"Links" they call them. These are the so-called "source" for the facts written in a blog or other editorial piece appearing out here in the land of disbelief. These links appear in the body of the story, you click your mouse on them and they take you to another website which seems to verify or  buttress the argument made in the original blog. There is, however, at least one  big problem with this practice.

Who says the link is any more factual than the original story? Indeed, might the blog have originated from the link instead of the other way around? Not too long ago I had an argument with a blogger regarding the use of links, especially those intended to make a story more credible. What I have found on the net, as a result of that argument, is any number of stories, many without links, that might or might not be true. This brings up the obvious question: Does your link need a link? Really, does it?

Links used from news articles are especially devious and subjective in nature. As most know newspapers, in fact all news media, is extremely unreliable if one is looking for the truth, as nearly everything today is editorialized, according to the politics and financial interests of the owners of the media source. Just look at a link from the New York Times and compare it to a link on the same subject from the New York Post, or compare a link from Fox News to one on the same subject for MSNBC News. Some people see the world one way. Some see it another way. Granted, a lot of the opinion is self-serving at best and of absolutely no academic merit if one were to use news links to make an argument for a specific issue - like the wind turbine field proposed for the Sound, for example.

Those for and against this project are linking all over the place and a lot of their links can be traced back to corporations or institutions who hope to get some money out  of that wind turbine mess in the Sound. It doesn't matter which side you are on. But please stop referring to it as a "wind farm." Most people, who think, know that wind is not grown on farms. And please stop calling the wind turbines planned for the Sound, "windmills." They are not windmills, which are usually made of wood and don't require wind turbines to run. They are also not 200 feet tall.

We all know Cape Wind is trying its best to get this done even to the extent of inventing its own "green"-sounding vocabulary to sell it to the locals. The truth is one doesn't need a "link" to know that a giant wind turbine field off the coast will be ugly. This is simply a fact, something you don't read quite that often anymore. We know a large field of wind turbines like the ones proposed will kill a lot of birds. Wind turbines even kill insects at such a high rate, wind turbines in Norway have to be closed down occasionally to clean the bugs out. Wind turbines also don't like salt water. The salt sticks to their blades and again they have to be stopped and maintained. While this is going on, they are producing no energy. Especially the wind turbines proposed for the Sound, because they don't have storage batteries like some others which would enable them to store energy and use it later. They are on or they are off.

Did you know that wind turbines have to be turned off if the wind blows too hard? True. It is feared they would break if too much wind hit them. They prefer a good and steady 30 miles per hour. Anything under that - well they don't run as efficiently or produce as much energy.

Did you know that every year, as the turbines get older, they produce less energy?

Did you know that their life expectancy is approximately 25 years or less?

In Europe they have called this the "great wind gold rush," but they have also completed extensive studies on the dangers of wind turbines. The gear boxes on top of the turbines break down often - because the fluctuation in wind speed places different stresses on their components at various and sudden times. The blades sometimes fall off. One blade was heaved 1300 feet. Another slashed through the roof of a home in Ireland. Blades have also been known to ice up and to suddenly de-ice, throwing the ice 1600 feet or more.

Cape Wind planned 130 of these towers off the shore, but they were counting on NStar to buy some of their power. They already have National Grid. NStar waited however, before signing a deal with a Maine wind turbine company at a much smaller price for consumers. This almost definitely means Cape Wind will be building a significantly lower number of towers and that its kilowatt price will go up for its National Grid users. Wind Turbines are iffy enough as it is, but building them in the sea just increases the chance that they will have problems. And, unfortunately for Cape Wind, also increases the price they have to ask of consumers in order to make a profit.

 

(author's note:In future weeks I will be writing more about our future wind turbine field. I'll admit from the beginning, I have some suspicions. But isn't that what a journalist is supposed to have? It just seems to me like I have been reading a lot of Cape Wind love stories lately, and that is never a good sign.)

- TRB 

 

   

---

• « A Child of Misfortunes - Part two - Letter One
• A Child of Misfortunes - Part Three - Letters Two and Three »

---

You are viewing: The Cape Cod Daily Blog

Sponsored Content

[Advertise Here]

Tell All Your Friends

Cape Cod Daily News FREE Home Delivery!

Subscribe