Letter to the Editors at The Batavia Daily News
I am writing in regard to the 1/25/11 Letter to the Editor, "The dangers associated with windmills" (Link).
The word "satire" is defined:
1.) a literary work in which vices, follies, stupidities, abuses, etc. are held up to ridicule and contempt
2.) the use of ridicule, sarcasm, irony, etc. to expose, attack or deride vices, follies, etc.
So by its very definition, the author of this "satire" (and apparently the Daily News by its printing of this attack) considers anyone who speaks out against industrial wind to be "a folly, stupidity, or abuse, that should be held up for public ridicule and sarcastic attacks." The story's the same as it's always been -- When they don't have the facts, they resort to personal attacks.
How has printing this sarcastic attack helped to further an educated, civil discussion on the wind issue? How does printing what is nothing more than a sarcastic, completely false, negative attack against (1) those who are suffering through the negative effects themselves, (2) those still embroiled in litigation in their respective towns, and (3) the many of us who have actually spent countless hours doing the research on the issue - help to foster good feelings and/or, a better understanding of the issue based on sound, unbiased information and investigative news reporting?
I have painstakingly documented sources in the letters I have sent in on the issue over the years - ever since the "Good Doctor" from North Dakota (an obvious Big Wind affiliate) attacked my position on industrial wind many years ago now. I know that the sources I, and others, have cited in our letters have been checked by your editors. I'm sure that had one of us printed such an insulting, totally false satirical letter, it most definitely would NOT have been published -- as it shouldn't have been! I guess I should be happy you printed this "satire", since it makes all wind proponents look bad. Unfortunately, knowingly printing such lies makes the Daily News look bad, too.
The only people who still blindly support wind energy are those with personal financial motivations, and/or those who have not done a lick of research on the issue themselves. If they had, they would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that industrial wind is NOT technically, economically, or environmentally sound energy policy for a number of reasons, including:
1.) wind can not, and will not replace oil or coal,
2.) over 100,000 turbines later worldwide, and wind has not reduced CO2 and/or reduced Global Warming,
3.) it is the American taxpayers & ratepayers that are footing the bill for this energy scam (originated by ENRON, and bought up by GE when ENRON was going down), and
4.) this "green", "political agenda" only serves to enrich the multi-national corporations who will continue to leech off all of us as long as they can.
As a supporter of Clear Skies Over Orangeville (and all groups fighting this energy scam), I am very well aware of letters (including one by me) that have been sent in to the Daily News in recent weeks, that have yet to be published. I do hope that in the interest of relating both sides of the story, we will be seeing these letters in the Daily News in the days to come.
Also, in the interest of furthering the education of everyone about the truth behind industrial wind, I have pasted several recent articles below (the first is very disturbing, especially considering that 4000 lbs. of rare earth elements are used in each turbine), and attached a couple good articles from the Energy Advocate for you to read.
As Robert Bryce, author of Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy & the Real Fuels of the Future, has stated as to why wind won't work, "It's simply a matter of physics". Regarding the physics, it is important to realize that wind power is proportional to the *cube* of wind speed. If the wind blows at 20 mph and drops to 10 mph, the power output drops by 87.5%. This is not a matter of engineering, but entirely related to the properties of the moving air. Because of the violent fluctuations of wind power, there must always be backup running at 50% of full power to compensate for both increases and decreases in wind power. Ramping our conventional power sources up and down to accommodate wind on the grid actually causes their CO2 emissions to increase. (documented in The Colorado/Texas Bentek studies, and http://www.stopillwind.org/downloads/Overblown.pdf )
I do hope you can take a few minutes to read some of these enlightening articles.
Thank you very much for your consideration of my thoughts about this unfortunate occurrence, and of the included information,
Mary Kay Barton
Silver Lake, NY