Questions & Answers (based on a personal opinion)

There was a comment to my "Tuesday's Thoughts" post that I feel deserves some attention.  I have cut and pasted below the portion of the comment I believe was directed to me for the reader's convenience.  The entire comment can be viewed under the appropriate post.

Good morning. I hear you John - more studies are needed. No one really seems to know exactly why some people are feeling ill effects - but that does seem to be the case. So my questions are very simple: "Why can't this project be put on hold until we know health effects for sure?", "Why isn't the project put on hold until the legal issues are worked out?" or finally "Why can't they just put turbines further away from people?" (and yes, I realize Fairhaven may not have a suitable location) Bowcock's letter to the S-T called the WW people potentially dangerous. Where is his concern about the dangers of the turbines? Besides potential health effects, etc - there is real danger of mechanical failures & fires, etc - yes, a small percentage - but they do occur. I would appreciate if he and some other town leaders had some apprehension for residents who will be living within the shadow of these turbines. I think it is warranted. 

In my opinion it is unfair to burden folks with a project like this in their backyards that absolutely needs more research and studies. If we do not know the many variables and how they will affect our citizens - then is it really worth and estimated savings $20 per resident/per year that will potentially negatively affect the sanctity of their homes and health? The amount of two pizza lover pizzas - I mean really?

I agree more studies are needed, however I am certain not with the same objective as some would argue.  If you look hard enough you will find there there have been a number of studies in countries with an established history of wind turbines (studies which I consider legitimate, impartial and meet scientific scrutiny and in which you will find results which casts claims by both sides of the present debate into question).  

I believe that there are some legitimate theories out there right now, based on sound science, as to the why some people suffer ill effects.  At some point I most likely get into more specifics.  I am not presently going to do this as first of all, these studies should all ready be known to all the major players.  They are cited when convenient, and otherwise ignored when not, by "experts" on both sides.  I am also not getting into the specific studies at this point because people should be digging deep on their own.  Read enough, research enough and you will find them.

As to your questions:

"Why can't this project be put on hold until we know the health effects for sure?"

I am not sure whether you are pulling my leg or not with classifying your questions as simple.  

Anyway, here is the simple answer - it isn't as easy as that.

Now for the complex part:  As cold as what follows may seem, if that were the standard for any project or thing, we would be living in an entirely different world.  You may never have an answer.

I would truly like to know with certainty why some people are affected and not others; why some projects work, and others don't (and I am not writing off those who will be affected.  I will address that point in your comment later below).

If you are looking for a 100% guaranty of no ill effects to anyone, how is that possible for anything?  It is not.

The legal aspect also has to come into play, and this blends into your next question about waiting until the legal issues are resolved.  

It is not as simple as saying we don't want this anymore. The simple fact in my opinion is the studies being thrown out by opponents do not establish their claims.  There are substantial issues with the studies done.  Couple that with the recent state panel, findings in Oregon and Ontario and a host of research in Europe, offering again my personal opinion, the town would not have a leg to stand on if it terminated the contract at this point based on "health issues".

I know there will be strong disagreement on this as to the science in opposition, but to date based on what I have read on both sides, it is my opinion.

Where there may be a cause of action on the "health issues" is to actually use the legitimate scientific data that is out there.  It may not be enough to terminate, but it might be a useful tool in other aspects. But that is for the opponents' legal team to decide.

The lot issue is one that I want to see a decision made on.  The decision made by the court in the pending lawsuit upheld this as an issue for trial.

If the lease is ruled invalid on this point, if the parties have proceeded to place the turbines on lots they are not legally entitled to, then ball game over.

The developer  made it clear this was a decision he/they were involved in.  So they currently proceed at their own risk. What is not clear is whether it is in fact an insurmountable problem.  I suggest you review that decision carefully to ascertain that point.

What seems to be lost in this dispute is the fact that Town Meeting cannot determine whether the contract is valid or not, based upon my understanding of the law. If someone has precedent or statutory law to show otherwise, I am more then happy to look at it.  The decision on whether the contract is a valid one rests squarely on the shoulders of the court.

The costs to the town, as I see them, to terminate this contract without a valid legal reason are unfortunately not as simple as $20.00 per resident.  The costs easily could run into the $10 to $20 Million Dollar range.  I am not going to get into the details of the ramifications of where that would come from.  The simple version is think fire sale of town assets, or trying to get a debt exclusion vote to pay off a breach of contract claim (and yes, I am I aware of the cots the town faces if this project does in fact go through).

It would take an agreement from the town (i.e. the selectmen, not town meeting) and developer to put the matter on hold pending a resolution.  The court has all ready ruled there is not sufficient legal grounds to do so pending a trial.  Perhaps on an appeal there will be a different ruling.  Until there is, however, that ruling stands.

As to mechanical failures and fires, I am not trying to demean your point, but by your own admission the same happen in a small percentage.   Such things can occur and do occur in all kinds of projects that go on, a number of which are currently going on.  Do we base whether we do any project on that criteria alone? I sincerely ask, what is an acceptable risk, just on this point?  If the answer is 0, then again I say we would be living in an entirely different world.

Why can't they put the turbines further away from people?  I am not going to answer that for those who made the decision.    I could take a guess, but it would be just that, a guess.  

As to your comments regarding Selectmen Bowcock, I am not here to answer for him.  

For what it is worth, I personally do have apprehension for the residents to be affected.  I continue to spend time everyday looking over research, looking at issues such as mitigation, and yes even avoidance.  However it may seem to some at times, I don't adopt my positions lightly and neither do I forgot about those affected out there.  

My speech can be blunt, my attitude brusque, and my responses biting.  I am not the most PC person there is (an understatement if you ever needed one, I know), but I have not forgotten the affect this will have on people.

I do not dismiss out of hand the burden this will place on some for the benefit of others.  Yet someone will be affected by not only the turbines, but highways, rail lines, airports. unwanted cell phone towers.

I am not trying to be dismissive of the point you make, but ask the people in Stoughton or along one of the other alternate routes for the proposed commuter rail if they should pay the price for the South Coast to have transportation.

I too have issues with this project, not the least of which is the "green communities act" that allowed it to proceed the way it did.   We all may have been better served had things proceeded differently, but pure and simple they haven't.  Like it or not, we simply are not in a position to just pull the plug. It just isn't that easy at this point.

I actually thank you for commenting.  It shows to me that there are still some out there who want to address issues on a sound basis.  It is a shame an issue as important as this one is in fact being clouded by other matters.

So there is my response to your questions.