Prostitutes in media
It is no wonder that Americans are so ignorant of world affairs and so unaware of the perspectives of those around the world. We are kept ignorant by our news media.
Last week a major conference of the leaders of most of this hemisphere’s nations took place in Columbia. A number of important issues were discussed, among them the consideration of decriminalizing the personal use of marijuana throughout the hemisphere in an effort to curtail the staggering political and economic power of the drug cartels. A number of presidents refused to attend the meeting due to the blocking by the U.S. of attendance by representatives of Cuba — several more presidents announced that they would refuse to attend any further meetings of the Organization of American States if the U.S. does not allow the inclusion of Cuba.
These are issues of vital importance to our neighbors in the region, and yet we have heard nothing in our media about anything other than prostitutes.
Stephen Blythe
Jonesboro
Environmentally sustainable food
Just in time for Sunday’s Earth Day observance, a study published recently in Environmental Research Letters warns that animal manure and fertilizers used in growing feed for animals emit large amounts of nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas.
A recent OpEd in The New York Times warns that the devastating environmental impacts of a meat-based diet are actually magnified when raising animals on the range, because this involves much more land and more greenhouse gas emissions ( www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/the-myth-of-sustainable-meat.html).
These conclusions are in keeping with an extensive United Nations Environment Program’s report ( www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet), which drew on dozens of smaller studies. The highly respected report concluded that agricultural production accounts for 70 percent of global freshwater use, 38 percent of land use and 19 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
In an environmentally sustainable world, meat and dairy products must be replaced by vegetables, fruits and grains, just as fossil fuels must be replaced by wind, solar and other pollution-free energy sources. As the world’s most conspicuous consumers, we have a special obligation to lead in pursuing an environmentally sustainable lifestyle. Our next trip to the supermarket is a great starting point.
Terry Donnellan
Hermon
Praise for Burnham
As I was reading this morning’s newspaper I was once again grateful for the coverage which your multitalented reporter Emily Burnham has given to our theater company. I do however wish to correct the statement that Maskers were “forced out of the building by expansion of the waterfront.” We were forced out of the building because of the dilapidated condition of the building and the inability to continue to get insurance coverage for same.
Maskers, like nearly everyone else in the city, is proud of and delighted by the expansion and beautification which is coming to our lovely waterfront area and are totally in support of a working waterfront.
As a subscriber I always look forward to Emily’s articles.
Aynne Ames
Artistic director, Belfast Maskers
Belfast
PUC made wrong call
Maine government must not support PUC big wind-power investments.
The Public Utilities Commission said yes to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new investment in an industry that is falsely claimed to be clean. This is no cause for celebration. People have been told that there are two major complaints about wind power and that they can be overcome.
The first is that industrial turbines are an eyesore on pristine rural ridge tops. The second is that they produce power that is more expensive than other sources of power. These two arguments can be easily overcome by not installing industrial turbines at all, however there are many more reasons for not investing in industrial wind turbines, e.g. devastation of tourism; millions of birds and bats slaughtered each year; dealing with “bird taking” permits, their oversight and monitoring; strife in communities and in meeting a community’s needs; unbridled corruption in industry, state politics (PUC) and town politics; corruption among financial, Audubon and other institutions; devastation of wilderness, mountains and wildlife; personal economics ruined, destroyed property values; foreign control of our resources; exporting electricity when we already have more than we need; higher taxes and electricity rates; remote wilderness and mountaintop fire danger; management, oversight and decommissioning; noise, flicker, lights and their effects on health, human and otherwise.
Maine should continue to seek a balanced energy policy that includes conservation and a variety of sources.
Bob Baker
Portland
The Passamaquoddy people
In response to “Passamaquoddy get $11.4M in asset mismanagement case” (BDN, April 3), since the Settlement Act of 1980, the Passamaquoddy Tribal Governments still operate as if Passamaquoddy tribal funds belong to them as elected officials. As tribal governor in the early 1970s, I reluctantly signed the original complaint, Passamaquoddy v. Morton, on behalf of our people because I had many unanswered questions regarding the management of our funds in case a settlement was ever reached. After the 1980 settlement act, Viola Dana Brown, Phyllis Newell Saunders and myself organized a tribal petition to freeze $12.5 million and set up a permanent trust for our people so that the generated interest could be disbursed to our people on the tribal role.
If my memory serves me right, $1 million also was set aside for our elders to supplement their meager incomes. Other than reporting to the tribal officials, the Passamaquoddy people have had no reporting on the usage or status of these funds. I do know that in the first quarter of 2012, each elder received a disbursement of $37.36. Considering all of the funds and income that flows through tribal governments, $37.36 is an embarrassment.
I have written my concerns consistently for the past 30 years and have been a major force since the settlement act requesting information and accountability of the Passamaquoddy funds that belong to our people, to our children and to our grandchildren, not to mention our natural resources and the profits they have generated.
Allen Socabasin
Princeton
Mr. Blythe, are not the national media chains, so dependent upon the advertising largess of international corporations, simply engaging in professional courtesy when they report on the doings of prostitutes?
Stephen Blythe, maybe it’s the result of all these journalist going to the National Enquirer school of journalism.
Because your average American citizen would rather hear about prostitute scandals than about international issues and policy making.
Interesting. We agree.
Stephen Blythe – When it comes to meetings of world leaders as of late, like the past decade or so, few stories get out about the true intent of most of the meetings. Subjects that range from a one-world currency to the ability of the world court to trump the US Supreme Court have been discussed with Obama or one of his close cohorts in attendance. It’s no surprise that the high points of this latest meeting are not being reported on. For all we know, the prostitute scandal could be just the smoke necessary to cover the real truth.
EJ, I’m sure you have transcripts of these meetings, would you share them with the rest of us? Or is this just a form of “hate speech”?
I only had a TS/BI security clearance. Gotta’ have at least a TS/SCI to see those transcripts.
Wouldn’t you also need a reason to see them? I had a Secret clearance but I couldn’t see things I had no business seeing. Maybe you were a diplomat.
Pleasse EJ, tell us the ‘real truth’, ok?
The real truth is that our government cannot be trusted, especially when they’re in cahoots with other governments.
Judging from your Ginsburg comments yesterday, you clearly don’t care much about “the real truth.”
Judge Ginsburg dissed the US Constitution. That is the “real truth”.
That’s not what she did. I’m willing to bet you didn’t read her full statement/remarks. Otherwise you wouldn’t be speaking the way you are. That is unless you don’t have a problem with being dishonest.
I did read her full statement. Within it she placed the US Constitution below the constitutions of other countries. To me, that is disrespecting the US Constitution, because, in my eyes, the US Constitution is the greatest Constitution ever written.
She spoke at length. You should be able to tell me specfically how she disrespected the Constitution. You should be able to tell me specifically why she said what she did. Can you do that? Can you tell me why she said the words she did? Are you going to keep pretending it had nothing to do with equality?
You should be able to do these things, that is, if you’re actually being honest, which I don’t think you are.
It is my opinion, (or ‘belief” if you will) that your comment has little validity because it is simply your ‘belief’ that this is the case with little or no proof to back up your statement. I would be inclined to believe you except that you also have a ‘belief’ that Jesus is Savior, whatever that means, and you have no proof of that either in as much as you can’t see him. It is simply a belief and, to my mind, a rather far fetched one. I therefore do not put trust in your beliefs.
We are the government The first time I lost trust in the government was when G.W, Bush, after being handed 5.3 trillion $$ assets, waged an unfunded war, cut taxes and ran the government to ground to the tune of -13 trillion $$. Pres. Obama has been taking the rap for Brush’s imeptitude. It is not the government that is untrustworthy, it is blind conservatives like yourself that are not trustworthy. Coservatives do not have americans’ interests at heart. Witness your anti gay attitude.
Last thing first: I am not against gays, I’m against gay marriage. I’ve offered a compromise of civil unions, but it has been flatly rejected.
Secondly, Bush did add 5.3 trillion to the debt, not 13 trillion. There was already 8 trillion on the books when he arrived in office. As for Obama, in just 3.5 years, he has added more than Bush added in 8 years, and if he gets another 4 years, it has been projected that he will add at least 7 trillion more. It is not I that is the blind one.
Finally, if you don’t trust anything I say because I believe in Christ, then why do you waste your time commenting on my comments.
You’re against gays. If you’re against equal rights for certain people, then you’re against them.
He tries.
The real truth? From you? Please.
The secret plan of this last summit, as I understand it, is that this one-world government will install a microchip in your brain to control your thoughts. Expect a black helicopter to land any day now and a special ops team to disembark, grab you, and install the microchip in a matter of seconds.
But, then, I would think like you. We could be thought brothers.
Ah, EJ, I live in the reality-based community, in which global warming is self-evident, evolution’s handiwork is there for all to see, and endless tax cuts don’t increase revenues.
Those who reject evidence are more likely to believe in conspiracies for a single currency (Doesn’t the experience of the Euro make you just a little less gullible on this point?) and a single world government (Doesn’t the increasing number of states arising from the break-up of larger states suggest we are going in the opposite direction?).
For those who create their own reality, facts need never be acknowledged. Their motto seems to be: “I believe it, therefore it is.”
Actually, you live in a world where opposing views, beliefs, and opinions are unacceptable. At the same time, your views, beliefs, and opinions are based in quicksand logic, lacking conclusive evidence, but, because they suit your line of thought, you grasp them with all you have, and to hell with all other lines of thought, even if those other lines of thought have just as much proof as yours do.
For instance, global warming is a 50/50 bet at best. It is NOT self evident in any way. But, just for the fun of it, let’s say that it does exist. There is no amount of money or programs that can be implemented to reverse it, because it is not man-made. And even if it were man-made, all the money grabbing in the world wouldn’t reverse it.
And as for evolution, there are more holes in that theory than in Creationism or Intelligent Design. And, as with cosmology, all of evolution is based on fluid baselines and theories that are changed whenever new evidence rolls in if that evidence doesn’t fit the evolution mold. Of course, evolutionists will scream foul if any mention of a God or higher being is infused into the mix, because a God or higher intelligence just blows them out of the water. They detest any other theory because they’re afraid of something that just might be the truth, in spite of the fact that once injected, how we came into being makes a whole lot more sense.
By the way, the Euro failed, in large part, because of the American dollar. The next step for the world bank is to get rid of the dollar altogether. Obama is doing his best to make this happen by printing day and night and weakening the value of the dollar in the world market. Since he took office, the value of the dollar has dropped more than 30%. If he gets 4 more years, the dollar will be practically worthless.
I have to earn a living and meet a payroll. I can’t be bothered with responding to your ipse dixits.
Global Warming, or more acurately Global Climate Change, is real, it is happening and it is being accelerated by man’s activities. Ninety-nine percent of all Climate scientists agree with that statement, the remaining 1% of climate scientists do not agree with the amount of man-made influence on the climate.
Any scientists, or websites, you find that disagree with that are either not climate scientists but are instead geologists and chemists, etc. and the websites and scientists are funded by the Oil and Gas industries to cloud the issue.
As for Evolution, it is a fact accepted by almost all scientist of differing studies. There is ZERO evidence of either Creationism or Intelligent Design. The new evidence you talk about does not weaken Evolution but instead strenghtens it and imporves the evidence of it. There is no lack of “transitional fossils”, hundreds of them have been found in the past 20 years alone.
As for Creationism, the fact that were are here is the so-called proof that Creationism is correct. It is not such thing. Intelligent Design is just a “prettied up” version of Creationism. If you think there is evidence for Intelligent Design usingthe Mount Rushmore example, you are naive.
Lookup the Rabbit’s Digestive System and tell me it was intelligently designed, look up the Human heart and tell me it was intelligently designed to name just two not so intelligently designed features of nature.
99 percent? Considering that more and more are jumping off of the GW train, there is no way 99 percent agree. Try again.
There are very few if any Climate scientists “jumping of the GW train”. You are sadly misinformed.
Trying to educate EJ is casting “pearls before swine,” to quote his Bible (Matthew 7:6).
God created us all whole. Nevertheless, the chance that we just happened to be the way we are is non-calculable. And what about the several thousand “missing links”? Don’t you think that in the century plus that evolution has been around that at least one of these missing links would have been found. What about mutations. As of yet, no mutations have progressed a life form. Mutations always digress.
Evolution and cosmology is nothing more than man’s attempt to remove God from the creation equation.
There are not “thousands” of missing links.
For example we can track the changes from a small mammal into a modern day horse very effectively. The “missing link” weakness you talk about is a fabrication/misinterpretation of the scientific discussion hundreds of years ago that Creationsits try to use to weaken the argument against Evolution. No self-respecting scientist even talks of “missing links” anymore.
Proto-cells have been created in the lab from amino acids that are found on meteorites and are believed to have existed in Earth’s early atmosphere and clay, to name one example of life from non life.
Mutations, by definition, come from living organisms and do not “always” digress. New genes that protect their hosts from disease are created by mutations as well as genes that cause pain and death or both in some cases.
I can tell you did not look up the digestive system of a rabbit, did you? It’s not very efficient, but then again no herbivorous mamaerl has an efficient digestive system, and not a very intelligent design. It does, however, make sense once you realize that rabbits evolved from a carnivorous mammal.
http://www.therabbithouse.com/diet/rabbit-digestive-system.asp
The human heart is also evidence of evolution. It evolved from a 2 chambered fish heart to a three chambered reptile heart to a four chambered mammal heart. It did not, however, evolve better the blood flow that feeds and keeps the heart alive. That is why humans have so many Heart Bypass operations. Only one vein to feed service the most important muscle in the body instead of multiple arteries and veins to keep the heart ticking. You would think an intelligent designer would have figured out that the heart is poorly served by its own blood supply.
Given the properties of the chemicals of life in this environement, life was not “by chance” but inveitable.
Missing links is a false straw man. They’re being discovered every day. And it’s quite easy for evolution of unicellular life formsto form new ones. It just takes longer with muticelluars 9way more than 6000 years).
And even geologists and chemists accept the valid data of GCC. Blame oil and gas management, not the scientists.
As for ID found wanting, check out a recent article in Scientific American about the evolution of the eye. Not by ID/CS standards to be sure.
I actually read about several theories for how the eye evolved from a cell structure that could sense light (as exists in certain mollusks for example) into a seeing eye several years ago.
Global warming is self evident:
Fossil fuel carbon dioxide is altering the isooipic (14C and 13C) content of naturally occurring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Measured increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane have measureably altered the Earth’s radiative balance.
The measured change in upwelling long wave IR abosrbance by greenhouse gases have measureably increased the amount of heat retained by the Earth’s climate system.
This has resulted in the measured rise in global temperatures since the mid-1800’s.
The rise in global temperatures has altered weather patterns, the seasonal responses of the cryosphere, rainfall, growing seasons, and the distribution of salinity in the surface ocean.
Ignorance and anti-science rants cannot alter the facts.
Nosush
It’s all cyclical. By the way, why has the temp remained unchanged for the last decade and a half. I thought we were going to all burn up by now. And AlGore, the GW messiah, purchased a multi-million dollar beach front estate a few years back. Didn’t he say the oceans would rise and wipe out anyone close to the water? He’s laughing all the way to the bank.
What is happening now and what has been measured and published in peer-reviewed science journals is NOT cyclical.
It is caused by humans.
period.
Ignorant hoo hah fail.
Yessah
Reread the predictions. And the upwadr trends are much longer thana decade and a half. Besides, keys regions are still increasing. Gore was guilty of some over-hype but denialists are much more hyperbolic.
And the cycles (their midpoints keep increasing. I just read that atmospheric CO2 levels did precede glacial retreat and warming at the end of the last ice age/glacial intrusions.
Temperature has not remained unchanged the last decade and a half. Every year in the 21st century has been hotter than the average for the last 200 years with 2 of the 3 hottest years occurring in 2010 and 2011.
And Al Gores’ “beach front” home sits on a hill over looking the ocean. It could be better called an ocean-view estate since it does not actually sit on the beach front. Now it may fall into the ocean because of mud slides caused in part by Global Climate change but it may not depending on the stability of the hillside.
EJP: Up to 50-50 on global warming? Things are improving, onservations are being acknowleged. Keep up the good work.
As for your dogmatic stance against evolution, no viable “holes” have been found in 150+ years. The phenomenon permeates the natural sicences. As for Creationism (appropriate that you gave it religious spin) and Intelligent Design, there isn’t even enough substance to have “holes”. The Emperors have no clothes.
Thank you, Mr. Baker, from Portland, for pointing out the multitude of problems with industrial wind. The folks in the affected areas feel like their voices are not being heard, drowned out by the incessant quote that Mainers support wind power. That’s because so many starry eyed dreamers from southern Maine say they support something that know nothing about except the propaganda fed them by the wind industry and their stooges, the Maine media. They also are never going to be impacted by the visual, noise, low frequency health, loss of property value, and loss of wildlife habitat problems that accompany these sprawling industrial sites.
Portlanders squawk mightily about “too big” & “out of scale” any time a developer wants to put up a building taller than 100 feet in the urban core. How would they feel about living with 50 machines, each 450 to 500 feet tall looming over them from the tops of ridges? I think support for wind power development would drop dramatically if southern Mainers actually had to deal with them.
Mr. Baker is a Portlander who obviously is paying attention. He “gets it”. Learn more about the citizens’ perspective on wind power development in Maine here: http://www.windtaskforce.org
Thanks Bob Baker from Portland. Your list of why fifty 500 foot tall wind turbines overlooking pristine wilderness lakes as is being proposed and permitted in the Oakfiled area is right on target and pretty complete. Another issue is that the wind industry is receiving billions of dollars from the federal government as tax subsidies and this drives up our massive federal budget deficit. So another reason to stop any more massive wind developments in the state of Maine under the current circumstances Thanks again for your wise comments!
It’s spelled Colombia.
It is really good to hear from someone in southern Maine who realizes how wind farms are ravaging rural Maine, which is our pristine lake region where many locals and tourists have cabins and enjoy the hiking and recreational activities around and on these lakes. Maine and the Federal Gvt have NO energy policy- wind is a scam and for organizations like Audobon to be in on this with the FEDs and the WIND Companies (who sponsor them just as those Obama gave the DOE $ to sponsored his election) is a sad travesty- if Audobon WERE doing their job they would NEVER allow turbines near our eagles, loons, bats and all migratory birds that richly inhabit our hills and lakes.
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=b6147304a619be64#cid=B6147304A619BE64&id=B6147304A619BE64!227
I agree it’s nice to see that people from southern Maine are starting to pay attention. Along with Maine Audubon, the NRCM has sold out to industrial wind as well. Check out this very very interesting NRCM video made in 2009. In it, they make mention of how horrific billboards are upon our stunning roadside scenery. Even Angus King gets into the hypocritical act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9xW8J9q5FI&feature=related
Nice..
http://news.yahoo.com/englands-lack-violence-reaps-economic-benefits-040451299.html;_ylt=AhXClbzSIhYjXSXTeimrFA.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQyMGI2bmdjBG1pdANTZWN0aW9uTGlzdCBGUCBVUwRwa2cDODY5NmExMzQtZmQxMS0zZGNlLThlZDEtYzY1MWY0NDExNDM2BHBvcwM0BHNlYwNNZWRpYVNlY3Rpb25MaXN0BHZlcgNkMzY4ZDQyMC04ZGMyLTExZTEtYmZmZi02MmE5OTUyOTdmMmI-;_ylg=X3oDMTFrM25vcXFyBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnMEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3
I find PBS News Hour to have the best coverage of world events and occurances. They don’t have the puffery and agenda of the cable news networks like Fox. Instead of obsessing and distorting how the President greeted another leader, PBS better gets to the heart of the matter and uses its minutes to illuminate real issues.
If you actually believe that PBS has no agenda, then you are walking around with both eyes closed. All news outlets have agendas, and PBS is no different.
Their agenda is to inform. They don’t allow the ad hominem attacks you seem to be so fond of, which is something I personally appreciate. I love to see actual debates and deliberations. I don’t care for the manufactured outrage and distortion of cable news, mainly Fox News.
Just from a couple days worth of reading your comments, I can see you’re probably just the opposite and relish in seeing the character of others smeared.
Dont forget to add CNN and NBC….. Come on now….. They all do it…….
Sorry Mr. Baker, but you are wrong.
Wind power is cheaper than other forms of new energy production – even coal in the Midwest.
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/04/wind_power_stays_aloft_in_rene.html
In Europe and the US, wind power reduces the spot and wholesale prices of electricity.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/18/markets-iberia-power-idUSL6E8FIEM520120418
Vermont pays more for Hydro Quebec electricity ($69 per MWh) than electricity produced by the Rollins wind project ($53 per MWh) here in Maine.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110418/NEWS03/110418018/Board-approves-power-deal-Hydro-Quebec
White nose syndrome caused the Geomyces fungus is the biggest threat to US bat populations – not wind turbines.
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/05/150000682/white-nose-syndrome-a-scourge-in-the-bat-caves
Ornithologists have documented the decline of US songbirds since WW2 – these were due to pesticides, loss of wintering habitat, fragmentation of breeding habitat, brown cowbird parasitism and predation – not wind farms.
A recent study in the UK concluded that wind farm operations are not a threat to local bird populations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/12/windfarms-damage-bird-populations
There is no peer-reviewed medical evidence documenting adverse health effects from wind turbines – claims to the contrary are ignorant superstitious hoo hah.
Oil, coal, nuclear and gas industries receive billions more in subsidies than wind power.
Mercury and acid rain from coal-fired power plants pose a far greater threat to Maine wildlife (and human health in Maine) than any “made up” threats from wind turbines.
Mountaintop coal mining in KY and WV permanently destroys more high elevation habitat than wind farms.
Global warming – not wind farms – are the only real threat to Maine’s subalpine and high elevation habitats.
http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/as-climate-changes-so-does-what-grows-atop-mountain-in-maine_2012-02-21.html
If people don’t like the way wind farms look, that’s fine, but the anti-wind lobby loses all credibility when they load up there concerns with hysterical nonsense.
yessah
Sorry Mr. munebaght, You are wrong. https://skydrive.live.com
click to enlarge and read captioning.
/?cid=b6147304a619be64#cid=B6147304A619BE64&id=B6147304A619BE64!227
How so?
Which statement in my previous post is wrong?
none
yessah
Audubon, Usfws and the like are perfect example of pollution, corruption and prostitution.
Ask the people of Mars Hill, ME, about their wind turbines, and where that said energy is being sent – right out of the state; the town doesn’t even get to use its power to lower their electric bills. Maybe people would be more apt to discuss wind power if the power was staying in the hands of the state residents where the turbines reside.
Sorry goodcitizen:
Do the good citizens of Mars Hill plan to shut down that wind farm?
Nope.
Will electricity from that wind farm be used locally to lower electric rates by 10-21%
http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20110525006084/en/First-Wind/Wind-Energy/New-Brunswick-Power
yessah
Please try to keep up
yes, please tell them WHEN they will see that drastic decrease in their bills – they have not as of yet. And they cannot shut down the farm because the town has to pay to have them removed, at a huge cost – they can’t afford it.
That is an issue of the Power companies taking profits over people not an issue with Wind Turbines.
Sorry Mr. Baker, but you are wrong.
Wind power is cheaper than other forms of new energy production – even coal
in the Midwest.
http://www.mlive.com/politics/… In Europe and the US wind
power reduces the spot and wholesale prices of electricity. (Double talk and nonsense )
http://www.mlive.com/politics/… (More off base garbage. Do you
believe for a minute that we believe you know what you are talking about?)
http://www.reuters.com/article… Vermont pays more for Hydro
Quebec electricity ($69 per MWh) than electricity produced by the Rollins wind
project ($53 per MWh) here in Maine. ( tell that to your children when the
birds and trees are gone.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress… White nose syndrome caused
the Geomyces fungus is the biggest threat to US bat populations – not
wind turbines. (Industrial turbines kill many millions of birds and bats each year.
That is the truth.
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/05/… Ornithologists have
documented the decline of US songbirds since WW2 – these were due to
pesticides, loss of wintering habitat, fragmentation of breeding habitat, brown
cowbird parasitism and predation – not wind farms. (Until now)
A recent study in the UK concluded that wind farm operations are not a
threat to local bird populations. (David
Letterman: “ ya wanna buy a money”)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi…
There is no peer-reviewed medical evidence documenting adverse health effects
from wind turbines – claims to the contrary are ignorant superstitious hoo hah.
(just the facts. I don’t like bologna)
Oil, coal, nuclear and gas industries receive billions more subsidies
than wind power. (So we should invest more in junk?)
Mercury and acid rain from coal-fired power plants pose a far greater threat
to Maine wild life (and human health in Maine) than any “made up”
threats from wind turbines. (Scudders on smokestacks have largely eliminated
this problem for years now.)
Mountaintop coal mining in KY and WV permanently destroys more high
elevation habitat than wind farms. (Finally a truthful utterance.)
Global warming – not wind farms are the only real threat to Maine’s
subalpine and high elevation habitats. (Yeah, an ice age can bring on many
Natural changes.)
http://www.pressherald.com/opi…
If people don’t like the way wind farms look, that’s fine, but the anti-wind
lobby loses all credibility when they load up there concerns with hysterical
nonsense.
Yessah (Get Real or fly back to the
mune.)
You have not refuted any of my previous statements.
Acting silly does not count.
yessah
The PUC made the wrong call.
Part Three:
Birds are attracted to wind-turbines
and swarm around them to be chopped when the turbines turn. Natural gas prices
are currently low and may stay that way for a long time because water
perpetually runs downhill (is renewable). Wind has no predictability and it’s
expensive. After the capital costs are paid, there are many maintenance,
emergency and decommissioning costs in fuel and in costly destruction.
There may be a short-lived economic
benefit for a few at the beginning. The money paid to construction workers
will, in the short run, show up in local stores and municipal tax collections
(albeit temporarily). That could be used to support local services too, maybe.
Industrial turbines won’t pollute
the air with as much CO2 as will most other energy generators. However, they
will chop millions of birds and barometrically kill millions of bats. Water is
another matter. The access roads built are very heavy duty and be built through
marshy areas and over streams. Herbicides and insecticides are needed around
the turbine grounds, and because water eternally (renewable) runs down hill,
those poisons get taken down stream, poisoning all in its wake, and eventually
into our rivers where they poison fish and whatever lives there.
Wind is not the answer to Maine’s
energy problems, but it is playing a huge role in worsening those problems.
Part of the answer would be to remove wind-power from the state’s energy
portfolio and stop errecting them. Maine should continue to seek a balanced
energy policy that includes conservation and a variety of sources — excluding
wind.
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=b6147304a619be64#cid=B6147304A619BE64&id=B6147304A619BE64!225
The PUC made
the wrong call.
Here’s today’s Reuters report on European spot prices and wind power…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/24/markets-europe-electricity-idUSL5E8FOCBD20120424
Maine
Government Must Not Support Puc Big Wind-Power Investments.
The PUC made the wrong call. Part One
The Public Utilities Commission
said yes to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new investment in an
industry that is falsely claimed to be clean. This is no cause for celebration.
People have been told that there are two major complaints about wind power and
that they can be overcome. The first is that industrial turbines are an eyesore
on pristine rural ridge tops. The second is that they produce power that is
more expensive than other sources of power. These two arguments can be easily
overcome by not installing industrial turbines at all, however there are many
more reasons for not investing in industrial wind turbines:
Devastation of wilderness and camping tourism,
Millions of birds and bats slaughtered each year,
Dealing with “bird taking” permits, their oversight
and monitoring,
Strife in communities and in meeting a community’s needs,
Unbridled corruption in the (PUC), town and state
politics and industry
Corruption among Audubon, Usfws and other institutions,
Devastation of Wilderness, Mountains, and wildlife,
Personal economics ruined, destroyed property values,
Foreign control of our resources,
Exporting electricity when we already have more than we need,
Higher taxes and electricity rates,
Remote wilderness and mountaintop Fire danger,
Management, oversight and decommissioning,
Noise, flicker. lights and their effects on health, human and
otherwise,
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=b6147304a619be64
The PUC made
the wrong call.
The PUC made the wrong call. Part 2
CO2 production in strip mining the
precious metals needed in the manufacturing, and thousands of miles of
freighter transportation, and then the installation of industrial wind turbines
is enormous. The special roads must be wide enough, and are prepared by digging
down to the subgrade soil level, filling with up to 17 inches of 4-8 inch
crushed rock and then the surface 1-2 inch crushed rock. Thousands of miles of
these special, heavy load handling, access roads, compartmentalize small and
fragile wildlife, their habitat and natural activity.
And many more issues like the fuel needed to produce an even flow of
electricity for the grid. They do not produce oxygen as did the trees that were
clear-cut to make space for them. But in every step of the mining,
manufacturing, transportation and installation of each turbine many megatons of
CO2 are produced. That’s before one even begins to spin. Then many gallons of
lubricant oil and machinery fuels must be used for their maintenance and
emergency handling (They do catch fire and shards and bundles far from the
turbine site.)
The long-term impact of climate change caused by human activity is already
causing more severe environmental disasters but industrial windmills are
irrelevant to that. Some say that the sight of some towers and rotating blades
in what have been undeveloped areas is a small price to pay…. For What? To
make a few fools rich?? And, it’s not just some, but thousands of turbines,
posing forest fire risks on remote mountaintops. All for an unreliable trickle
of energy to be sent out of state on new and incredibly expensive transmission
lines that we must pay for. From an environmental perspective, there are no
benefits to expanding wind generation.
(Click on the picture to enlarge
it))
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=b6147304a619be64#cid=B6147304A619BE64&id=B6147304A619BE64!225
The PUC made the wrong call.
Terry Donnellan: check your land use data, since total conversionto a meat-fre agriculture would still use land and other resources. Also, your ferilizer stats are based on overuse of fertilzers, not their appropraite use.
Finally, be aware that total conversion to a vegan diet incurs it’s own risks. Ovolacto vegetarianism is a better path since dairy and eggs are very efficient suppliers of essential nutrients and are the sole source of Vitamin B12.