A fine ex­am­ple of ‘shoot­ing mes­sen­ger’

The Oban Times - - Letters -

Sir, Re the re­cent let­ter, ‘Dis­be­lief over claims in wind farm ar­ti­cle’ - as dis­be­lief is felt about in­for­ma­tion shared, I’m hop­ing that Jen­nifer will have found the let­ter fol­low­ing hers help­ful. It is un­der­stand­able that she and those find­ing them­selves liv­ing close to wind tur­bines are largely un­aware of re­ports and prob­lems aris­ing.

Alarm/rejection voiced as re­ac­tions to dis­clo­sures are nat­u­ral to an ex­tent, but don’t negate the need to re­search fully and re­port the find­ings of ex­perts in the field, as has been done. If con­sid­ered ‘un­ac­cept­able’ and dis­missed as bi­ased for one, oth­ers will be grate­ful for the warn­ing, to en­able the very rea­son­able re­quests made for in­de­pen­dent health mon­i­tor­ing to be more widely re­quested and set up. Doc­u­mented ex­pe­ri­ences graph­i­cally re­late to ad­verse ef­fects - oth­ers no­tice noth­ing. This doesn’t mean, how­ever, that they’re non- ex­is­tent, so mon­i­tor­ing is some­thing en­tirely log­i­cal to sup­port to avoid symp­toms be­ing missed or at­trib­uted to the wrong sources.

Since when was it un­ac­cept­able to hold author­i­ties to ac­count for the im­po­si­tion of a tech­nol­ogy with the ca­pac­ity for harm? Sadly Jen­nifer’s protest is a fine ex­am­ple of ‘shoot­ing the mes­sen­ger.’ As stated, there are ris­ing num­bers of peer re­viewed re­ports avail­able for any­one to read and re­spond to should they so wish. For links see www.wind­sofjus­tice.org.uk Avail­able are the U. S Fal­mouth and Por­tuguese court cases where noise nui­sance and harm to hu­man health has been found and dealt with by the courts by or­der­ing tur­bines to be turned off at night and de­con­struct­ing oth­ers. More data is avail­able to her via an email ad­dress left with the editor of the Oban Times. Chris­tine Met­calfe Loch Avich, Ar­gyll

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.