I have to admit, it is well constructed.

The only thing that could have possibly changed my mind, was the top-middle one. The noise thing. However, of course these weren't built by the same company as the ones proposed to our site, so we can't really judge whether or not that will be the same.

The bottom left video (I'm presuming is highlight noise issues?). I've stood at that distance from a turbine, and I can assure you it did not make nowhere near as much noise as that! In fact it was practically silent. Obviously, that one hasn't been properly maintained.

I have to admit, it is well constructed.

The only thing that could have possibly changed my mind, was the top-middle one. The noise thing. However, of course these weren't built by the same company as the ones proposed to our site, so we can't really judge whether or not that will be the same.

The bottom left video (I'm presuming is highlight noise issues?). I've stood at that distance from a turbine, and I can assure you it did not make nowhere near as much noise as that! In fact it was practically silent. Obviously, that one hasn't been properly maintained.

--- Derek(guest) 

Well tbh, who's going to hear THAT at a distance? I have been near wind turbines and NEVER heard anysort of noise emitted by them. I mean, who's going to be standing that close to a turbines anyways, surely they would have better things to do with their life?

well its also what you cant hear that does the damage & thats being very realistic mate

well its also what you cant hear that does the damage & thats being very realistic mate

--- melvin(guest) 

1. I'm not your mate.

2. I wasn' t talking about this so-called noise that you can't hear I was talking about the fact that people are complaining about audible noise.

well its also what you cant hear that does the damage & thats being very realistic mate

--- melvin(guest) 

That has not been proved or disproved, no one can viably argue either way with this arguement.

So, don't even bring that up. Mate.

well its also what you cant hear that does the damage & thats being very realistic mate

--- melvin(guest) 

What, like death rays from aliens from the pegasus galaxy? Stop making things up. These days it's possible to show that cabbage has an adverse effect on devellopment of facial features, so I'm unlikely to believe any proven facts untill I see the evidence. And lets face it, it's cleaner and healthier than living near a nuclear or coal power plant.

you need to look at the videos again and on to the links there are plenty of examples of peoples experiences which they are not making up

you need to look at the videos again and on to the links there are plenty of examples of peoples experiences which they are not making up

--- in the know(guest) 

Guess what? I didn't make mine up either, the ones I stood UNDER were nigh on silent!

Derek is your experience of living with wind turbines confined to standing by one for how long 10 mins, 1 day,2 weeks? Did you go to North Pickenham is your experience based on that visit ?

The videos are made by real people living for a period of time close to them and feel the effects of them...

The same reports are emerging from residents at Conisholme.....

Derek is your experience of living with wind turbines confined to standing by one for how long 10 mins, 1 day,2 weeks? Did you go to North Pickenham is your experience based on that visit ?

The videos are made by real people living for a period of time close to them and feel the effects of them...

The same reports are emerging from residents at Conisholme.....

--- in the know(guest) 

The only Video there that covers both noise and living there is the Australian one. Now I don't know, but I'm sure that the Australians didn't use the same company, and I'd bet that, that video isn't too recent either.

The only other that targets living with Turbines is the shadow flicker one in the top left. Which the Australian guy says happens for 30 MINUTES, in the SUMMER, when it is SUNNY. Not very often in good 'ol Blighty then... Shadow flicker remains in my eye, the only decent argument against turbines and it's still not that substantial.

When I say I know how a properly function turbine sounds, I'm not joking, I literally was stood RIGHT NEXT to the turbine. Practically silent. How do I know it was properly maintained? (before you ask). It was in Germany. They very good like that. Check if you like. Now, I know that our turbines won't be from the same maker, just the like Aussies ones, but this was a good two years ago now, so turbines SHOULD be even better now.

Can I also point out the fact that there is no substantial residential area within a mile of the site... I think that's far enough considering the fact that a turbine at 300m is quieter than a car at 100m. (A normal average family car). So a mile is what? 8/5ths of a kilometres, that's over FIVE times as far. I think we're fine. (I've just realised that the Germans must have better turbines than ours then!)

P.S. I have no idea where North Pickenham is. Perhaps you should move there and stop whining (If it's a turbine site, even better, I'm sure you'll be delighted to moan with fellow neighbours there).

mmm so will you live within 1 mile of these turbines then derek ?

No, as most people won't either.

Baumber is over a mile away from the site too.

so derek does that make it alright then ..... so instead of a peaceful rural landscape with uninterruped views across what is up to 25 miles including Lincoln Cathederal & the Lincoln gap, with Wispington nestled in to the foreground 1 local farmer ,who is in the over whelming minority ,who happens to be in the position to have turbines on this land, will determine the character of this area for the next 25 years and beyond.... As well as changing the wider landscape throughout the area as the turbines, (according to Enertrags released visual impact maps) have the potential to be seen as far away as sleaford, boston & across the wolds.Baumber being 1 mile away aint gonna make much difference is it

You are of course ignoring the fact that maps was just landform only. It was even stated in the article accompanying it! Shows the ignorance you have when it comes to Wind Turbines news, see the picture can't be bothered to read the article. Building and forest etc were not accounted for in that, but yes some areas will still remain. I like the sight of them, along with 75% of the people too.

so you dont like the sight of the countryside as it is ... if you live here then you want to live near turbines YOU move to mablethorpe or conisholme, bicker, or croft... instead of wanting these blots with all the devastation that goes with them.. or failing that move to a town because you obviously dont care about the local surroundings as they are..

WHY live here unless you have other motives derek..... or in fact dont live here ...

Ummm... why move if they get set up here? Which seems to the your point of that post, move near some.. right?

Instead why don't you and the rest of the 25% move AWAY from them? I mean that'll be easier considering that only 25% of the people upping sticks. OR instead how about no ones moves and DEAL WITH IT!

Oh, never said I don't like the countryside, just that I like how turbines look.

DEREK derr why should those people move when they chose to live here spend time and effort bring up families making friends and putitng down roots just because you say so.... where do you get the figure of 25% from ?

in the Horncastle Newspaper it said 215 people signed a petiton asking JOHN WARD to change his mind..there are only approx 100 properties in minting... ASK any body in WISPINGTON who are going to be hammered by property devaluation noise shadow flicker ..... & may end up like Jane & Julian Davis having to leave their homes . WISPINGTON is 100% against this. In the horncastle news again there was a photo shoot against the turbines virtually he whole village was in it, those that werent were away..... So derek prove your 25% and where you get the figure from & get a photo shoot of you with your justification and ask the Horncastle news to publish if you cant then take you discredited views and move to conisholme, there are people over there who want to sell and cant, they would be more than happy to sell to you..that is assuming you even live here....

The 75% for Wind Farms is from a nationwide study.

The 75% for Wind Farms is from a nationwide study.

--- Derek(guest) 

What the one promoted by Enertrag that was done years ago. ? What is more important derek is local opinion as the local people and those surrounding the area are the ones that matter. Those that WILL have their property devalued and be affected like so many other local people are. It is about time you seriously started to question the YES Wind matra which is sponsored purely because of the Wind Energy Industry are chasing their subsidies

This link is rather good: Here

Or here

Or here This one even gives and advantage I hadn't thought of. Should Britain be bombed, it would be hard to take out all the sites!

The 75% actually might have been conducted by Horncastle News, as I can't find it on the National sites. I remember someone highlighted this statistic long before I did, so hunt them down and ask them if you're that bothered.

This link is rather good: Here

Or here

Or here This one even gives and advantage I hadn't thought of. Should Britain be bombed, it would be hard to take out all the sites!

The 75% actually might have been conducted by Horncastle News, as I can't find it on the National sites. I remember someone highlighted this statistic long before I did, so hunt them down and ask them if you're that bothered.

--- Derek(guest) 

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics

People tend to be in favour of renewable, non poluting energy. And so, if they are asked in a Pole whether they are in favour of Wnd farms. If they dont know how unreliable and ineffective they are, and are not under threat from one, they tend to agree. However, if you confine the Pole to just those that are having a Windfarm built, within 2 kilometers from their house, you get a very different result. Especially since the 'Davises experience'. But, even so, the Peter Bone survey (Aug 2006) came up with these results....'Are you in favour of wind farms?'...YES 62.2%...No 37.8% (which agrees roughly with Dereks point) 'How close should renewable energy sites be located to local communities?)....Less than a mile 3.5%...'Less than 5 miles' 16.7%...Less than 10 miles 12.6%...More than 10 miles 67.2%. ....If these last statistics were acted upon, it would not be possible to build any more Windfarms onshore, and not many offshore!!! ....So that's that settled then. And Dereks opinions on Turbine set backs, put him in amongst the 3.5% of people, that are happy to see other peoples well being affected by them (Which presumably includes anyone with a vested interest in them being built)

People tend to be in favour of renewable, non poluting energy. And so, if they are asked in a Pole whether they are in favour of Wnd farms. If they dont know how unreliable and ineffective they are, and are not under threat from one, they tend to agree. However, if you confine the Pole to just those that are having a Windfarm built, within 2 kilometers from their house, you get a very different result. Especially since the 'Davises experience'. But, even so, the Peter Bone survey (Aug 2006) came up with these results....'Are you in favour of wind farms?'...YES 62.2%...No 37.8% (which agrees roughly with Dereks point) 'How close should renewable energy sites be located to local communities?)....Less than a mile 3.5%...'Less than 5 miles' 16.7%...Less than 10 miles 12.6%...More than 10 miles 67.2%. ....If these last statistics were acted upon, it would not be possible to build any more Windfarms onshore, and not many offshore!!! ....So that's that settled then. And Dereks opinions on Turbine set backs, put him in amongst the 3.5% of people, that are happy to see other peoples well being affected by them (Which presumably includes anyone with a vested interest in them being built)

--- Fen Beagle(guest) 

Hey, I said about 1 mile mile would be enough! It keeps enough sites open and the people happy...

Derek

1 mile distance from residences is not far enough.. it might have been when turbines where smaller,

but bearing in mind these are 410' high & the ones that WILL replace them in time will be over 500' high...

the distances must be greater.. This is not an issue with offshore ,so put them there as well as develop and maximise wave power.....

hi Location Location. Yes I agree, 1 mile will not suffice (and its not a popular view, that it should) Nina Pierpoints, soon to be published book, 'Wind Turbine Syndrome', is available on line, in preview form, and suggests a minimum of 2 km. I'm not in total agreement with you, however, on Wind Turbines offshore. Please persuade me, that I should be, on my 'Offshore Windfarms' thread. It would be comforting, if you were right.

Well that's ridiculously simple - if you don't have them 'off'shore they have to be 'on'shore.

It's pretty simple logic really.

Simpler Logic Still....'Where do you site something that does'nt work?'....probably, no where at all

Wow, you're an eager beagle! Check your much vaunted offshore thready thing.

I've been a good little camper and found the information you couldn't be bothered to find ;)

I Fully accept, that they are better offshore than onshore, (in many ways) ..Although there not too clever in the 'maintanance department', out at sea, or in the building of them, given the problems of working in Heavy seas, and the numbers being considered. I'm not too convinced that something so unreliable, in the first place, and so environmentaly intrusive, where ever you put them, was ever such a good idea. Nor do I understand the inconsistances in your own campaign. In wishing them somewhere else, but not Baumber (even though I agree with you)... (Whilst on your own Homepage, you Quote, 'Where do you site something that does not work?'....Or why, you would include, in the same presentation that advocates Turbines offshore, you would quote Smiths line 'Anyone that thinks that renewables can replace Nuclear power stations, is talking Bollocks' .....t'is entertaining though, but not consistant.

Sorry....typed the heading in the wrong place. Last post was by Fen Beagle, not 'No problem with your information'

I think you're missing the point that unless someone holds themself out to be a 'Bwag' member then on this forum you don't know their allegiance. Why are you assuming that everybody who posts on this forum is pro bwag and part of their group. I'm hurt by your assumptions.

hi JWC. My concerns were really about the BWAG campaign, as presented at the recent meeting. I owe you an apology, if you feel I was directing them at you personaly. Or indeed, if I was directing them at anyone else personaly involved in the campaign itself. My own concerns were about the putting across of what seems like mixed messages, which are in danger of cancelling each other out. Concernes about the usefulness of Wind Turbines, have been expressed by many, including yourself, JWC. Although, you seem to think that their placement in water, significantly cures the problems? I think, myself, 'wet' or 'dry' they are a mistake.

I'm just resigned to our government signiing us up to a green agenda regardless of what anyone else thinks (be that labour, tory, liberal or monster raving looney). If we have to have these turbines to appease the vast army of city centre pseudo hippies then the sea is the place to be. Personally I'd invest the money into R&D, schools, the NHS or professional cheerleader leagues.

hi JWC

I mostly agree. Well said. I think myself, that Wind Turbines are a disaster for the environment, as well as Social, Economic, and Unsuitability issues. In fact, they seem to serve no cause at all....Unless it be the appeasement of mistaken beliefs? The lack of political choice in this matter, at the moment, is particularly disturbing.