Posts Tagged ‘wind turbines’

Wind Turbines and Health Walkerton Presented by Grey-Bruce Health

October 7, 2009

Editor:

More smoke and mirrors by a panel of people who should hang their heads in shame as industry continues it’s unrelenting march across Rural Ontario.

Part 1

Part2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Advertisements

Carol Mitchell Huron-Bruce MPP Missing ?

June 23, 2009

Editor:

Carol Mitchell, through her office staff, was invited to attend the taping of a television program at the Ripley wind farm.  She never showed up. Granted the invite was on short notice but there was concern for her when she failed to show.

On the evening of June 22, it was understood  she was scheduled  to attend a Wind Turbine regulations public meeting in Port Elgin where approximately 180 citizens anticipated her arrival .  She did not show up.

I don’t wish to alarm anyone by calling the police  at this time. If you know of her whereabouts please ask her to contact me.

Carol Mitchell may or may not be sporting a small green tattoo.

Your attention in this matter is appreciated!

Carol Mitchell Liberal MPP

The above artricle is satire !

Bluffs ‘only option’ for wind farm; Toronto Hydro says

October 29, 2008

Editor:

Although renewable energy generation has now reached the numerically equivalent of about 26.5% of annual demand (Bülow, 2005a) and wind turbines account for about 20% of total power production (Eltra, 2005), most of the region’s wind power has to be exported in order to secure stability in the domestic grid.  During 2003, for example, as much as 84% of the annual supply of wind electricity was surplus to demand at its moment of generation (Sharman, 2004), and only about 4% of domestic power consumption was satisfied by wind turbines – Source – Wind power in west Denmark

Bluffs ‘only option’ for wind farm; Toronto Hydro says no other offshore sites in GTA are financially feasible locales for turbine project

The proposed site of a wind farm off the Scarborough Bluffs in Lake Ontario is the only place in the GTA where wind power might be feasible, Toronto Hydro said yesterday.

“Within the City of Toronto borders, it is pretty much the only option,” said Joan McLean, spokesperson for the project.

Noting they had already investigated the west end, McLean added: “The reality is that the construction of offshore wind turbines is not financially feasible (in) over 20 meters of water depth,” which excludes much of the GTA’s shoreline.

Toronto Hydro Energy Services has proposed placing up to 60 massive turbines on a swath of shallow reef from Ajax to the Leslie Spit. The project has prompted intense interest from locals concerned about its impact on the view, the shore, and residents. Some 400 people showed up to an information session Monday – twice as many as could fit in the hall. It was postponed and will be rescheduled.

“The noise concerns me,” said resident Jeanne Gagné. “This would be one of the first to be so close to a residential area. Everybody is pointing at us as being not-in-my-backyard. … But it’s more: Is this the best backyard?” she added.

Wind turbines belong in no ones backyard and yes the noise should concern everyone. The high cost for intermittent power should also be of major concern (added)

Family was forced to leave their home after wind turbines arrived

Family was forced to leave their home after wind turbines arrived

Iain Marlow
Staff Reporter

Full strory at the Toronto Star

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

Bats are at risk from Wind Turbines – Lungs Explode!

August 26, 2008

From the BBC

Bats are at risk from wind turbines, researchers have found, because the rotating blades produce a change in air pressure that can kill the mammals.

Canadian scientists examined bats found dead at a wind farm, and concluded that most had internal injuries consistent with sudden loss of air pressure.

Bats use echo-location to avoid hitting the blades but cannot detect the sharp pressure changes around the turbine.

The scientists say wind farms are more of an issue for bats than for birds.

“An atmospheric pressure drop at wind turbine blades is an undetectable – and potentially unforseeable – hazard for bats, thus partially explaining the large number of bat fatalities at these specific structures,” said Erin Baerwald, who led the research team at the University of Calgary.

Route cause

Bat deaths around wind farms have been widely documented across Europe and North America.

Two years ago, EU nations formally agreed to make developers aware of the risks, and find ways of monitoring bat migration routes.

Earlier this year, a bid to build a wind farm near Bideford in north Devon was turned down because of the potential impact on the mammals.

Martin Hind)

Research is underway to find ways of scaring bats from wind farms

But among all this, understanding of how turbines affect bats has been lacking.

The Calgary team collected carcasses of hoary and silver-haired bats killed at a wind farm in south-western Alberta.

Examinations showed that fewer than half had external injuries that could have been caused by collision.

But about 90% had internal haemorrhaging, most notably in the chest cavity, a condition that puts pressure on the lung and can be fatal.

The idea is that the pressure around a rotating turbine blade is lower than in the surrounding air. A bat flying into the low-pressure zone finds its lungs suddenly expanding, bursting capillaries in the surrounding tissue which then becomes flooded with blood.

Full Story at BBC

T. Boone hard-wired for subsidies

July 24, 2008

Editor:
Picken-s your pockets and Gore-ing your rights. What a team.
Are Picken’s TV ads part of Al Gore’s 300 million media campaign?
They’re sitting back counting their sheep. Are you one?


Jerry Taylor,
Financial Post

Published: Thursday, July 24, 2008

Virtually every claim made by T. Boone
Pickens to justify the lavish subsidies he is seeking for his wind
energy investments is flat wrong.

First, oil imports are not the
cause of high gasoline prices. On the contrary, oil imports serve to
keep gasoline prices down. After all, we import oil for a reason —
it’s cheaper than the domestic alternative. If we were to restrict our
energy diet to energy produced in the United States, it would make
domestic energy producers (like Mr. Pickens) far richer and energy
consumers (the rest of us) far poorer, and GDP would be reduced as
well. While one can understand why Mr. Pickens is attracted to the idea
of “energy independence,” for the rest of us, keeping the country open
to imported goods is pro-consumer, whether we’re talking about oil,
steel, textiles or athletic shoes.

Second, we are no more forced
to rely on the “goodwill” of foreign oil producers when we shop for
petroleum than we are forced to rely on the “goodwill” of supermarkets
when we shop for eggs and milk. Oil producers export crude oil because
it’s a great way to make money — and for many, the only way to make
money. And once that oil is in the global marketplace, market actors,
not oil producers, dictate where it goes. Hence, we are betting on
producer greed — which is a pretty safe bet.

Third, if wind
energy were a sensible economic investment, it would not need the
lavish federal and state subsidies already in place or the additional
largesse sought after by Mr. Pickens. Likewise, if compressed natural
gas (CNG) vehicles are an economically sensible alternative to
conventional gasoline-powered vehicles, then no government “master
plan” is necessary to deliver them to market. Price signals will induce
investors to invest and consumers to buy, without government having to
lift a finger. The same goes for all the other energy-related R&D
Mr. Pickens would like the taxpayer to dole out. If that R&D is
promising, it will be pursued, whether government subsidizes it or not.

Fourth,
if reducing our carbon footprint is the goal, then the most direct and
efficient means of reducing that footprint is to impose a tax on carbon
emissions and then leave it to the market to sort out how to most
efficiently order affairs under those new prices. Maybe it will mean
windmills and CNG, but maybe not. Perhaps it will mean more nuclear
power, new hydrogen-powered fuel cells, “clean” coal, the emergence of
cellulosic ethanol, battery-powered cars or hybrids — or a
continuation of the existing energy base but less consumption as a
consequence.

Of course, if the market were to go into any of
those directions, Mr. Pickens would be out a lot of money, which is
probably why he wants to hard-wire the market to consume the things
he’s investing in and have the government lavish him with subsidies in
the course of doing so. I wish Mr. Pickens well in his wind energy
business, but I see no reason why taxpayers, ratepayers or consumers
ought to be forced to sacrifice in order to fatten his already ample
bank account. – Jerry Taylor is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

More From National Post

Gerretsen withdraws from key decision on wind project

May 30, 2008

Update:
Govt.visit. They spend a lot of time on this site. Hope they learn something.

Domain Name gov.on.ca ? (Canada) IP Address 142.106.170.# (Government of the Province of Ontario)

May 30 2008 11:19:00 am


Editor:
Lunatics or criminals? You make the call.

The Liberal party is proof positive how low politicians can go. Cover up a massive sewage spill into the Ottawa river,OttawaSun, and trash the lives of people with wind turbines. Glad we have the Mnistry of Environment. What would we do without them? A-holes.

“As a result of [the integrity commissioner’s] advice and ruling, Premier Dalton McGuinty has appointed Tourism Minister Peter Fonseca, to exercise my decision-making authority with respect to the Wolfe Island Wind Project,” Gerretsen wrote in his letter to constituents.

So, Gerretsen is still calling the shots – but they are coming out of the mouth Peter Fonseca. Kind of like a puppet sitting on Gerretsens’ lap. A dummy so to speak.

I have an idea for tourism on Wolfe Island Mr. Fonseca. Take the entire Liberal Party and put them in stocks in the center of Wolfe Island and sell fruit and vegetables to the tourists to throw at them – and it’s carbon neutral

I feel this would be a good use of politicians and I’m sure this plan would generate far more income than the wind turbines.

I call it “A better tourism plan for Ontario”

The McGuinty govt has their heads so far up the ass of business interests only their toes are sticking out.

.

Conflict claims plague minister; Gerretsen withdraws from key decision on wind project

Three days before Environment Minister John Gerretsen was to make a key decision about the fate of the wind-power project on Wolfe Island, the Kingston and the Islands MPP has withdrawn from the heart of the contentious issue.

Gerretsen yesterday announced he was recusing his decision-making authority with respect to the Wolfe Island Wind Project because of allegations from island residents that he was in a conflict of interest.

In a letter sent to media outlets and about 15 citizens on Wolfe Island, Gerretsen described how opponents to the project have questioned his ability to deal with the project in a “fair and unbiased fashion.”

“I take any potential conflict of interest allegations very seriously,” Gerretsen told the Whig-Standard.

He declined to comment on whether he personally believes he was in a conflict situation.

“I’d rather not give you my own personal opinion on it at this point in time,” he said in an interview. “I’m not prepared to answer that. “I did what I thought was the right action and the integrity commissioner has dealt with that.”

The allegations stem from Gerretsen’s attendance last summer, before he was appointed environment minister, at a corn roast on Wolfe Island organized by Canadian Hydro Developers Inc., the proponent for the wind project. The event, held at a private residence, was also attended by local media and municipal politicians from the Township of Frontenac Islands.

As well, the proponents, Canadian Hydro, bought tickets totalling $1,500 to attend at least one fundraising dinner for Gerretsen.

Gerretsen made the decision to divest himself of the decision-making responsibility on the wind project after consulting with Ontario’s integrity commissioner, whose office ensures that provincial politicians aren’t making decisions on issues that could benefit them.

“As a result of [the integrity commissioner’s] advice and ruling, Premier Dalton McGuinty has appointed Tourism Minister Peter Fonseca, to exercise my decision-making authority with respect to the Wolfe Island Wind Project,” Gerretsen wrote in his letter to constituents.

While the integrity commissioner determined there was no conflict of interest, she recommended Gerretsen to withdraw from the decision-making process because of a perceived conflict.

In her written decision to Gerretsen, she addressed his attendance at a Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. event last year.

“It is my opinion attending and speaking at the event was not contrary to the Members’ Integrity Act. However, both of these events appear to have created a perception that you favour one group of ministry stakeholders over another,” said Lynn Morrison, acting integrity commissioner.

In a letter to Gerretsen, Fonseca and deputy environment minister Gail Beggs, McGuinty directed ministry officials to “refrain from having any discussions with Minister Gerretsen or his staff on this file, and to seek direction from Minister Fonseca on the matter as appropriate.”

It’s unknown whether the decision that was expected early next week will still be made on schedule.

Gerretsen had been reviewing a decision of the director of the environmental assessment and approvals branch not to grant a request from citizens to require Canadian Hydro to complete an environmental assessment that will investigate the impacts of the project.

“I would imagine that it will still be within the timelines, but it may be somewhat later,” said Gerretsen. “These decisions aren’t always necessarily made within the necessary timelines.”

He said Fonseca will be briefed by Environment Ministry officials.

By Jennifer Pritchett

The Kingston Whig – Standard

30 May 2008

Wind company's actions give rise to questions

April 2, 2008

Editor
Same wind farm crap, different day. So what’s different about this story? Attitude. Here’s a quote from Mariana Reinhart of Cape Vincent, New York.

“I still have all of my rights, and I intend to use them”.

You have rights too, use em or lose em!

Wind company’s actions give rise to questions

I read the letter from by Paul C. Mason, Cape Vincent, “Uninformed Cape wind foes spread rumors.” I may not have visited the office of the St. Lawrence Wind Farm, but I have attended their informational meetings and presentation of their Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Cape Vincent Planning Board (which was incomplete) as well as the meetings held by BP and the presentation of their DEIS, which was also incomplete. I presented questions to each of the companies via the board and spoke to the companies’ reps at their informational gatherings taking the time to read their pamphlets and praises. So I did have direct dialog with all companies and reps concerned.

I do not consider myself an expert, but I do care about where I am living and what is happening to Cape Vincent. Members of the Wind Power Ethics Group are intelligent people who are aware of how these companies are using the almighty dollar to get what they want.

These are the same companies who came into our town and spoke to people and told them they were not to discuss their offers with anyone else. A gag order was given by these companies to all people who were willing to and did sign contracts. Many of the townspeople were never aware of the closed door ethics that were going on.

It is amazing. Mr. Mason states people who either do not want these massive beasts in their backyards or may want them but at a decent distance from their homes have not offered solutions for generating electricity. What bothers me is that people who are getting paid to have these windmills on their properties never brought their options to save energy to the Planning Board table either. They never spoke out until they realized it was not going to be a cakewalk for the companies to get these wind turbines where they wanted them.

When townspeople started to question how many, how big and where they were going to be placed, that is when everything got ugly. So now we are a town divided. Whose fault is that? Maybe it was the way it was done when they sneak behind closed doors. Maybe because it is a subject that divides families and friends. You cannot blame anyone who asks questions of these companies, after all the people who signed away the rights to their land for 20 to 30 years have lost their rights to question anything or anyone. So that leaves me. I still have all of my rights, and I intend to use them.

Mariana Reinhart

Cape Vincent

Watertown Daily Times

2 April 2008

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

Blowing in the Wind – Your Tax Dollars

February 27, 2008

*The Dangers of Wind Power*

*After the industry’s recent boom years, wind power providers and experts are now concerned. The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting.
Gearboxes hiding inside the casings perched on top of the towering masts have short shelf lives, often crapping out before even five years is up. In some cases, fractures form along the rotors, or even in the foundation, after only limited operation. Short circuits or overheated propellers have been known to cause fires. All this despite manufacturers’ promises that the turbines would last at least 20 years.*
August 24, 2007 by Simone Kaiser and Michael Fröhlingsdorf in Business Week
*As wind turbines multiply around the globe, the number of dangerous accidents is also climbing, causing critics to question overall safety*

It came without warning. A sudden gust of wind ripped the tip off of the rotor blade with a loud bang. The heavy, 10-meter (32 foot) fragment spun through the air, and crashed into a field some 200 meters away.

The wind turbine, which is 100 meters (328 feet) tall, broke apart in early November 2006 in the region of Oldenburg in northern Germany-and the consequences of the event are only now becoming apparent. Startled by the accident, the local building authority ordered the examination of six other wind turbines of the same model.

The results, which finally came in this summer, alarmed District
Administrator Frank Eger. He immediately alerted the state government of Lower Saxony, writing that he had shut down four turbines due to safety concerns. It was already the second incident in his district, he wrote, adding that turbines of this type could pose a threat across the country.
The expert evaluation had discovered possible manufacturing defects and irregularities.

*Mishaps, Breakdowns and Accidents*

After the industry’s recent boom years, wind power providers and experts are now concerned. The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting.
Gearboxes hiding inside the casings perched on top of the towering masts have short shelf lives, often crapping out before even five years is up. In some cases, fractures form along the rotors, or even in the foundation, after only limited operation. Short circuits or overheated propellers have been known to cause fires. All this despite manufacturers’ promises that the turbines would last at least 20 years.

Gearboxes have already had to be replaced “in large numbers,” the German Insurance Association is now complaining. “In addition to generators and gearboxes, rotor blades also often display defects,” a report on the technical shortcomings of wind turbines claims. The insurance companies are complaining of problems ranging from those caused by improper storage to                         dangerous cracks and fractures.

Wind power expert Martin Stöckl knows the problems all too well. The Bavarian travels some 80,000 kilometers (49,710 miles) across Germany every year, but he is only rarely able to help the wind farmers. It is not just the rotors that, due to enormous worldwide demand, take forever to deliver, but simple replacement parts are likewise nowhere to be found. “You often
have to wait 18 months for a new rotor mount, which means the turbine stands still for that long,” says Stöckl.

“Sales Top, Service Flop” is the headline on a recent cover story which appeared in the industry journal Erneuerbare Energien. The story reports the disastrous results of a questionnaire passed out to members of the German WindEnergy Association asking them to rank manufacturers. Only Enercon, based in Germany, managed a ranking of “good.” The company produces wind
turbines without gearboxes, eliminating one of the weakest links in the chain.

Even among insurers, who raced into the new market in the 1990s, wind power
is now considered a risky sector. Industry giant Allianz was faced with around a thousand damage claims in 2006 alone. Jan Pohl, who works for Allianz in Munich, has calculated that on average “an operator has to expect damage to his facility every four years, not including malfunctions and uninsured breakdowns.”

Many insurance companies have learned their lessons and are now writing maintenance requirements-requiring wind farmers to replace vulnerable components such as gearboxes every five years-directly into their contracts.
But a gearbox replacement can cost up to 10 percent of the original construction price tag, enough to cut deep into anticipated profits. Indeed, many investors may be in for a nasty surprise. “Between 3,000 and 4,000 older facilities are currently due for new insurance policies,” says Holger Martsfeld, head of technical insurance at Germany’s leading wind turbine insurer Gothaer. “We know that many of these facilities have flaws.”

*Flaws And Dangers*

And the technical hitches are not without their dangers. For example:

• In December of last year, fragments of a broken rotor blade landed on a road shortly before rush hour traffic near the city of Trier

• Two wind turbines caught fire near Osnabrück and in the Havelland region in January. The firefighters could only watch: Their ladders were not tall enough to reach the burning casings

• The same month, a 70-meter (230-foot) tall wind turbine folded in half in Schleswig-Holstein-right next to a highway

• The rotor blades of a wind turbine in Brandenburg ripped off at a height of 100 meters (328 feet). Fragments of the rotors stuck into a grain field near a road.

At the Allianz Technology Center (AZT) in Munich, the bits and pieces from wind turbine meltdowns are closely examined. “The force that comes to bear on the rotors is much greater than originally expected,” says AZT evaluator Erwin Bauer. Wind speed is simply not consistent enough, he points out.
“There are gusts and direction changes all the time,” he says.

But instead of working to create more efficient technology, many
manufacturers have simply elected to build even larger rotor blades, Bauer adds. “Large machines may have great capacity, but the strains they are subject to are even harder to control,” he says.

Even the technically basic concrete foundations are suffering from those strains. Vibrations and load changes cause fractures, water seeps into the cracks, and the rebar begins to rust. Repairs are difficult. “You can’t look inside concrete,” says Marc Gutermann, a professor for experimental statics in Bremen. “It’s no use just closing the cracks from above.”

The engineering expert suspects construction errors are to blame. “The facilities keep getting bigger,” he says, “but the diameter of the masts has to remain the same because otherwise they would be too big to transport on the roadways.”

*Not Sufficiently Resilient*

Still the wind power business is focusing on replacing smaller facilities with ever larger ones. With all the best sites already taken, boosting size is one of the few ways left to boost output. On land at least. So far, there are no offshore wind parks in German waters, a situation that Minister Gabriel hopes to change. He wants offshore wind farms to produce a total of  25,000 megawatts by 2030.

Perhaps by then, the lessons learned on land will ward off disaster at sea.
Many constructors of such offshore facilities in other countries have run into difficulties. Danish company and world market leader Vestas, for example, had to remove the turbines from an entire wind park along Denmark’s western coast in 2004 because the turbines were not sufficiently resilient to withstand the local sea and weather conditions. Similar problems were encountered off the British coast in 2005.

German wind turbine giant Enercon, for its part, considers the risks associated with offshore wind power generation too great, says Enercon spokesman Andreas Düser says. While the growth potential is tempting, he says, the company does not want to lose its good standing on the high seas.
*Web link:* http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2
*Note: Since this article was published (August 2007) there have been 3 more major collapses including one death.*

Oregon, US: Wind Turbine collapses kills one, injures second
worker<http://www.nowpublic.net/wind-turbine-collapse-kills-one-injures-second-worker>

Cumbria, UK Wind Turbine
Collapses<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/7168275.stm>

Beinn an Tuirc, Scotland:
http://www.campbeltowncourier.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/4354/Bent_double.html