Blade Failure in Port Burwell



9 responses to “Blade Failure in Port Burwell

  1. the turbine did do what it was suppose to do and nobody was injured either

  2. So are you telling me Gena that falling blade parts is the acceptable standard. By whose standard?? What if someone was in the area working their fields. Because no one got hurt this time, this is acceptable???

  3. What is perfect in life, you, me or anything else on this planet? Because nothing is perfect we need to look at the fail safe on all technologies of which wind energy is one of the highest except for maybe solar. Even if all the naysayers doomsday predictions are correct about wind, which I do not believe for a moment, and in 20 years all the towers have to come down, during that time the air has not been polluted, the soils are not contaminated and the towers are gone as if they never existed. To me that is a pretty good fail safe. After one serious nuclear mistake an area the size of Algonquin Provincial Park would be a seeping pool of radiation for 50,000 years. I can live with the consequences, as most can, with a broken turbine blade dumping bits and pieces of balsa wood on the ground after a lightning strike. Yes balsa wood, the same stuff we let little kids build models from. As for coal lets not be so naive: not to be fooled by unseen dangers. Clean coal does not exist and to make it work it would go from one of the cheapest forms of energy to the most expensive and yes even more expensive than nuclear. As for people working in the fields I would be more concerned with all the pesticides and insecticides they would be coming in contact with on a regular basis. Farmers do in fact have a much higher incident rate of cancer and other serious health affects related to chemical exposure over time versus other livelihoods. This would be a much- much greater health risk in the overall scheme of things, don’t you agree. Again my point about ignoring the unseen dangers. Your turn now or is it Check Mate.

  4. ruralgrubby

    You’re argument is working with half of the information. Yes I agree nothing is perfect and never did I say it should be. If you don’t want to believe people who are living with the hell of having night after night disrupted with turbine noise, or nose bleeds and blood pressures shooting through the roof because of the stray voltage, I guess that is your perogative. Belittling peoples concerns and denying their predictions was a classic tactic of the communist regime in Russia. >> Have a look at this link from Cohocton.
    Not sure where you get the idea that wind is not going to pollute because if you took the time to read any of the postings, you would have found out that wind, because of it’s intermittency, needs fossil fuel backup generation. Maybe you can tell me why Germany after approx. 10 years of wind, is now having to build coal generating plants or why Alberta is installing a new gas generated electrical plant in order to compensate for the large influx of wind they allowed onto their grid. As for your dire warnings of nuclear fallout, perhaps you can tell me the last time Canada had such and incident after 50 years of nuclear power. I guess you can live with a broken turbine blade made of balsa wood that can be potentially projected up to 500 metres and hit with a force of a concrete block dropped from an 18 story building, especially when you are not the one who will never have to travel a laneway to work one’s fields. I agree with you that clean coal technology can be very expensive, if they go the route of carbon sequestering. Yet, not one coal generating plant in Ontario has all of the proper scrubbers. As for people getting exposed to pesticides again only half the story is related here. Whenever pesticides are applied (a rarer occurance than most people assume), fields are banned from entry and posted as such until the re-entry period (a scientifically study timeline) is met. Sure farmers have a higher incident rate of cancer, but they are also a group who are exposed to a lot of sun because of their work and exposed to many other factors such as working with synthetic chemicals like grease, gasoline, and diesel fuel. Canadian Cancer Society has shown that all of us can reduce our cancer risks by 30% by choosing good life style choices (maintain a healthy weight, excercise, and eating lots of fruits and vegetables, BTW the abundance of which is attributed to good management of pesticides). Compare that to 5% which can be related to all environmental contaminants which includes pesticides. So I don’t agree with you Gena and as ignoring unseen dangers, that is exactly what you are doing and in the process treating rural grubbies like me as expendable collateral with your half truths and misleading information.

  5. I have noticed that those who speak in favour of wind turbines, when the truth is presented to them, tend to drop out of the conversation. Perhaps they immerse themselves in research, and take time to hone their critical thinking skills.

    I hope.

  6. Don’t hold your breath Claire. When someone’s job is dependent on NOT telling the truth, it is rare that someone will change their mind. My only hope is to expose the scam. Glad to see that you are able to see through the pro-wind responses to my post.

  7. Thanks for putting forward the truth, RG.

  8. Only too happy to support the truth. Please spread the word and write to your MP, MPP’s, senators, local gov’t.

  9. Often people who are ignorant on the subject of industrial wind turbines live in their own little dream world and have little or no idea what people are dealing with in rural Ontario. On her comment about coal fired generating plants, before this government took power, OPG spent millions of dollars upgrading these plants by installing technology that reduces emissions by 90%. The pollution of our air is not because of coal fired plants, but many other factors, such as automobiles and pollutants being emitted from industry in the Ohio Valley and other US sources. Ontario likely doesn’t emit as much as we think as most industries have been shut down and moved offshore. Take a drive to Hamilton as see those huge steel mills sitting idle. And this woman’s comments about nuclear power generation failing and sending out a plume of radiation is quite far fetched as statistic will show the nuclear generation is one of the cleaner and more reliable source of electrical generation, except for water driven turbines. Sorry this rural person isn’t buying what this lady is selling. If you love the turbines so much then why don’t you give a ring to Dalton and ask him to put one up near your house. Perhaps you and your family could offer to participate in a scientific study to offer proof to your opinions.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s