfactory business outcome for the investor….Denmark has a role as a forerunner country and a full scale laboratory for conversion to renewable energy.”
Sound like an experiment to you? The people of Little Bay will furnish the guinea pigs for a full scale laboratory for wind carpetbaggers Sumul Shah, Jim Sweeney and Gordon Deane—while we wait and see.
Here are my questions. Was it right for selectmen to commit to a twenty year contract for turbines so close to residents without their informed consent? Was it right to do this without consulting the Board of Health? Was it wise to expose the town to this liability, whether people get sick or not?
When the experiment proves that people do get sick in Little Bay, what will you do to protect the unwilling subjects? Will you try to stop the turbines whether you are on the Board of Health or not? Or, will you stick your head in the sand, shirk your ethical duty to protect your fellow residents, and await further instructions from Brian Bowcock, Charlie Murphy and Tom Crotty, like Peter Deterra does?
News flash: It is not the job of the BoH to work closely with other boards. Rather, it has the solemn responsibility to provide independent checks and balances on other boards, and to protect the health, safety and well-being of residents above all. That is why I will be voting for Dr. Acksen.
Curt Devlin, Fairhaven, MA