By: Julia Lee (0722659) ENVS*1020
I would like to start off by saying that I acknowledge that this is not an official newspaper article, but rather an article written by a reader and was submitted into the “Opinion Exchange” section of the Star Tribune newspaper. Therefore, I would not say it is entirely right to start harshly criticizing the article. What is said in this blog post will more so be my advice on writing a more informative piece.
The article written by Gary Carlson (8 November 2010) relay’s his thoughts on wind turbines. It mainly talks about his participation in the county’s discussion about wind turbines that were possibly going to be developed nearby and then goes on to talk about his own online research put into the topic. However, the underlying message is that wind turbines cause medical problems to people living within a certain range of them and he has argued that they should be set farther from any residences.
The thing that bothers me about the article is the lack of details given about certain aspects of the argument. For example, Carlson mentions that “sleep disturbance is the most common problem”, however there are many more symptoms that could have been mentioned. By just mentioning the possible sleep disturbance, many can claim that it is some unrelated problem or, as some have said in the comments of the articles, that people are just “whiners”. In the report Wind Turbine Syndrome by Nina Pierpont (2009), the following symptoms listed are said to be connected with the presence of turbines: sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes. Researching and providing the different symptoms would have let the reader see that there is possibly some more damage happening that can’t just be ignored.
Another example of something that could have been elaborated on was how the turbines can “produce a lot of infrasonic and low-frequency noise” (Carlson 2010) within a certain area. Mentioning how this works would again educate the reader and help them to understand the argument better. To relate how the infrasonic waves affect the body, we can use one of the above symptoms as an example. First off, the turning of the turbine blades generates both sound and seismic waves. (Pierpont 2009) The energy of these waves travel and once they hit a solid object of some medium, can cause it to vibrate. (Pierpont 2009) The rest of the example is best said by Pierpont:
A sound wave in the air, encountering a house, may set up vibrations in the structure of the house. These vibrations, in walls or windows, may set up air pressure (sound) waves in rooms, which can in turn transmit mechanical energy to the tympanic membrane and middle ear, to the airways and lungs, and to body surfaces.
This would explain the ear pressure symptom in the list previously mentioned. One cannot simply just list the symptoms, but must also go through and give examples the reader can understand or at least some examples. Otherwise, the argument may start to just seem like ones opinions, rather than something actual studied.
My final input would be to maybe just cut down on the personal background information. It is these points that really make it the opinion piece. Without these, and along with the suggestions above, this article could actually hold a fair argument. That’s not to say that the personal information is not needed all together. It gives a bit of credibility to hear that the author of the article is a physician. The reader can assume that they will already have some background knowledge when it comes to the different health problems mentioned in the article. It is also good to hear about different communities discussing the wind turbines, rather than just building them without taking the communities feedback into account. However, that does not always mean that everyone’s opinions will get heard in the matter. The paragraph on being somewhat of an environmentalist really could have been squeezed into the first background paragraph. Again, it is not bad to have personal information in the article—in some cases it can make it more relatable—but you do not need to put every single detail into it.
After all this nitpicking, I’d like to say that this article wasn’t so bad. I think it did serve its purpose in some way. For example, I never knew that there were any negative health benefits to windmills. After reading this article and doing some quick research I’m not a bit more informed on the matter, which is really what you should want your article to achieve. I also applaud Carlson for sending in the article. It’s good to see people getting involved in matters and trying to help spread the word.
If there is really anyone to criticize for not doing enough research or putting critical thinking into their opinions it would have to be some of the people who commented online for this article. Accusing the author of being a hippy or just being a whiner and to “suck it up” in no way actually improves the argument. For the number of well thought out comments, there were a few obvious spur of the moment ones. But hey, it’s the internet. When people have a computer screen to hide behind they’ll say whatever they please.
References:
Carlson, G. (2010) Wind energy’s ripple effects. Star Tribune, 8 Nov 2010. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/106925008.html?page=1&c=y. Accessed 11 Nov 2010.
Pierpont, N. MD. PHD. (2009) Wind turbine Syndrome. http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/AC708819BAAFAD9BCA25770D00471BA3/$File/Expert+Witness+Statement+of+Dr+Nina+Pierpont.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2010.
Image taken from: http://www.windpowerninja.com/wind-power-news/south-dakota-wind-turbine-plant-announces-lay-offs-21583/.
No comments:
Post a Comment