Rainy days and Mondays. You know how the rest of the "saying" goes.
The one thing neither seem to bring down historically are the page views for the blog.
Was a bit surprised that someone didn't catch the "lyrical" references in yesterday's post. There I was thinking I was being a bit clever. Either the fish weren't biting or I had the wrong bait on the hook, or like when the doctor gets the right diagnosis but gives you the wrong medicine. Oh well, the band has stopped playing for that show, so time to move on.
Three very interesting pieces on the S-T opinion page today. Each worth reading. What you take from each will of course depend on your personal slant on the matters.
On the school piece, not sure I can agree with the potential "political heat" argument relative to the city council in addressing the elimination of the "arts". The fact the council rightly was not going to simply roll over and shovel out money for a current year deficit does not equate to feeling political heat in addressing the cuts to next year's budget.
These are two separate and distinct issues, being addressed as such.
The "highway" piece is one that comes up periodically in some shape or form, in Anywhere, USA. Still worth reading, and very important too.
The turbine piece from the developer. Everyone wants mitigation. The problem is no firm consensus for what would constitute mitigation. The extreme for one side is total shutdown, for the other let them spin.
If you are going to comment on the matter, please resist the temptation to take it to the level of personal attacks. One can certainly manage to criticize past decisions and actions, inaction, and discuss proposed action, all without having to resort to that level.
Just a reminder due to several e-mails received. First, I have limited mobile computer access for about a week more, could be less could be longer. The fact a comment is not posted immediately can presently be related to that, or the fact I don't drop everything else to administer the blog.
If I don't answer the questions you raise, see previous paragraph, or it could simply be I have decided not to. Attempts to provoke me into doing so aren't going to work. Unfortunately at times I have a short attention span, and for the most part always wear a pretty thick skin. I do have certain buttons you can press though so if you want to keep trying, go for it.
Enough for today.
Enjoy what is suppose to be a beautiful day. Be safe.
The noise complaints and suffering of the abutters around the wind turbines has been confirmed by the data from the state noise tests. The tests show about twenty percent of the locations tested were out of compliance with the state noise tests.
ReplyDeleteThe ball is now in the hands of the Town of Fairhaven. The proof is in the pudding. The town has to take action to protect the citizens. The Town of Falmouth shut their turbines down from 7 PM to 7 AM.
About one year ago the Standard Times ran a story on July 3rd . The title was "Turbine developers letter irks Fairhaven Board of Health."
Apparently about a year ago the Board of Health asked the wind turbine contractor to present options about the noise complaints from the wind turbines. It sounds a lot like the town asked for some sort of mitigation a year ago. Mitigation means lessening the intensity of something unpleasant.
Now one year later the validity of the noise complaints has been confirmed by the noise study done by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Here is the link to that news story :
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120703/NEWS/207030327
The residential abutters to commercial wind turbines are no longer willing to be guinea pigs, or collateral damage. How much longer will towns in Massachusett allow themselves to be taken advantage of. Why sacrifice your health or quality of life or ethics for something which is based on lies and supported by a few in power who falsely believe that the ignorant masses will continue to be malleable and docile.
DeleteHow nice. The turbines were determined to be out of compliance and the developer wants mitigation? If they had been found to be 'in compliance' would they still want to mitigate?
ReplyDeleteI'll bet they wouldn't entertain further discussion on the subject.
I also wonder if they would be questioning the method of testing if they were found to be in compliance.
Stop trying to turn the table.
The turbines are not in compliance. Now an adjustment must be made.