Steve Erickson’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  For example: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-16-green-state/ Daniel: Maybe you could design a way to harness the energy from the wind when you blow your strawmen over.On One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’ posted 2 days, 18 hours ago 57 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Daniel: Obviously the real motivation of those (shudder) Birdwatchers who wanted DDT banned was to see little african babies die of Malaria. And obviously any suggestion that a technology that is beginning to be widely deployed might have some negative impacts that weren't foreseen (especially by boosters of that technology) couldn't possibly be correct. When has a newly widely deployed technology ever had unforeseen negative impacts? I'm sure you can't think of a single example, can you. Better not to look; that way there's no danger of actually finding out, one way or the other. After all, its not as if we got into this mess by leaping before looking. So, lets do it some more! Daniel, I don't have a clue what you actually do, but if its at all involved with convincing anyone that Climate Change is real and really bad, I can only hope that you are kept far away from other sentient beings because with friends like you who needs enemies. I don't know if large industrial wind turbines and wind farms effect some people via emitting sound below the threshold of normal hearing, but some impacts on wildlife (those damn "species") are easily foreseeable (habitat fragmentation, direct habitat destruction), while others are unexpected unpleasant surprises (exploding bat lungs, anyone).On One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’ posted 3 days ago 57 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Daniel: I think the most annoying thing about your childish petulant sarcasm is that this is precisely the sort of situation that should be addressable by a good epidemiological study to determine (among other things): 1) Is there a problem? 2) If so, what are its apparent symptoms? 3) What are the key criteria associated with the symptoms (distance, turbine make, etc.)? 4) What proportion of the study population experience symptoms? 6) What are possible solutions - technology alterations or social justice (such as buying the affected out)? But obviously, because you're not affected, no one can be affected. You remind me of every Spray Bo' and "my technology will save us" hubris peddler that I've ever heard. Of course spraying DDT all over the place can't possibly be injurious because the people who spray it say so, and since they spray it, they're the experts. The people who are concerned are obviously just a bunch of NIMBYs or worse, Birdwatchers! What more can you say? Those NIMBYs say they care about birds - or even "species" as I read someone recently writing. And they can't really care about "species," even if that were a reasonable thing to care about, which any right thinking technologist knows they're not. Its obviously a smokescreen for a more nefarious end, like creating socialist environmental facism, or stopping wind power, something like that. Who the hell would ever care about something as unimportant as "species," its downright subversive. And no one in they're right mind would care whether people are possibly hurt by a wonderful technology. Daniel. If the corporado PR flacks didn't have you to point at as an example of how those damn "environmentalists" hate people, they'd have to invent you.On One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’ posted 3 days, 14 hours ago 57 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  One need only look at the history of federal environmental legislation in the US to lose any sense of optimism. Consider the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. All three have been weakened since adoption by:

  1. Legislative action by the legislative branch of government;

  2. Failure to enforce and rule making evisceration by the executive branch;

  3. Legal interpretation by the judicial branch.

  Expecting future improvements to environmental legislation as originally adopted is optimistic to the point of involving consumption of mind altering substances.

  On Why I'm not freaked out about the Waxman-Markey climate bill posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 36 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Its DooWop, 50 years later . . .

  On From Pirates to Parody posted 1 year, 9 months ago 1 Response