Posts Tagged ‘wind farms’

Grey Bruce Health Unit in Owen Sound about health effects of wind

October 3, 2009

Editor:

As you read this article pay attention to what Bill Murdoch MPP has to say. First – the Ont. Conservative Party planned to install more wind turbines than the Liberals – stated in their 2007 election platform. Murdoch says he opposed the GEA but he never bothered to vote against it.  When his office was asked why Murdoch was not in the House for the vote his rep said he had a prior engagement.  What could be more important than voting on the removal of Municipal rights.

Murdoch is as guilty as anyone for not standing up for the people of his riding. Why was he not holding information meeting in his riding to inform and advise his constituents about the coming folly.

Why didn’t Murdoch attend the meeting held on the 6th?  It was held just down the street form his office

Gutless, or part of the Treason taking place in this province. You decide!

Posted By Denis Langlois   Owen Sound Times

It’s too late to stop the surge of wind-farm development in Ontario, even by arguing the turbines cause illness, says Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound MPP Bill Murdoch.

“As far as what they can do about it, there really isn’t a heck of a lot,” he said yesterday.

Murdoch’s comments come a day after about 120 people attended a public meeting at the Grey Bruce Health Unit in Owen Sound about health effects of wind turbines.

The Progressive Conservative MPP said residents’ concerns will likely fall on deaf ears of policy makers and Liberal cabinet ministers at Queen’s Park, since the Green Energy Act is now law.

Asked what people can do, Murdoch initially said “not a thing. It’s over. It’s a law.”

Later, he said concerned residents can write to Premier Dalton McGuinty or the Ontario Ministry of Health. Letters to Murdoch’s office will be forwarded, he said.

“They’re pretty much euchred. I don’t know where they can go. Some will say (I) can do something about it. There’s not a thing I can do about it. It’s a law,” he said.

People who believe the giant wind turbines cause illness can seek medical attention from a doctor, retain a lawyer and sue, Murdoch said, but that will likely be a “waste of money.”

Emotions ran high at Thursday’s public meeting, which the health unit organized to provide wind turbine information to residents.

Keynote speaker Dr. Ray Copes, a director at the Ontario Agency of Health Protection and Promotion, was heckled by the crowd several times after his one-hour slide presentation revealed little new information.

People took exception to Copes’ characterization of health impacts caused by turbines as an “annoyance” and his claim no proof exists linking illness to wind turbines.

People opposed to wind farms say turbines cause health problems such as chronic sleep disturbance, dizziness, exhaustion, anxiety, depression, irritability, nausea and ringing in ears.

Medical officer of health Dr. Hazel Lynn said she is aware “suffering” is being attributed to turbines, but has no power to make or influence changes to the Green Energy Act. The health unit cannot perform in-depth studies on health claims either, she said.

Lynn criticized the act at the public meeting, saying “we need more choices” since it strips local municipalities of the authority to make decisions about turbine setbacks. The act requires a 550-metre setback from a turbine to residential properties.

Murdoch said he opposed the act at Queen’s Park for that reason.

Progressive Conservatives MPPs voted against it and Murdoch said perhaps a change in government would lead to some changes. The next provincial election is in 2011.

“There’s going to be a lot of wind turbines put up in the next two years, I would assume, within the context of that law,” he said.

The province has promised to eliminate coal-fired power by 2014 and add 975 wind turbines by 2012.

A second public meeting, organized by the health unit, is scheduled for Tuesday from 7 to 9 p.m. at Walkerton’s Jubilee Hall.

Advertisements

Top Twenty Five Posts

September 22, 2009

October 2009 will mark three years since I started this blog. These are the top 25 posts.

These posts have a common connection to each other. The NWO

Hope you find something of interest.

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Mind Maps – A Form of Child Porn?

Man is the Enemy!

Boycott Silk Soy Milk

Al Gore and Maurice Strong – Con Artists

DAVID ROCKEFELLER THANKS MEDIA FOR ITS Silence

Wind turbine noise affects health

Ontario becomes a Fascist State

Sing for Change Obama – What Kind of Change

The Dangers of Wind Power

Al Gore: Global warming responsible for

Wind Turbine Noise Video – Suncor Wind Farm

Understanding the Environmental Movement

Global Warming the Big LIE!

Wind Concerns Ontario

Not in my Backyard Jane Pepino

Exploding VESTA Wind Turbine in Denmark

The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia

Before You Sign a Wind Turbine Contract

Bill C-51 – Canada is setting a Dangerous Precedent

Green Agenda

A United Green Religion

Merry Christmas Poem – Time for everyone

Problems associated with wind turbines

Cloak of Green

Welcome to Ontario – Monty Python

March 16, 2009

The part about the Lady of the Lake – Think Gaia, Earth Goddess and the environmental movement. Is the toady beside the King, Smitherman or is it Suzuki? I can’t make out the face.

Loss of local control

March 5, 2009

Loss of local control concern at green energy meeting

Posted By Don Crosby

Concerns are being raised that the proposed provincial Green Energy Act threatens the authority of local municipal councils.“Municipal powers are our checks and balances. Once they are removed for any reason you set a priority, you have lost your democratic right. This is not what the Green Energy Act should be about,” said Ron Stephens of Kincardine, who attended a public meeting in Markdale on Tuesday night about the province’s proposal.

The meeting was sponsored by the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association and Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Tuesday’s meeting in Markdale was one of several being held by OSEA and other members of the energy alliance in communities across the province to promote the new bill and drum up support for the proposed legislation.

Stephens and others at the meeting expressed their concern that in a bid to streamline regulations around development of renewable energy the province has promised to establish standardized setbacks and shorten environmental assessment times that would favour developers and speed up the approval process while reducing local control.

“We don’t need the Green Energy Act. We can figure things our ourselves,” Stephens said.

The Ontario government introduced its proposed Green Energy Act late last month after a year of lobbying by the Green Energy Alliance — a network of agricultural, labour, industrial and environmental organizations.

The proposed act includes:

• A commitment to improve energy conservation.

• An obligation to purchase power from sustainable energy sources over other sources.

• Fair prices for renewable energy based on the cost of production and guaranteed over the long term.
An obligation for all utilities to connect renewable energy to the electricity grid.

• Financing programs for community-owned energy projects.

• An adjustment of electricity prices to reflect true costs and promote conservation.

• First Nations and Metis community participation.

The bill passed first and second reading late last month and is now before a standing committee for public input.

Grey Highlands Mayor Brian Mullin said it’s a bit too soon to be concerned.

The details of any legislation are in the regulations, which are passed by the government and not the legislature.

His municipality did a lot of work and spent a lot of money to create policies governing renewable energy in Grey Highlands.

“On the other hand there are some issues are bigger that we can’t address and have to be addressed by the province, such as connections to the grid,” said Mullin.

He’s concerned that that regulations won’t be tight enough to protect everyone and that the timetable for approval of the bill is quite short. It is expected to become law this summer.

Mullin said concerned residents can post comments on the provincial Environmental Bill of Rights website and make presentations before the standing committee, which has begun public hearings.

Tuesday’s meeting began with a video comparing the advances that Germany is making in renewable energy with what’s happening in Canada, which was portrayed as lagging far behind many European countries in wind, solar and biogas.

Tony Clark of Chatsworth said the video created an erroneous impression.

“They always compare Canada to Germany and say we should be like Germany. That’s absolutely nonsense, they should be like us. Germany already gets 60 per cent of its power from fossil fuels (coal and gas) and they are implementing 26,000 megawatts more of coal generated electricity. That’s the equivalent of the total amount of power we have in Ontario. Canada only gets about 27 per cent of our power from coal . . . they are light years behind us,” Clark said.

“I’m really upset that the new Green Energy Act will take away the rights of municipalities and the civil rights of residents of Ontario . . . it sets a precedent and once the government does it a precedent will be set and they will do it again and again,” Clark said.

Read more at Sun Times

heads-sand-web1.jpg

Not in my Backyard Jane Pepino

February 27, 2009

Not in My Backyard – The Jane Pepino Story


Ron Stephens

February 25, 2009

I met Ms. Pepino during the 2007 OMB hearing in Kincardine Ontario, where she represented Enbridge in their quest to install a large 110 turbine wind farm in the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario.

Ms. Pepino proved to be a formidable force for the people trying to defend their property and enjoyment thereof.

After a lengthy seven week hearing the OMB ruled in favour of Enbridge who subsequently erected the wind turbines.

Feb. 7th, 2009 Ms. Pepino gave a presentation concerning the proposed Honeywood wind farm in the township of Mulmur. Ms. Pepino owns property near the proposed wind farm.

During the presentation, Ms. Pepino brought forward, many of the same concerns brought forward by the citizens of the Municipality of Kincardine where she represented Enbridge in 2007.

Did Ms. Pepino learn the truth about the Wind Industry and the inadequacies of the MOE guidelines during the seven week OMB hearing?

Or, is Ms. Pepino just another NIMBY trying to do the same thing as the citizens of Kincardine – protect her property and enjoyment thereof.

The Toronto Hamptons

It’s the city’s best-kept secret: Everyone from Andy Barrie to Jane Pepino has a place in Creemore http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030920/CREEMORE20

“Ms. Pepino, who leads the hectic urban life of a prominent lawyer during the week, has been spending weekends at “the farm” since 1990.

She was drawn to her place near the hamlet of Honeywood not just because of the peace and quiet, but for its proximity to the city and because she and her family can use it year-round.”

“I wanted peace and quiet”

Peace and quiet is what rural Ontario is about for most that have chosen to live there.

Is Ms. Pepino more deserving of peace and quiet than other residents of rural Ontario are?

Excerpt from CORE (Conserve our Rural Environment)Newsletter November 9th 2009 http://www.corecares.ca/Resources/CORE_NEWSLETTER_Feb4_09.pdf
CORE is raising outstanding concerns directly with the proponent, and will be requesting an elevation if these are not satisfactorily addressed. However, it is imperative that individuals do the same: Eolectric must understand its proposal has impact on this community, and the Township of Mulmur must understand the details of those concerns in preparing its response as well. A copy of the Notice of Completion, with all necessary information is attached.

Please provide copies of all correspondence to:

CORE

c/o N. Jane Pepino

Aird & Berlis LLP

1800 – 181 Bay Street, Box 754

Toronto, ON M5H 2T9

Email: jpepino@airdberlis.com

All requests for elevation by others to date – Denied

Ms. Pepino is a powerful lawyer with powerful friends. Can Ms. Pepino and Core be the first to have their elevation request accepted?

If the request is granted what does it really say about due process in Ontario?

Excerpt from Minutes of PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE – TOWNSHIP OF MULMUR- September 10, 2008

Jane Pepino (JP). CORE. Bob Duncanson (BD). CORE. Stephen Headford (SH) JP feels that Mulmur Township is the wrong place for this project.

Is Mulmur Township the wrong place for this project? – 5 wind turbines compared to the 110 installed in Kincardine Township- Does the “Toronto Hamptons” and the people who live there feel they and their concerns are more important compared to the rest of the citizens of Ontario.

What are some of the concerns of Jane Pepino and Core?

Excerpt from CORE Presentation Feb 7th, 2009

PROPOSED HONEYWOOD WINDFARM

http://www.corecares.ca/Resources/PowerPointPresentation_Feb07_09.pdf

Noise

Property devaluation

Shadow Flicker Study incomplete, uses distant
data source, not local

Visual Impact Analysis – not prepared in
accordance with Township Guidelines; being

peer reviewed

Insufficient setbacks for safety – ice throw,

blade throw, structure topple

Offers to lease unfair to property owners
If “non participating”- i.e., no turbine, payment estimated
to be $40 per hectare–about $800/ year for 50 acres.
Can be cancelled anytime by Geilectric– right after zoning,

Places a “gag” on owner, yet notice registered on title,

effecting marketability
Binds owner to sign a lease that is not attached-

Who pays taxes? Insurance? Decommissioning?

What if Geilectric goes bankrupt? Sells to another wind company?

Has the potential to bind land beyond 20 years– review of

compensation levels? Planning Act approvals?

Effectively restricts ability to get, or use, severances

These are the same concerns brought forward at the Enbridge/Kincardine OMB hearing in 2007 and every other wind farm proposal in Ontario

Does Ms. Pepino believe her concerns are substantially different from anyone else’s? Does she believe that she has a greater right to retain the enjoyment and valuation of her property over that of others? Alternatively, does she know something the rest of us do not?

If everyone else fighting for his or her rights can be referred to as NIMBY’S doesn’t that make Ms. Pepino one of us?

If so, let me be the first to welcome Ms. Pepino to the growing community of NIMBY’s. (Not in back yard)

I suggest all wind farm applications be put on hold until the Honeywood wind farm has been dealt with.

Ron Stephens

http://www.windfarms.wordpress.com

Ottawa forces a bad idea on Toronto in the name of environmental purity – Fantasy Passed off as Reality

October 28, 2008

Editor:

When are the politicians going to stop listening to the Green Freaks?

The buses have turned out to be a colossal waste of taxpayers money, just like the wind farms will prove to be.

Did the politicians ask a mechanic before they ordered the buses?



Did they let the engineers evaluate the wind energy idea before they went ahead?

collapsed  Vestas wind turbine

collapsed Vestas wind turbine


Or did they listen to the rhetoric of people like Al Gore and David Suzuki.

I’d put my money on the latter.


Billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted chasing the C02 boogie man.

It’s time to demand that your tax dollars go where they belong. Politicians continue to chase the boogie man  while our health care,education,farm and manufacturing sectors all continue to suffer from underfunding.

This must stop now!


Ottawa forces a bad idea on Toronto in the name of environmental purity
Posted: October 28, 2008, 2:00 PM by Kelly McParland

A perfectly good diesel bus costs $500,000. Instead, the city bought hybrid electric/diesel buses at $700,000 each.

Why? Because the only way Ottawa would give it the $300 million to buy the buses was if it bought “alternative fuel” vehicles. Naturally it complied. The only problem: the buses suck. They don’t save much fuel, and the batteries keep going kaput, requiring expensive towing operations by emission-spewing conventional vehicles.

So, in the name of environmental purity the federal government induced the city of Toronto to buy lousy buses at great expense, that don’t work well and don’t really save much in the way of fuel consumption.

National Post

TC wants to reopen Daimler contract for hybrid buses

Diesel vehicles seen as more reliable

The manufacturer of Toronto’s hundreds of faulty hybrid-engine buses can expect a call this morning, the TTC’s chief general manager says, after his political overseers voted to give him the authority to play hardball in new talks.“The president will get a phone call,” Gary Webster, chief general manager of the TTC, said in an interview. “There’ll be meetings in the next few weeks to see if we can address this issue.”

Many of the Toronto Transit Commission’s nearly 500 diesel-electric hybrid buses have seen their rooftop lead-acid batteries fail after just 1½ years on the roads.

A handful of buses have even conked out mid-route, leaving passengers at the curb, TTC officials acknowledged.

Globe and Mail

Government of Ontario Drops By For A Visit

April 14, 2008

Editor:
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Govt. of Ontario for dropping by.

I sent my Blog to every Liberal govt. member some time ago, asking they look over the information and if they found anything they felt might be untrue or inaccurate to get back to me. Even though most opened the email, proved by receipts, no one responded. I therefore concluded they were satisfied the information on the blog was factual.

I got no response the last time, so I would like to extend the offer one more time.

We are doing our best to make sure the information presented on this Blog is accurate.

Once again, thanks for dropping by.

Domain Name gov.on.ca ? (Canada)
IP Address 142.106.187.# (Government of the Province of Ontario)
ISP Government of the Province of Ontario
Location
Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : Ontario
City : Toronto
Lat/Long : 43.6667, -79.4167 (Map)
Distance : 281 miles
Language unknown
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1)
Javascript disabled
Time of Visit Apr 14 2008 12:17:02 pm
Last Page View Apr 14 2008 12:47:54 pm
Visit Length 30 minutes 52 seconds
Page Views 9
Referring URL unknown
Visit Entry Page http://windfarms.wor…environment-ontario/
Visit Exit Page http://windfarms.wor…appeal-wolfe-island/

26 new coal plants in Germany

March 4, 2008

 Editor
Wind has been a resounding failure in Europe. The question then is why are we in North America being harassed by this industry.

Wind farms have nothing to do with energy and everything to do with the removal of property rights. Once you understand that Global Warming is a fraud to scare you, it becomes very easy to understand the reality that is Agenda 21. Same thing with biofuels. Who in their right mind would grow food and then burn it.

Agenda 21 

Sorry, it’s only 26 new coal plants in Germany  

[Sources for claims made in response to Wendy Williams’ defense of Cape Wind in Parade magazine, Mar. 2]

According to Der Spiegel, Mar. 21, 2007, Germany is planning 26 new coal-fired electricity plants. And according to the New York Times, June 20, 2006, 8 are on a fast track for completion by 2010 or so. I apologize for any confusion caused by my misremembering the figures as, respectively, 28 and 6.

Several analysts have shown that most — up to 84% in the west — of Denmark’s wind-generated electricity is exported: e.g., Hugh Sharman in the May 2005 Civil Engineering, and David White in the July 2004 Utilities Journal.

The data showing fossil fuel use for electricity going up instead of down as wind energy on the grid increased are in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2007 from BERR.

It is according to the Danish Wind Industry Association that the last increase in wind energy capacity was between 2002 and 2003.

The near-unanimous (24 of 28 communities surveyed) rejection of more (and much larger) turbines in Denmark was reported by Politiken on Feb. 17 (click here for rough translation by National Wind Watch).

kirbymtn.blogspot.com

"James Lovelock’s Latest Book Trashes Renewables, Endorses Nuclear Energy'

January 3, 2008
Editor:
Mr. Lovelock seems to love nuclear and hate wind farms. The “Green Movement” loves wind and hates nukes. Odd. The “Green Movement” is based on the theory of Gaia by Mr. Lovelock.
Gaia is like a religion to the “Greens”. I appreciate Mr. Lovelock’s concern for the planet and I share that concern with him. According to Mr. Lovelock, just about everything the “Greens” are trying to shove down our collective throats, he disagrees with. The problem with the Greens is that their agenda is quite different to that of Mr. Lovelock. Al Gore, Maurice Strong, David Suzuki, Ted Turner and all the other leaders of the “Green Movement” are using Gaia to push for control, power and money under the guise of sustainability. The “Green Movement” is a fraud. They should be honest, they are about globalization or,”One World Order” controlled by the UN or a similar body.
Realistically they should be tried for treason against their respective countries.
alternative energy – “James Lovelock’s Latest Book Trashes Renewables, Endorses Nuclear Energy’

By: James A. Finch On the front page of the World Nuclear Association website prominently rests a quote from what some consider the world’s leading environmentalist and among the world’s top scientists, Dr. James Lovelock: “There is no sensible alternative to nuclear power if we are to sustain civilization.” – James Lovelock, preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness

At age eighty-six, Dr. Lovelock has just published his fourth book, The Revenge of Gaia (Penguin Books, 2006). “Gaia” is Dr. Lovelock’s belief that earth is a living, evolving organism, not just a hunk of rock we all live upon. Through his book, Lovelock refers to Gaia, when he is discussing our third planet from the sun. His latest book is a MUST read for anyone who is following the renaissance in nuclear energy. Environmentalists won’t read this book. Perhaps their bosses will BAN them from reading this book. Those environmentalists who carefully read Lovelock’s latest book may very well become nuclear power lobbyists, if they would bathe, shave and spiff up a bit. Chapter Five, “Sources of Energy,” will instantly disintegrate every ridiculous argument propounded by the naïve and antediluvian anti-nuclear movements across the world.

Dr. Lovelock’s credentials and achievements are light years beyond those of any environmental mouthpiece espousing the “green” movement. More so than anyone alive, Lovelock is first and foremost a giant of the earth’s environmentalist movement. Since 1974, Lovelock has been a Fellow of the Royal Society. Since 1994, he has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green College, University of Oxford. New Scientist described him as “one of the great thinkers of our time. The London Observer has called him, “one of the environmental movement’s most influential figures.” In 2003, he was made Companion of Honour by Her Majesty the Queen. Prospect magazine named Dr. Lovelock in September 2005, “one of the world’s top 100 global public intellectuals.”

How does Dr. Lovelock respond to the question of nuclear waste? He writes, “I have offered in public to accept all the high-level waste produced in a year from a nuclear power station for deposit on my small plot of land it would occupy a space about a cubic metre in size and fit safely in a concrete pit, and I would use the heat from its decaying radioactive elements to heat my home. It would be a waste not to use it. More important, it would be no danger to me, my family or the wildlife.” That should enlighten the yokels arguing against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository.

Chapter Five, “Sources of Energy,” concisely and cogently answers every silly “theory” about renewable energy sources hyped by the “green” movement. Let’s take Biomass, which makes sense to any concerned citizen. Lovelock even agrees with the theory of Biomass, writing, “Used sensibly and on a modest scale, burning wood or agricultural waste for heat or energy is no threat to Gaia.” Please note that he modified his statement with “sensibly” and “modest.” In a nutshell, he explains why Biomass will not become a leading energy source, “Bio fuels are especially dangerous because it is too easy to grow them as a replacement for fossil fuel they will then demand an area of land or ocean far larger than Gaia can afford… We have already taken more than half of the productive land to grow food for ourselves. How can we expect Gaia to manage the Earth if we try to take the rest of the land for fuel production?” He added poignantly, “Just imagine that we tried to power our present civilization on crops grown specifically for fuel, such as coppice woodland, fields of oilseed rape, and so on. These are the ‘bio fuels’, the much-applauded renewable energy source…We would need the land area of several Earths just to grow the bio fuel.”

Wind power gets shellacked as well. For those environmentalists, such as Amory Lovins, who believe “Wind Farms” are going to become a significant energy source, they are full of hot air. According to the Royal Society of Engineers 2004 report, onshore European wind energy is two and a half times, and offshore wind energy over three times, more expensive per kilowatt hour than gas or nuclear energy. Denmark, which pioneered wind farms, is regretting the decision. Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries said, “In green terms windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense… Many of us thought wind was the 100-percent solution for the future, but we were wrong. In fact, taking all energy needs into account it is only a 3 percent solution.” Lovelock writes, “To supply the UK’s present electricity needs would require 276,000 wind generators, about three per square mile, if national parks, urban, suburban and industrial areas are excluded… at best, energy is available from wind turbines only 25 percent of the time.” German environmentalists, who have recently led the charge for Wind Power, should reconsider. Lovelock writes, “The most recent report from Germany put wind energy as available only 16 percent of the time.”

Surely, solar power must be the answer, right? Wrong! Lovelock writes, “Solar cells are not yet suitable for supplying electricity directly to homes or workplaces, mostly because, despite over thirty years of development, they are quite expensive to make. At the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales there is an experimental house with a roof made almost entirely of silicon photocells. In summer it provides about three kilowatts of electricity, but the cost of installation was comparable with the house itself, and the expected life of the cells is about ten years. Sunlight, like wind, is intermittent and would, without efficient storage, be an inconvenient energy source at these latitudes.”

Solar and wind power were just two of the many energy sources Lovelock sends to the dumpster. Wave and tidal energy, hydro-electricity, hydrogen, fusion energy, coal and oil and natural gas all suffer similar consequences under Dr. Lovelock’s scientific microscope. Geothermal gets a partial endorsement, but Lovelock writes, “Unfortunately there are few places where it is freely available. Iceland is one of them, and it draws a large part of its energy needs from this source.” How many of you know that, while natural gas could cut carbon dioxide emissions by half, if used ubiquitously, some of the natural gas leaks into the air before it burnt? According to the Society of Chemical Industry’s report (2004), this amounts to about 2 to 4 percent of the gas used. Methane, the main constituent of natural gas is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

James Lovelock’s Conclusion on Nuclear Energy

How does James Lovelock feel about nuclear energy? “I believe nuclear power is the only source of energy that will satisfy our demands and yet not be a hazard to Gaia and interfere with its capacity to sustain a comfortable climate and atmospheric composition. This is mainly because nuclear reactions are millions of times more energetic than chemical reactions. The most energy available from a chemical reaction, such as burning carbon in oxygen, is about nine kilowatt hours per kilogram. The nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms to form helium gives several million times as much, and the energy from splitting uranium is greater still.”

Through his book, Lovelock reminds us that nuclear power is the single answer for this century, “We need emission-free energy sources immediately, and there is no serious contender to nuclear fission.”

Lovelock addresses Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, nuclear testing in the 1960s, and many other events over the past fifty years, as nuclear energy has developed. If you wondered about radiation and cancer, Lovelock answers that as well. You may leap up, after reading those pages, and start faxing them off to every environmentalist group you can contact. It may be the most definitive analysis of the disconnect the media and the greens have about nuclear energy and its impact on our health that you have ever read. Lovelock concludes, “The persistent distortion of the truth about the health risks of nuclear energy should make us wonder if the other statements about nuclear energy are equally flawed.”

James Lovelock