|
|
October 20th, 2011 A link to the most recent (draft) report can be found here
Abstract
There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby
residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate. The bulk of the evidence
takes the form of thousands of adverse event reports. There is also a small amount of
systematically-gathered data. The adverse event reports provide compelling evidence of the
seriousness of the problems and of causation in this case because of their volume, the ease of
observing exposure and outcome incidence, and case-crossover data. Proponents of turbines
have sought to deny these problems by making a collection of contradictory claims including that
the evidence does not “count”, the outcomes are not “real” diseases, the outcomes are the victims’
own fault, and that acoustical models cannot explain why there are health problems so the
problems must not exist. These claims appeared to have swayed many non-expert observers,
though they are easily debunked. Moreover, though the failure of models to explain the
observed problems does not deny the problems, it does mean that we do not know what, other
than kilometers of distance, could sufficiently mitigate the effects. There has been no policy
analysis that justifies imposing these effects on local residents. The attempts to deny the
evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement, and represent either gross
incompetence or intentional bias.
A recent Canadian court case concluded “
This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans.The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.”
http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/english/decisions/index.htm
A summary of new evidence can be found here
October 18th, 2011 A big thank you from Blackrod residents to the army of helpers who delivered nearly two thousand leaflets, concerning the Douglas Valley Turbine development today – in wind and hail.
October 17th, 2011 Reluctantly the group has decided to object to the application for two turbines at Douglas Valley Golf Course.
The reasons can be found here Objection to Douglas Valley Turbines
October 15th, 2011 The enclosed links are the actual model of turbines which are proposed for Douglas Valley Golf Course. (Note these appear to be promotional videos so are showing the positive aspects of the turbines)
Turning into the wind (have the volume on) Turning
On a Bury Golf Course (get an idea of size) Golf Course (size)
See how fast this rotates speed
Size (again)
Noise (on the public footpath)
October 13th, 2011 Many experts believe the turbines on Douglas Valley Golf course could present a health risk to the majority of Blackrod residents ie those who live within the 1 Km boundary. Evidently a considerable number of people live within the 500m zone – which we believe should be reason to refuse the application Turbine –Douglas Valley Golf Course. It would appear such a development would not be allowed in many European Countries. A Link to set back distances (in 2009) can be found here. Indeed 500m appears to be the minimum distance in Germany, France and Sweden – all countries with considerably more renewable on-shore wind generation than England.
The farm, which has been in the same ownership for many generations, has become almost unrecognisable in recent years, and now seems to becoming more and more industrialised. The cumulative effect of the massively oversized biomass plant (which the applicant still intends to progress) and wind turbines is totally unacceptable to many people. The interaction of the biomass plant and wind turbines does not appear to have even been considered. In Scotland the type of turbine proposed is considered more suitable to industrial sites.
The current proposals, before the House of Lords, would prevent wind turbines upto 5om in height (including blades) being built within 1 Km of a residential property – due to health concerns (see previous article).
October 12th, 2011 Wind Turbines – minimum distances from residential premises-bill This is the bill which has now had it’s “Second Reading” in the House of Lords and sets a minimum setback distance of 2km for a turbine of 120m. This is at a very early stage, which is reflected in the brief content of the bill itself. None-the-less, this clearly demonstrates that there is genuine and real concern about the effects of wind turbines sited too close to populated areas. The presentation of this bill forces the question:
The legislation proposes, if the height of the wind turbine generator is— (measured from the ground to the end of the blade tip at its highest point.)
(a) greater than 25m, but does not exceed 50m, the minimum distance requirement is 1000m;
(b) greater than 50m, but does not exceed 100m, the minimum distance requirement is 1500m;
(c) greater than 100m, but does not exceed 150m, the minimum distance requirement is 2000m;
A similar bill Onshore Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation) Bill 2010-11 is winding its way through the House of Commons, with the next reading expected JAnuary 2012
Why – simply put healths concerns and masses of law suits in various countries. It appears it is not just the audible noise and visual impacts that effects people but also infrasound (frequency less than 20 Hz).
Many countries have already acted on concerns and introduced appropriate legislation – similar to that proposed in the rest of the UK.
In Scotland, Scottish planning guidance contains an advisory, rather than mandatory, limit of two kilometres, although the Scottish border Council has a presumption against any turbine within 2 KM of a residential property. In Wales there is a “typical seperation distance” of 500m – although Carmarthanshire County Council will not permit wind farms within 1500m of a residential dwelling. ( The 500m separation distance is intended to assist local planning authorities refine the boundaries of the Strategic Search Areas and not as a minimum separation distance for individual wind turbines. )
Proposed Scottish legislation goes further, in suggesting that two blade turbines be limited to industrial sitings, due to the faster sweep ( a 30m turbine (45m including blades), would have an area sweep of c 700m2)
Aberdeenshire Council Local Plan Infrastructure Policy states
“In order to protect residential amenity, wind energy developments should generally be not less than 400m from dwellings. The actual desirable separation distance will be dependent on a range of factors including topography, safety issues, noise, shadow flicker, shadow throw and the size of the turbines.
A separation distance of at least 10 rotor diameters between the wind turbines and nearby dwellings is required, in accordance with good practice identified in PAN 45 to minimise shadow flicker.”
Similarly Torridge district Council, in Devon, has made an extensive study and limits developments to within 600m, The full policy (with a summary page 6/7 ) can be found CHttpHandler
It is important to look at the Bill’s effects. The figure is that if there was an exclusion around dwellings of two kilometres, 0.5 per cent of the UK landmass would be able to take wind turbines. Effectively, we would end that industry completely
The revised Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), which is currently before Parliament, says,
“appropriate distances should be maintained between wind turbines and residential properties to protect residential amenity”.
In the circumstances it would seem rather prudent to introduce more “targeted” planning guidance and we will be seeking to encourage a half way house -
A Presumption against development within 1 KM of a residential house
B minimum distance of 500m from a residential house
A copy of the bill can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/017/11017.1-i.html
A copy of the second reading can be found here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2011-06-10a.488.4&s=%22global+warming+policy+foundation%22
Small and groups of small turbines http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A516125.pdf
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/onshorewindturbinesproximityofhabitation.html
THE CURRENT DOUGLAS VALLEY GOLF COURSE APPLICATION, FOR TWO 45 m TURBINES, APPROXIMATELY 350m from BLACKROD VILLAGE CAN BE FOUND HERE
October 8th, 2011
Protest against biofuels fuelling climate meltdown
Where: DECC – Department of Energy & Climate Change, 3 Whitehall Place, SW1A 2AW. Nearest tube stations, Embankment & Charing Cross.
When: Saturday 22nd October, 12.00 noon
Who is the protest for? – for anyone concerned about environment and social justice.
Why: The protest coincides with a DECC public consultation on Renewable Obligation Certificates – ROCs, which are subsidies for ‘renewable electricity’. Yet instead of rewarding only true renewable energy, such as sustainable wind and solar power, a large and growing share of ROCs goes to biomass (wood) and biofuel power stations. Those are paid for by all of us, through a surcharge on our fuel bills. At a time when health, education, social welfare and environmental programmes are being cut drastically, the government is planning to reward biomass and biofuel power stations with £3 billion a year!
Biomass and biofuel production causes deforestation and adversely affects the climate, food sovereignty and human rights. Nearly all of the biomass and biofuels burned in UK power stations will be imported from countries including Indonesia, Brazil, Ghana or Kenya. Burning biomass and biofuel causes air pollution causing health problems for those who live nearby. This protest will show DECC that people don’t want to subsidise bioenergy.
Corporations like Drax, one of Europe’s biggest climate change contributors, are lobbying DECC to increase their profits from burning the biosphere. If UK citizens who pay for ROCs tell DECC yes to true renewable power from wind, wave, tidal, solar & geothermal and no to bioenergy we can stop this destructive industry overnight.
Supported by
 Supported by Campaign Against Climate Change
Let’s cut-back on bioenergy instead of cutting libraries or rainforests.
Let’s have people power instead of plant power!
Bring a friend, your banners and placards to the Department of Environment & Climate Change on the 22nd.
Please click here
October 2nd, 2011 Markland Farm / Douglas Valley Golf Course has been given permission for a 4MWe biomass plant, capable of supplying electric for c 10,000 houses, and heating the whole of Blackrod – subject to rubber stamping by the secretary of state – as it is contrary to Bolton Planning Policy. The plant will actually only heat six houses and supply a small amount of electric to the hamlet – the majority being exported to the grid – making it potentially the least efficient CHP plant in the world.
The same applicant now wnats to build two 145 feet wind turbines (100 foot mast + blades) – also to supply electric energy to the hamlet !! The turbines- each with a nominal power of 250KW , will have a life span of c twenty years.
You either love or hate wind turbines. They are renewable and sustainable. The feed in tarrifs make small scale renewable energy projects financially very attractive – and they should generally be encouraged, providing the impact to the environment and local residents is minimised.
The full aplication can be found here : http://www.planning.bolton.gov.uk/DCOnlineV2/AcolNetCGI.dcgov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=80301
September 24th, 2011 A busy week, as the new application to extend the life of Montcliffe Quarry was considered by Horwich Town Council, who voted to recommend refusal of the application – which is currently operating without active planning permission.
The document from the GMGU regarding the applicatioon’s was reportedly only posted on Bolton’s website on Wednesday and has been subsequently unavailable for viewing due to an error in the council website.
We have been informed thatt the updates on the RAGE website have been simultaneously hampered by a massive cyber attack, originating from ten servers in Germany, and resulting in 45,000 hits in a relatively short space of time. Investigations are ongoing.
Last week also saw the courts consider the protective costs order, for the current Judicial review. The protective costs order limited the amount either side could claim against the other, depending on who won the case. The terms have been changed to be fairer and allow the case to continue. The date of the judicial review has also been delayed until 14-16 December 2011
RAGE are embarking on a massive fund raising campaign .
You can contribute via Paypal at: 
Why all the fuss – there have been quarries in Horwich for over a century.
Here something to consider. When permission was granted in 1950 for extraction in 18 acres of Pilkington Quarry – it was estimated that it would take three hundred years to quarry.
Advances in technology means that most of this stone, was in fact extracted in a matter of a few years, in recent history. There is now an application to extend the life of Montcliffe and a recent permission for a third quarry. These are going to be extracted at a faster rate than previously. The number of HGV is likely to be considerably more than has previously affected the area – and nobody has considered what the affects will be – or how the affects can be mitigated.
Added to that a long term plan to remove further footpaths and introduce a million tonne a year recycling centre, the concern is more than a quarry – it is the cumulative impact of three quaries
September 19th, 2011 Local residents groups often get excited with one quarry. In Horwich we now have three -although most people may not realise until they are all operating – or the 1,000,000 tonne per year recycling centre becomes a reality.
Only few months after permission was granted for a third quarry (Pilkington 2) (on the basis that Montcliffe was closing), an application to extend extraction at Montcliffe is being considered by Horwich Town Council. THURSDAY 22nd September, 7.15pm at St John’s Methodist Church on Victoria Road, Horwich.
On the same day , the Protective costs order (PCO) hearing at Manchester Civil Justice Court (time tbc) . The aim is to improve the terms of the PCO that was awarded, when the second Judicial review was approved to continue, by a judge.
At the present time the judicial review is scheduled to proceed at Manchester Civil Justice Courts, October the 3rd & 4th, although legal representatives will be seeking to delay this, during PCO hearing above.
RAGE have identified an urgent call for additional funds, to ensure that the current legal fight comes to a fair conclusion. We may not be able to stop the developments in entirety but at least RAGE are committed to ensuring that residents of Horwich. Heaton and Lostock are protected by their legal rights.
You can contribute via Paypal at:
September 3rd, 2011 The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), contains a core presumption that the default answer to any proposed development will be ‘yes’ ie there will be a presumption in favour of development.
This finally sounds the death-knell to the principle established in the 1940s that the planning system should be used to protect what is most special in the landscape, creating a tool to promote economic growth in its stead.
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-global/w-news/w-latest_news/w-news-planningisforpeople.htm
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951811.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14772680
August 28th, 2011 Many of BHEAG’s campaigns are centred around projects which have been made to look environmentally friendly – but the devil is in the detail (or usually the lack of it)
Many readers will be familiar with the name Blue NG – a company formed several years ago, which has still failed to build a single plant or produce a single unit of electricity.
The story is here: http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=4053
August 3rd, 2011  It would be difficult to miss the rafts of Himalayan Balsam invading our two communities. It was first introduced to the UK in 1839. It is now one of the most invasive and damaging plants in the UK.
Last year Wildlife Minister Huw Irranca-Davies said:
“It is essential that our native species are given the protection they need to flourish. 2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity and it’s more important than ever to do all that we can to halt the loss of biodiversity. Stopping the spread of invasive non-native species makes a real difference to the survival of our own native plants,birds and animals.”
So much been said – so little been done !
To many it is an attractive plant – indeed it is effectively a garden escape. To others it is a menace, particularly colonising wet areas and woodlands. Studies have shown that it reduces species richness by 25%, either by blocking out light to smaller plants, else by being favoured above native plants by pollinating bees – a situation which could be deteriorating, given the massive drop in bee numbers. As the plant dies back in the winter, it leaves bare earth – and increases erosion particularly by river banks, or along ditches , which become more prone to flooding.
The good news is it is relatively easy to control. It is best pulled in May, before flowering.
Best practice managements suggests that all local sites, where an infestation occur need to be identified.
Then it needs landowners, the council and the general public to have a co-ordinated effort.
If you are able to help identity local sites, are a land owner with a significant infestation or are willing to help in a 2012 Balsam bash , please contact bheag@hotmail.com
For more information on Himalayan Balsam, click HERE, or see the links on the right.
The Bolton News reports :
Sarah Peet, of the Environment Agency said: “ Invasive, non-nat ive species are threatening to wipe out native plants around the North West. Whilst Himalayan Balsam is colourful and attractive, it often becomes so prominent it can displace native plants.”
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/9182017.Worries_fewer_cuts_will_allow_weeds_to_spread/
July 28th, 2011 It wont have escaped many people’s notice that energy prices are on the increase again – by as much as 20%. Bizzarely there are still some fix price deals which will limit this increase to c 10% !
And if you are one of the millions of consumers who are not on special discounted tariffs, there could even be saving opportunities.
Try using this link for price comparisons. http://www.energyhelpline.com/thisismoney_householdbills
.
.
The other way to save money is to use (loose) less energy – its easier – and cheaper than you think.
- Loft insulation – yes you already may have lots, but the recommended depth is now 270 mm
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Home-improvements-and-products/Home-insulation-glazing/Loft-insulation
Savings are likely between £40 and £140 per year depending on current thickness
- Wall Insulation Cavity wall insulation can save £110 per year whilst if you have solid walls the saving could be even higher at £375 per year.
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Home-improvements-and-products/Home-insulation-glazing
And how much does this cost ?
If you are a British Gas customer or on certain benefits - absolutely nothing,(subject to T+C) for a limited period http://www.britishgas.co.uk/freeinsulation
Other energy providers also provide highly discounted installation costs eg £150 per house for loft insulation and £150 for cavity wall insulation.
If you’ve got dormers, try using insulation boarding.
- and don’t forget to sort out those draft windows and doors
July 26th, 2011 If you have been taking these medications for more than a few weeks – you may be a victim of prescsribed drug addiction.
- drugs more difficult to stop than heroin- withdrawal effects which often resemble the original symptoms – withdrawal effects that occur even in constant use
Face the facts, Radio 4, 12.30 pm 27 July 2011. (repeated Sunday 31 July 21:00)
The truth behind over 1.5 million people in the UK , mainly over the age of 60 effected by benzodiazepines such as Valium (Diazepam), Mogadon (Nitrazepam) … Memory loss is almost a certainty
“The story of benzodiazepines is of awesome proportions and has been described as a national scandal. The impact is so large that it is too big for Governments, regulatory authorities and the pharmaceutical industry to address head on, so the scandal has been swept under the carpet. My reasons for bringing the debate to the Chamber are numerous and reflect the many strands that weave through the issue.”
Mr. Phil Woolas; Mr. John Hutton (7 Dec 1999)
“Benzos are responsible for more pain, unhappiness and damage than anything else in our society.” – Phil Woolas MP, Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, Oldham Chronicle, (February 12, 2004)
Warning: DO NOT STOP TAKING THESE MEDICATIONS ABRUPTLY.
CITA : Council for Information on Tranquillisers, Antidepressants, and Painkillers http://www.citawithdrawal.org.uk/
http://www.appgita.com/
|
|
