David J. C. MacKay (1967–2016)

The Committee did not receive any evidence from people who are living near the turbines and who are receiving recompense for the use of their land. The reasons for this are unclear. Several witnesses claimed that the host landholders are subject to 'gag' orders under the terms of their contracts with the developers. This was denied by the industry...

Noise measurement
2.32 The measurement of noise as used in the Standards is dB(A). This measure was explained as being appropriate because it simulates human hearing. Dr Warwick Williams, a Senior Research Engineer at the National Acoustic Laboratories, explained that the A-weighting heavily discounts the low frequencies and the very high frequencies. A-weighting discounts infrasound as it is below the level of human hearing.

2.33 Many persons who complain of the noise produced by wind farms refer to noise that lies within the low frequency range, and to infrasound (sound of less than 20 hertz). As discussed earlier, the 'thump' which apparently is produced by wind turbines and which causes distress to some people is a low frequency sound. According to the Sonus report, over large distances, whilst the absolute level of sound in all frequencies declines, the relative level of low frequency noise increases compared with mid and high frequencies. The Sonus report states that low frequency sound can be easily measured, and 'the C-weighting network (dB(C)) has been developed to determine the human perception and annoyance due to noise that lies within the low frequency range'

2.34 Mr Huson submitted that neither the C-weighting nor the A-weighting is appropriate for the measurement of very low frequencies:

If we were to investigate lower frequency sound levels from wind farms we cannot use the C-weighting or the A-weighting since these attenuate low frequency sound
2.35 Dr Geoff Leventhall, a British acoustics consultant, informed the committee that:

...as environmental noise control criteria are A-weighted, they tend to under-rate potentially problematic low frequency environmental noise. This has led low frequency problems to be left to continue, whilst higher frequency problems are fixed more quickly. As a result, where genuine low frequency noise problems have occurred, their continuance leads to the development of undue stress in those affected. There is also a body of very stressful, unsolvable noise problems, described as “low frequency” by those affected, where detailed investigations cannot discover a specific noise source.

2.36 The Noise Management Services report commissioned by Mr and Mrs Dean on the noise impact of Waubra Wind Farm suggested that:

There are many possible ways that low frequency sounds may influence the ear at levels that are unrelated to hearing sensitivity. As some structures of the ear respond to low frequency sound at levels below those that are heard, the practice of A-weighting (or G-weighting) sound measurements grossly underestimates the possible influence of these sounds on the physiology of the ear. The high infrasound component of wind turbine noise may account for high annoyance ratings, sleep disturbance and reduced quality of life for those living near wind turbines.

The chapter on nuclear power is also very good. As MacKay says, nuclear is dangerous, but it's not infinitely dangerous. Other kinds of energy are dangerous too. He tries to quantify the risk from nuclear to the best of his ability, in terms of the number of deaths you could reasonably expect per unit of generated energy; then he compares with other forms of energy. It's by no means clear that nuclear is, in fact, so dangerous… MacKay presents the figures dispassionately, and adds, in a typical aside, that you shouldn't conclude that he's pro-nuclear; he's pro-arithmetic.

Kylie Minogue, in town for a series of concerts, was also guest of honour at the fundraiser, which raised about $140,000 for a Red Cross tsunami appeal through ticket sales alone.
She is one of the few international acts who decided to continue the Japanese leg of their world tours, with many others cancelling because of the ongoing Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster.

Dear friends and family,

As of March 24th I will be taking a temporary leave of absence from my job in Nanae, Japan. The current plan is to abscond to Hawaii on standby, with the intention to return to Japan on April 3rd. If, however, the nuclear crisis in Fukushima remains as nebulous as it is right now, I will likely extend my stay and will consider returning to Concord to continue my work as Coordinator of International Relations from there in our American sister city.

Experiencing this terrible tragedy firsthand has been a life-changing experience. I have grown as a journalist, a government employee, and most of all as a person, and have been awakened to the full depth of my appreciation and love for Nanae. My heart remains with the Japanese people during this tense time, and I ardently hope that we will be reunited very soon.

"If some sense of moderation cannot check the raging avarice which without concern for mankind increases and grows by leaps and bounds--we will not say from year to year, month to month, or day to day, but almost from hour to hour and even from minute to minute--if our regard for the people's welfare could tolerate unmoved this mad licence from which in such a situation the people suffer in the worst possible fashion from day to day, some ground perhaps would be found for concealing the truth and saying nothing. . . ."

Campaigners also mislead. People who want to promote renewables over nuclear, for example, say “offshore wind power could power all UK homes;” then they say “new nuclear power stations will do little to tackle climate change” because 10 new nuclear stations would “reduce emissions only by about 4%.” This argument is misleading because the playing field is switched half-way through, from the “number of homes powered” to “reduction of emissions.” The truth is that the amount of electrical power generated by the wonderful windmills that “could power all UK homes” is exactly the same as the amount that would be generated by the 10 nuclear power stations! “Powering all UK homes” accounts for just 4% of UK emissions.

The financial expenditure by the USA on manufacturing and deploying nuclear weapons from 1945 to 1996 was $5.5 trillion (in 1996 dollars). Nuclear-weapons spending over this period exceeded the combined total federal spending for education; agriculture; training, employment, and social services; natural resources and the environment; general science, space, and technology; community and regional development (including disaster relief); law enforcement; and energy production and regulation.

According to the Stern review, the global cost of averting dangerous climate change (if we act now) is $440 billion per year ($440 per year per person, if shared equally between the 1 billion richest people). In 2005, the US government alone spent $480 billion on wars and preparation for wars. The total military expenditure of the 15 biggest military-spending countries was $840 billion.

What should we do to bring about the development of non-fossil energy supply, and of efficiency measures? One attitude is “Just let the market handle it. As fossil fuels become expensive, renewables and nuclear power will become relatively cheaper, and the rational consumer will prefer efficient technologies.” I find it odd that people have such faith in markets, given how regularly markets give us things like booms and busts, credit crunches, and collapses of banks. Markets may be a good way of making some short-term decisions – about investments that will pay off within ten years or so – but can we expect markets to do a good job of making decisions about energy, decisions whose impacts last many decades or centuries?

If the free market is allowed to build houses, we end up with houses
that are poorly insulated. Modern houses are only more energy-efficient thanks to legislation.