Letters / Not enough facts
I have sat on the sidelines and watched Sustainable Shetland argue against the current wind farm development by providing a lot of emotionally-based debate in favour of their opposition to the proposals.
Having examined a lot of the web and published assertions I have the distinct impression that a lot of the so-called “scientific information” provided in favour of the “anti” arguments comes from “experts” who lack the credentials or ability to discuss the pros and cons of wind technologies from an informed perspective.
Andrew Halcrow’s latest response to Tony Erwood’s clarifications is a classic case in point…(A long way to go yet; SN 6/5/12)
As part of his response to Tony Erwood, Andrew has provided a submission to the Scottish Parliament from Professor Tony Trewavas FRS, FRSE, Academia Europea. Whilst I am not detracting from the fact that Professor Trewavas is clearly an expert in his own field, he does not, in fact, have any credentials for being an expert in wind turbine technology.
Tony Trewavas is a plant scientist based at the Institute of Molecular Plant Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, where his group studies molecular signalling. His interests include plant behaviour, organic food, climate change, GM crops and environmentally friendly farming.
Hence his submission to the Scottish Parliament carries no more weight than that of any other non-expert participant in the debate.
Tony Erwood, however is an electrical and electronic engineer with knowledge of the energy sector.
For me, this illustrates one of the most irritating facets of the way in which the current debate against the wind farm proposals is being conducted – the heavy reliance on spurious or hearsay information.
As a scientist I find this alarming; in my opinion there is far too much emotional rhetoric being bandied about and not enough reliance on FACTS.
If Sustainable Shetland are to have any credibility at all in this debate, their role should surely be to clearly communicate their detailed concerns in a clear and INFORMED way, setting the pros as well as the cons in a factually accurate way, rather than generating so much hot air (but then again, maybe we can make energy from that!?).
I’m sure it’s very nice to learn from Andrew about the ancient Greeks, but it’s also very patronising for us, the readers. I have no doubt that if there was less “wringing of hands” and a real attempt was made by the adult members of SS to put the pros and cons side by side in an informed way, those with an open mind would be more prepared to listen.
However in the “anti” camp at the moment most of the science seems to be thrown out the window –which is a real pity, since what is needed is more INFORMED debate.
Dr Helen Erwood CBiol., MBS, MTOPRA, MIoD
Lunna
Become a member of Shetland News
Shetland News is asking its many readers to consider paying for membership to get additional features and services: -
- Remove non-local ads;
- Bookmark posts to read later;
- Exclusive curated weekly newsletter;
- Hide membership messages;
- Comments open for discussion.
If you appreciate what we do and feel strongly about impartial local journalism, then please become a member of Shetland News by either making a single payment, or setting up a monthly, quarterly or yearly subscription.
Already a member? Sign in to hide this message.
