Campaigners fighting plans for wind farm are given fresh hope

Daily Echo: New hope in fight against wind farm plan New hope in fight against wind farm plan

Campaigners battling a giant wind farm in Hampshire have been given fresh hope by changes in renewable energy subsidies.

The Government is to cut support for onshore and solar energy but give more to offshore wind power.

EDF Energy Renewables has submitted a planning application to build 14 126-metre masts on farmland at Bullington, north of Winchester. Council planners are due to decide on the plan in April |2014.

Douglas Paterson, chairman of Keep Hampshire Green, described the shift in subsidy as “very good news” for the countryside but added it would be more expensive for taxpayers.

Mr Paterson said the news gave protestors a “glimmer of hope” that EDF might now drop the scheme.

He said: “It is like trying to stop a juggernaut. “If we can get the planning application turned down in April EDF may not now go to appeal.”

But a spokesman for EDF Energy said the loss of subsidies would not make any difference to the Bullington scheme.

Mr Paterson said: “I welcome the shift in emphasis. “If we are going to have wind farms at least they won’t destroy the countryside.” But he added: “Onshore wind farms are 10 per cent more expensive than nuclear but offshore are 70 per cent more expensive than nuclear. It is still a very expensive form of electricity.”

But commenting on the changes an EDF Energy spokesman said: “It is business as usual. It does not make any difference to our plans for Bullington. “We need to see the detail but we are continuing to progress with our plans.”

Martin Heath, director of Hampshire Energy Group, said the government had consulted on the changes over the summer. He said: “There is nothing in the 110-page report from DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) that is a huge surprise. It seems a bit of a red herring.

Hampshire Energy Group has negotiated a 10 per cent community share in the Bullington wind farm if gets the go-ahead.

Mr Heath said: “Our co-operative has already included these new numbers in our calculation, so there is no change from our point of view.”

The set prices for onshore wind power and solar energy will be cut from 2015, while those for offshore will be increased.

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:44am Sun 8 Dec 13

loosehead says...

Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy.
offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy.
Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors?
Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site?
having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections?
Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?
Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy. offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy. Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors? Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site? having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections? Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way? loosehead

11:03am Sun 8 Dec 13

Torchie1 says...

loosehead wrote:
Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy.
offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy.
Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors?
Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site?
having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections?
Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?
There seems to be a limitless supply of self-interest groups who resent the NIMBY title but these are the people who howl about the rising price of energy as they make their way to protest meetings about everything from nuclear and fracking to bio-mass and solar. The energy companies still make money, the government dutifully warn about the fragility of the energy supply and the NIMBY protests carry on as the blinkered locals race towards black-outs. At least when the black-outs start to hurt people, they will be able to complain about something other than a farmer covering his fields with solar panels for the benefit of the NIMBYs.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy. offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy. Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors? Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site? having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections? Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?[/p][/quote]There seems to be a limitless supply of self-interest groups who resent the NIMBY title but these are the people who howl about the rising price of energy as they make their way to protest meetings about everything from nuclear and fracking to bio-mass and solar. The energy companies still make money, the government dutifully warn about the fragility of the energy supply and the NIMBY protests carry on as the blinkered locals race towards black-outs. At least when the black-outs start to hurt people, they will be able to complain about something other than a farmer covering his fields with solar panels for the benefit of the NIMBYs. Torchie1

12:57pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Dan Soton says...

Loosehead says... Echo why not give the whole story?


No one can bury a story like The Echo.. I'll give them that..


Georgina Downs has for the last 12yrs been working tirelessly to give residents that live near fields and ‘bystanders (that's us) adequate warning to when a farmer intends/about to spray his field with toxic pesticides... Given the most recent news (2m sprayer distance instead of the current 8m) it would seem her batlle will go on for a further 12 yrs.




PESTICIDES MAY BE WITHDRAWN AFTER RISK ASSESSMENT CHANGE

6 December 2013 | By Alistair Driver

SOME crop sprays may eventually have to be withdrawn or amended after the Government finally agreed to change the way it assesses the safety of pesticides.

The Government has agreed to take into account the risk to residents living near fields, as well as 'bystanders', from crop spraying.

Defra Ministers requested a policy review of the current UK exposure and risk assessment approach to crop sprays in March 2009, following a legal challenge by Georgina Downs of the UK Pesticides Campaign.

The Government's main advisors on pesticides set up a joint working group entitled the Bystander Risk Assessment Working Group (BRAWG), which finally reported to Ministers in December 2012.

The Government this week announced it had accepted all the BRAWG report's recommendations, which, as well as risk assessments for residents, include:

ASSUMPTION OF A 2-METRE (6FT 7IN) DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SPRAYER AND A RESIDENT OR BYSTANDER, COMPARED WITH THE 8M CURRENTLY STIPULATED.

Consideration of the consequences of repeated pesticide applications, as well as single exposures.

Separate risk assessments for children and adults.

In its response, the Government said the BRAWG report 'updated risk assessment in line with the latest science'.

Defra stressed, however, it did not want to implement the changes on a UK-only basis and would work with the European Food Safety Authority as it updates guidance on the issue at EU level.

A Defra spokesperson said: "Pesticides are an effective and economical means of managing crops and our current approach offers a high level of protection. We will work with Europe to make sure that common standards are adopted across the EU."

While pushing for the changes at EU level ensures it will take time for the impact to be felt on the ground, a Defra spokesman confirmed current products could ultimately be affected, as well as new ones coming through the system.

He said: "If there was a risk assessment based on these recommendations it could result in a small number of pesticide products eventually being withdrawn or amended to require risk mitigation measures such as a reduction in the dose applied."

MRS DOWNS CALLED THE ANNOUNCEMENT A 'SIGNIFICANT VICTORY' FOR HER 12-YEAR CAMPAIGN.

She said: "By accepting all the BRAWG report recommendations the Government is finally acknowledging the risk assessment approach relied upon to date has been inadequate."

SHE ARGUED, HOWEVER, THE ASSUMPTION OF A 2M (6FT 7IN) DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SPRAYER BOOM AND A PERSON WAS STILL INADEQUATE AND THE BRAWG REPORT DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH AND REITERATED HER CALL FOR A BAN ON THE USE OF PESTICIDES NEAR PLACES SUCH AS HOMES, SCHOOLS AND PLAYGROUNDS.

NFU plant health adviser Don Pendergrast said the Government announcement 'reflects the continuous development of regulatory risk assessment'.

-

http://www.farmersgu
ardian.com/home/late
st-news/pesticides-m
ay-be-withdrawn-afte
r-risk-assessment-ch
ange/60669.article




Going by a quick search.. the Echo has only given this story light on one day five years ago..


http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/search/?searc
h=Georgina%20Downs&s
ort_by=most_recent_f
irst



-

WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION.. What hold does the Anti Wind Farm Campaigners have over the The Echo ?




,,
Loosehead says... Echo why not give the whole story? No one can bury a story like The Echo.. I'll give them that.. Georgina Downs has for the last 12yrs been working tirelessly to give residents that live near fields and ‘bystanders (that's us) adequate warning to when a farmer intends/about to spray his field with toxic pesticides... Given the most recent news (2m sprayer distance instead of the current 8m) it would seem her batlle will go on for a further 12 yrs. PESTICIDES MAY BE WITHDRAWN AFTER RISK ASSESSMENT CHANGE 6 December 2013 | By Alistair Driver SOME crop sprays may eventually have to be withdrawn or amended after the Government finally agreed to change the way it assesses the safety of pesticides. The Government has agreed to take into account the risk to residents living near fields, as well as 'bystanders', from crop spraying. Defra Ministers requested a policy review of the current UK exposure and risk assessment approach to crop sprays in March 2009, following a legal challenge by Georgina Downs of the UK Pesticides Campaign. The Government's main advisors on pesticides set up a joint working group entitled the Bystander Risk Assessment Working Group (BRAWG), which finally reported to Ministers in December 2012. The Government this week announced it had accepted all the BRAWG report's recommendations, which, as well as risk assessments for residents, include: ASSUMPTION OF A 2-METRE (6FT 7IN) DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SPRAYER AND A RESIDENT OR BYSTANDER, COMPARED WITH THE 8M CURRENTLY STIPULATED. Consideration of the consequences of repeated pesticide applications, as well as single exposures. Separate risk assessments for children and adults. In its response, the Government said the BRAWG report 'updated risk assessment in line with the latest science'. Defra stressed, however, it did not want to implement the changes on a UK-only basis and would work with the European Food Safety Authority as it updates guidance on the issue at EU level. A Defra spokesperson said: "Pesticides are an effective and economical means of managing crops and our current approach offers a high level of protection. We will work with Europe to make sure that common standards are adopted across the EU." While pushing for the changes at EU level ensures it will take time for the impact to be felt on the ground, a Defra spokesman confirmed current products could ultimately be affected, as well as new ones coming through the system. He said: "If there was a risk assessment based on these recommendations it could result in a small number of pesticide products eventually being withdrawn or amended to require risk mitigation measures such as a reduction in the dose applied." MRS DOWNS CALLED THE ANNOUNCEMENT A 'SIGNIFICANT VICTORY' FOR HER 12-YEAR CAMPAIGN. She said: "By accepting all the BRAWG report recommendations the Government is finally acknowledging the risk assessment approach relied upon to date has been inadequate." SHE ARGUED, HOWEVER, THE ASSUMPTION OF A 2M (6FT 7IN) DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SPRAYER BOOM AND A PERSON WAS STILL INADEQUATE AND THE BRAWG REPORT DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH AND REITERATED HER CALL FOR A BAN ON THE USE OF PESTICIDES NEAR PLACES SUCH AS HOMES, SCHOOLS AND PLAYGROUNDS. NFU plant health adviser Don Pendergrast said the Government announcement 'reflects the continuous development of regulatory risk assessment'. - http://www.farmersgu ardian.com/home/late st-news/pesticides-m ay-be-withdrawn-afte r-risk-assessment-ch ange/60669.article Going by a quick search.. the Echo has only given this story light on one day five years ago.. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/search/?searc h=Georgina%20Downs&s ort_by=most_recent_f irst - WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION.. What hold does the Anti Wind Farm Campaigners have over the The Echo ? ,, Dan Soton

4:26pm Sun 8 Dec 13

loosehead says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Loosehead says... Echo why not give the whole story?


No one can bury a story like The Echo.. I'll give them that..


Georgina Downs has for the last 12yrs been working tirelessly to give residents that live near fields and ‘bystanders (that's us) adequate warning to when a farmer intends/about to spray his field with toxic pesticides... Given the most recent news (2m sprayer distance instead of the current 8m) it would seem her batlle will go on for a further 12 yrs.




PESTICIDES MAY BE WITHDRAWN AFTER RISK ASSESSMENT CHANGE

6 December 2013 | By Alistair Driver

SOME crop sprays may eventually have to be withdrawn or amended after the Government finally agreed to change the way it assesses the safety of pesticides.

The Government has agreed to take into account the risk to residents living near fields, as well as 'bystanders', from crop spraying.

Defra Ministers requested a policy review of the current UK exposure and risk assessment approach to crop sprays in March 2009, following a legal challenge by Georgina Downs of the UK Pesticides Campaign.

The Government's main advisors on pesticides set up a joint working group entitled the Bystander Risk Assessment Working Group (BRAWG), which finally reported to Ministers in December 2012.

The Government this week announced it had accepted all the BRAWG report's recommendations, which, as well as risk assessments for residents, include:

ASSUMPTION OF A 2-METRE (6FT 7IN) DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SPRAYER AND A RESIDENT OR BYSTANDER, COMPARED WITH THE 8M CURRENTLY STIPULATED.

Consideration of the consequences of repeated pesticide applications, as well as single exposures.

Separate risk assessments for children and adults.

In its response, the Government said the BRAWG report 'updated risk assessment in line with the latest science'.

Defra stressed, however, it did not want to implement the changes on a UK-only basis and would work with the European Food Safety Authority as it updates guidance on the issue at EU level.

A Defra spokesperson said: "Pesticides are an effective and economical means of managing crops and our current approach offers a high level of protection. We will work with Europe to make sure that common standards are adopted across the EU."

While pushing for the changes at EU level ensures it will take time for the impact to be felt on the ground, a Defra spokesman confirmed current products could ultimately be affected, as well as new ones coming through the system.

He said: "If there was a risk assessment based on these recommendations it could result in a small number of pesticide products eventually being withdrawn or amended to require risk mitigation measures such as a reduction in the dose applied."

MRS DOWNS CALLED THE ANNOUNCEMENT A 'SIGNIFICANT VICTORY' FOR HER 12-YEAR CAMPAIGN.

She said: "By accepting all the BRAWG report recommendations the Government is finally acknowledging the risk assessment approach relied upon to date has been inadequate."

SHE ARGUED, HOWEVER, THE ASSUMPTION OF A 2M (6FT 7IN) DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SPRAYER BOOM AND A PERSON WAS STILL INADEQUATE AND THE BRAWG REPORT DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH AND REITERATED HER CALL FOR A BAN ON THE USE OF PESTICIDES NEAR PLACES SUCH AS HOMES, SCHOOLS AND PLAYGROUNDS.

NFU plant health adviser Don Pendergrast said the Government announcement 'reflects the continuous development of regulatory risk assessment'.

-

http://www.farmersgu

ardian.com/home/late

st-news/pesticides-m

ay-be-withdrawn-afte

r-risk-assessment-ch

ange/60669.article




Going by a quick search.. the Echo has only given this story light on one day five years ago..


http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/search/?searc

h=Georgina%20Downs&a
mp;s
ort_by=most_recent_f

irst



-

WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION.. What hold does the Anti Wind Farm Campaigners have over the The Echo ?




,,
Dan in both cases there's one easy answer if you don't like Wind/Solar farms or Pesticides move.
It's like the guy who's got a council flat in town then moaning about bells being sounded by St Mary's church something that's been happening before I was built so again if he didn't like it why not move?
If you live near a farm surely you must expect some use of pesticides so if you say it's harming your health why not move?
As for Wind farms the complaints about noise is a joke.try living next to a busy road or under the emergency helicopters flight path then have the nerve to moan about noise
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Loosehead says... Echo why not give the whole story? No one can bury a story like The Echo.. I'll give them that.. Georgina Downs has for the last 12yrs been working tirelessly to give residents that live near fields and ‘bystanders (that's us) adequate warning to when a farmer intends/about to spray his field with toxic pesticides... Given the most recent news (2m sprayer distance instead of the current 8m) it would seem her batlle will go on for a further 12 yrs. PESTICIDES MAY BE WITHDRAWN AFTER RISK ASSESSMENT CHANGE 6 December 2013 | By Alistair Driver SOME crop sprays may eventually have to be withdrawn or amended after the Government finally agreed to change the way it assesses the safety of pesticides. The Government has agreed to take into account the risk to residents living near fields, as well as 'bystanders', from crop spraying. Defra Ministers requested a policy review of the current UK exposure and risk assessment approach to crop sprays in March 2009, following a legal challenge by Georgina Downs of the UK Pesticides Campaign. The Government's main advisors on pesticides set up a joint working group entitled the Bystander Risk Assessment Working Group (BRAWG), which finally reported to Ministers in December 2012. The Government this week announced it had accepted all the BRAWG report's recommendations, which, as well as risk assessments for residents, include: ASSUMPTION OF A 2-METRE (6FT 7IN) DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SPRAYER AND A RESIDENT OR BYSTANDER, COMPARED WITH THE 8M CURRENTLY STIPULATED. Consideration of the consequences of repeated pesticide applications, as well as single exposures. Separate risk assessments for children and adults. In its response, the Government said the BRAWG report 'updated risk assessment in line with the latest science'. Defra stressed, however, it did not want to implement the changes on a UK-only basis and would work with the European Food Safety Authority as it updates guidance on the issue at EU level. A Defra spokesperson said: "Pesticides are an effective and economical means of managing crops and our current approach offers a high level of protection. We will work with Europe to make sure that common standards are adopted across the EU." While pushing for the changes at EU level ensures it will take time for the impact to be felt on the ground, a Defra spokesman confirmed current products could ultimately be affected, as well as new ones coming through the system. He said: "If there was a risk assessment based on these recommendations it could result in a small number of pesticide products eventually being withdrawn or amended to require risk mitigation measures such as a reduction in the dose applied." MRS DOWNS CALLED THE ANNOUNCEMENT A 'SIGNIFICANT VICTORY' FOR HER 12-YEAR CAMPAIGN. She said: "By accepting all the BRAWG report recommendations the Government is finally acknowledging the risk assessment approach relied upon to date has been inadequate." SHE ARGUED, HOWEVER, THE ASSUMPTION OF A 2M (6FT 7IN) DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SPRAYER BOOM AND A PERSON WAS STILL INADEQUATE AND THE BRAWG REPORT DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH AND REITERATED HER CALL FOR A BAN ON THE USE OF PESTICIDES NEAR PLACES SUCH AS HOMES, SCHOOLS AND PLAYGROUNDS. NFU plant health adviser Don Pendergrast said the Government announcement 'reflects the continuous development of regulatory risk assessment'. - http://www.farmersgu ardian.com/home/late st-news/pesticides-m ay-be-withdrawn-afte r-risk-assessment-ch ange/60669.article Going by a quick search.. the Echo has only given this story light on one day five years ago.. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/search/?searc h=Georgina%20Downs&a mp;s ort_by=most_recent_f irst - WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION.. What hold does the Anti Wind Farm Campaigners have over the The Echo ? ,,[/p][/quote]Dan in both cases there's one easy answer if you don't like Wind/Solar farms or Pesticides move. It's like the guy who's got a council flat in town then moaning about bells being sounded by St Mary's church something that's been happening before I was built so again if he didn't like it why not move? If you live near a farm surely you must expect some use of pesticides so if you say it's harming your health why not move? As for Wind farms the complaints about noise is a joke.try living next to a busy road or under the emergency helicopters flight path then have the nerve to moan about noise loosehead

4:31pm Sun 8 Dec 13

The Wickham Man says...

loosehead wrote:
Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy.
offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy.
Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors?
Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site?
having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections?
Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?
THe point is Loosehead that if we had a new Nuclear Reactor of 3.6GW At Hinckley Point, or any one of 20 other locations we wouldn't need to build it on this site and it could do the job of 100 other hideous wind farms - only it could do the job cheaper, safer and more reliably. THe point that you forgot to mention is that the Grid is forced to buy renewable electricity at favourable rates regardless of whether it is needed or not - and yet the Country still needs to keep other power stations on warm standby in case the wind isn't blowing. It is a total fallacy to talk in terms of "cheap" windpower when it is a rigged market. Not only is WIndpower expensive and unreliable but we have to pay these so called "Green Taxes" so that windfarms don't have to pay for their own pylons and towers. Not one person in the whole of Britain has been killed by Nuclear Power and we have already lost a dozen workers building windfarms, so which exactly is "safe" anyway?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy. offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy. Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors? Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site? having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections? Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?[/p][/quote]THe point is Loosehead that if we had a new Nuclear Reactor of 3.6GW At Hinckley Point, or any one of 20 other locations we wouldn't need to build it on this site and it could do the job of 100 other hideous wind farms - only it could do the job cheaper, safer and more reliably. THe point that you forgot to mention is that the Grid is forced to buy renewable electricity at favourable rates regardless of whether it is needed or not - and yet the Country still needs to keep other power stations on warm standby in case the wind isn't blowing. It is a total fallacy to talk in terms of "cheap" windpower when it is a rigged market. Not only is WIndpower expensive and unreliable but we have to pay these so called "Green Taxes" so that windfarms don't have to pay for their own pylons and towers. Not one person in the whole of Britain has been killed by Nuclear Power and we have already lost a dozen workers building windfarms, so which exactly is "safe" anyway? The Wickham Man

8:06pm Sun 8 Dec 13

derek james says...

loosehead wrote:
Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy.
offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy.
Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors?
Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site?
having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections?
Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?
you really need to wake up and\ smell the coffee (or maybe you're on something stronger?) wind turbines are extremely inefficient way to produce electricity offshore more so, also the their performance falls off rapidly after 10-15 years (especially offshore) you're normally enthusiastic about new forms of energy potential what about fusion? there have been some big strides made in this recently
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy. offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy. Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors? Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site? having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections? Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?[/p][/quote]you really need to wake up and\ smell the coffee (or maybe you're on something stronger?) wind turbines are extremely inefficient way to produce electricity offshore more so, also the their performance falls off rapidly after 10-15 years (especially offshore) you're normally enthusiastic about new forms of energy potential what about fusion? there have been some big strides made in this recently derek james

9:06pm Sun 8 Dec 13

loosehead says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy.
offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy.
Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors?
Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site?
having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections?
Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?
THe point is Loosehead that if we had a new Nuclear Reactor of 3.6GW At Hinckley Point, or any one of 20 other locations we wouldn't need to build it on this site and it could do the job of 100 other hideous wind farms - only it could do the job cheaper, safer and more reliably. THe point that you forgot to mention is that the Grid is forced to buy renewable electricity at favourable rates regardless of whether it is needed or not - and yet the Country still needs to keep other power stations on warm standby in case the wind isn't blowing. It is a total fallacy to talk in terms of "cheap" windpower when it is a rigged market. Not only is WIndpower expensive and unreliable but we have to pay these so called "Green Taxes" so that windfarms don't have to pay for their own pylons and towers. Not one person in the whole of Britain has been killed by Nuclear Power and we have already lost a dozen workers building windfarms, so which exactly is "safe" anyway?
haven't you read the reports? haven't you listened to the chancellors statement saying the subsidy for onshore wind farms is finished as those windfarms are now profitable & are producing far more power than expected so are a viable financial way of producing electricity?
You want Nuclear? okay how long does the radioactive waste product take to finish being lethal to life on earth?
Exactly how much radioactive waste does Wind or Solar generate? Answer NONE.
I would rather see this whole island surrounded with Wind,Wave & Tidal farms than see one nuclear reactor.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy. offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy. Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors? Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site? having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections? Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?[/p][/quote]THe point is Loosehead that if we had a new Nuclear Reactor of 3.6GW At Hinckley Point, or any one of 20 other locations we wouldn't need to build it on this site and it could do the job of 100 other hideous wind farms - only it could do the job cheaper, safer and more reliably. THe point that you forgot to mention is that the Grid is forced to buy renewable electricity at favourable rates regardless of whether it is needed or not - and yet the Country still needs to keep other power stations on warm standby in case the wind isn't blowing. It is a total fallacy to talk in terms of "cheap" windpower when it is a rigged market. Not only is WIndpower expensive and unreliable but we have to pay these so called "Green Taxes" so that windfarms don't have to pay for their own pylons and towers. Not one person in the whole of Britain has been killed by Nuclear Power and we have already lost a dozen workers building windfarms, so which exactly is "safe" anyway?[/p][/quote]haven't you read the reports? haven't you listened to the chancellors statement saying the subsidy for onshore wind farms is finished as those windfarms are now profitable & are producing far more power than expected so are a viable financial way of producing electricity? You want Nuclear? okay how long does the radioactive waste product take to finish being lethal to life on earth? Exactly how much radioactive waste does Wind or Solar generate? Answer NONE. I would rather see this whole island surrounded with Wind,Wave & Tidal farms than see one nuclear reactor. loosehead

9:13pm Sun 8 Dec 13

loosehead says...

derek james wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy.
offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy.
Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors?
Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site?
having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections?
Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?
you really need to wake up and\ smell the coffee (or maybe you're on something stronger?) wind turbines are extremely inefficient way to produce electricity offshore more so, also the their performance falls off rapidly after 10-15 years (especially offshore) you're normally enthusiastic about new forms of energy potential what about fusion? there have been some big strides made in this recently
derek there's a test facility in Europe which will take god knows how long to give us a viable generation facility.
Yes I agree with it but far more money/expertise needs to be thrown into it & If it could be turned into viable generating facilities bring it on.
I'm also under the belief in Space Exploration & the setting up of colonies in space(Mars) & a space ship powered with this power source could get us there quicker so bringing that reality a step closer.
Now I realise by saying this some may question my IQ but look at the Earth & the rise in the population sizer of the human race we need to find more room (another home) so yes I'm a bit of a space geek
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy. offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy. Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors? Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site? having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections? Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?[/p][/quote]you really need to wake up and\ smell the coffee (or maybe you're on something stronger?) wind turbines are extremely inefficient way to produce electricity offshore more so, also the their performance falls off rapidly after 10-15 years (especially offshore) you're normally enthusiastic about new forms of energy potential what about fusion? there have been some big strides made in this recently[/p][/quote]derek there's a test facility in Europe which will take god knows how long to give us a viable generation facility. Yes I agree with it but far more money/expertise needs to be thrown into it & If it could be turned into viable generating facilities bring it on. I'm also under the belief in Space Exploration & the setting up of colonies in space(Mars) & a space ship powered with this power source could get us there quicker so bringing that reality a step closer. Now I realise by saying this some may question my IQ but look at the Earth & the rise in the population sizer of the human race we need to find more room (another home) so yes I'm a bit of a space geek loosehead

1:18am Mon 9 Dec 13

Georgina Downs says...

It is important that I clarify one point in relation to the latest development re pesticides to avoid any confusion. The drop from 8 metres to 2 metres is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with no spray zone distances. It is to do with the distances that the Government stipulates for the risk assessments carried out for the exposure of people in the countryside. It is completely absurd that to date the Government has ONLY based an assessment to bystanders (as until now there has not been an assessment for residents at all) on the assumption that someone will NOT be any closer than 8 metres from a sprayer. This has meant that anyone who is closer than that (and many residents in fact live within a metre away from sprayed fields, and indeed even many bystanders can walk closer to a sprayed field than 8 metres and I have many pics to show both residents and bystanders being closer than 8 metres) have not ever been accounted for. This is a serious public health issue and people in the countryside have been put in a guinea pig style experiment and it is, as I have always said, one of the biggest public health scandals of our time. It was important I clarify this after seeing a post that thought the distance issue was to do with no spray zone sizes when it has nothing to do with that at all and in fact there is not even any requirement in the Government's existing (wholly unprotective) policy for a no spray zone at all. Based on the evidence that exists internationally of how far pesticides have been shown to travel and the calculated health risks for people within those distances then no pesticides should be sprayed within at least a mile of residents' homes, schools, playgrounds etc. The only real solution to protect the health of residents and others in the countryside now, and for future generations, is to switch to totally non-chemical methods (and I DO NOT mean the red herring that is Integrated Pest Management (IPM) that a number of NGOs have been pressing for, and which is still a system that uses pesticides and will do nothing to protect people in the countryside from exposure to pesticides). Thanks, Georgina Downs, UK Pesticides Campaign www.pesticidescampai
gn.co.uk
It is important that I clarify one point in relation to the latest development re pesticides to avoid any confusion. The drop from 8 metres to 2 metres is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with no spray zone distances. It is to do with the distances that the Government stipulates for the risk assessments carried out for the exposure of people in the countryside. It is completely absurd that to date the Government has ONLY based an assessment to bystanders (as until now there has not been an assessment for residents at all) on the assumption that someone will NOT be any closer than 8 metres from a sprayer. This has meant that anyone who is closer than that (and many residents in fact live within a metre away from sprayed fields, and indeed even many bystanders can walk closer to a sprayed field than 8 metres and I have many pics to show both residents and bystanders being closer than 8 metres) have not ever been accounted for. This is a serious public health issue and people in the countryside have been put in a guinea pig style experiment and it is, as I have always said, one of the biggest public health scandals of our time. It was important I clarify this after seeing a post that thought the distance issue was to do with no spray zone sizes when it has nothing to do with that at all and in fact there is not even any requirement in the Government's existing (wholly unprotective) policy for a no spray zone at all. Based on the evidence that exists internationally of how far pesticides have been shown to travel and the calculated health risks for people within those distances then no pesticides should be sprayed within at least a mile of residents' homes, schools, playgrounds etc. The only real solution to protect the health of residents and others in the countryside now, and for future generations, is to switch to totally non-chemical methods (and I DO NOT mean the red herring that is Integrated Pest Management (IPM) that a number of NGOs have been pressing for, and which is still a system that uses pesticides and will do nothing to protect people in the countryside from exposure to pesticides). Thanks, Georgina Downs, UK Pesticides Campaign www.pesticidescampai gn.co.uk Georgina Downs

6:53am Mon 9 Dec 13

Andy Locks Heath says...

loosehead wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy.
offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy.
Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors?
Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site?
having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections?
Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?
THe point is Loosehead that if we had a new Nuclear Reactor of 3.6GW At Hinckley Point, or any one of 20 other locations we wouldn't need to build it on this site and it could do the job of 100 other hideous wind farms - only it could do the job cheaper, safer and more reliably. THe point that you forgot to mention is that the Grid is forced to buy renewable electricity at favourable rates regardless of whether it is needed or not - and yet the Country still needs to keep other power stations on warm standby in case the wind isn't blowing. It is a total fallacy to talk in terms of "cheap" windpower when it is a rigged market. Not only is WIndpower expensive and unreliable but we have to pay these so called "Green Taxes" so that windfarms don't have to pay for their own pylons and towers. Not one person in the whole of Britain has been killed by Nuclear Power and we have already lost a dozen workers building windfarms, so which exactly is "safe" anyway?
haven't you read the reports? haven't you listened to the chancellors statement saying the subsidy for onshore wind farms is finished as those windfarms are now profitable & are producing far more power than expected so are a viable financial way of producing electricity?
You want Nuclear? okay how long does the radioactive waste product take to finish being lethal to life on earth?
Exactly how much radioactive waste does Wind or Solar generate? Answer NONE.
I would rather see this whole island surrounded with Wind,Wave & Tidal farms than see one nuclear reactor.
I've read the reports Loosehead - I work in the sector, and you are quoting what is unfortunately a minister's typically misleading and distorted picture. Wickham was basically correct - if a windfarm has a guaranteed outlet for whatever it produces when it chooses to produce it then of course it will make an operating profit - the reality is worse than that - windfarms are often paid when they actually contribute nothing. We have engineered a ridiculous skewed market that has taken us back over 100 years in terms of its flexibility, because of Government's cowardice in facing up to Green extremism. You have an unnecessary phobia about nucler waste (a term which covers a wide spectrum of material). SPent fuel would be lethal if you decided to go and camp next to it, but unless you have a plan to do that I don't understand your fear. Your car produces poison that would kill you and your family if you all slept in a tent with it and left the engine running. So Is that any reason to get rid of cars, on the off chance someone would do that?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy. offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy. Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors? Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site? having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections? Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?[/p][/quote]THe point is Loosehead that if we had a new Nuclear Reactor of 3.6GW At Hinckley Point, or any one of 20 other locations we wouldn't need to build it on this site and it could do the job of 100 other hideous wind farms - only it could do the job cheaper, safer and more reliably. THe point that you forgot to mention is that the Grid is forced to buy renewable electricity at favourable rates regardless of whether it is needed or not - and yet the Country still needs to keep other power stations on warm standby in case the wind isn't blowing. It is a total fallacy to talk in terms of "cheap" windpower when it is a rigged market. Not only is WIndpower expensive and unreliable but we have to pay these so called "Green Taxes" so that windfarms don't have to pay for their own pylons and towers. Not one person in the whole of Britain has been killed by Nuclear Power and we have already lost a dozen workers building windfarms, so which exactly is "safe" anyway?[/p][/quote]haven't you read the reports? haven't you listened to the chancellors statement saying the subsidy for onshore wind farms is finished as those windfarms are now profitable & are producing far more power than expected so are a viable financial way of producing electricity? You want Nuclear? okay how long does the radioactive waste product take to finish being lethal to life on earth? Exactly how much radioactive waste does Wind or Solar generate? Answer NONE. I would rather see this whole island surrounded with Wind,Wave & Tidal farms than see one nuclear reactor.[/p][/quote]I've read the reports Loosehead - I work in the sector, and you are quoting what is unfortunately a minister's typically misleading and distorted picture. Wickham was basically correct - if a windfarm has a guaranteed outlet for whatever it produces when it chooses to produce it then of course it will make an operating profit - the reality is worse than that - windfarms are often paid when they actually contribute nothing. We have engineered a ridiculous skewed market that has taken us back over 100 years in terms of its flexibility, because of Government's cowardice in facing up to Green extremism. You have an unnecessary phobia about nucler waste (a term which covers a wide spectrum of material). SPent fuel would be lethal if you decided to go and camp next to it, but unless you have a plan to do that I don't understand your fear. Your car produces poison that would kill you and your family if you all slept in a tent with it and left the engine running. So Is that any reason to get rid of cars, on the off chance someone would do that? Andy Locks Heath

7:20am Mon 9 Dec 13

Dan Soton says...

Georgina Downs wrote:
It is important that I clarify one point in relation to the latest development re pesticides to avoid any confusion. The drop from 8 metres to 2 metres is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with no spray zone distances. It is to do with the distances that the Government stipulates for the risk assessments carried out for the exposure of people in the countryside. It is completely absurd that to date the Government has ONLY based an assessment to bystanders (as until now there has not been an assessment for residents at all) on the assumption that someone will NOT be any closer than 8 metres from a sprayer. This has meant that anyone who is closer than that (and many residents in fact live within a metre away from sprayed fields, and indeed even many bystanders can walk closer to a sprayed field than 8 metres and I have many pics to show both residents and bystanders being closer than 8 metres) have not ever been accounted for. This is a serious public health issue and people in the countryside have been put in a guinea pig style experiment and it is, as I have always said, one of the biggest public health scandals of our time. It was important I clarify this after seeing a post that thought the distance issue was to do with no spray zone sizes when it has nothing to do with that at all and in fact there is not even any requirement in the Government's existing (wholly unprotective) policy for a no spray zone at all. Based on the evidence that exists internationally of how far pesticides have been shown to travel and the calculated health risks for people within those distances then no pesticides should be sprayed within at least a mile of residents' homes, schools, playgrounds etc. The only real solution to protect the health of residents and others in the countryside now, and for future generations, is to switch to totally non-chemical methods (and I DO NOT mean the red herring that is Integrated Pest Management (IPM) that a number of NGOs have been pressing for, and which is still a system that uses pesticides and will do nothing to protect people in the countryside from exposure to pesticides). Thanks, Georgina Downs, UK Pesticides Campaign www.pesticidescampai

gn.co.uk
Thanks Georgina for the clarification


I totally agree with all and especially.. It's one of the biggest public health scandals of our time, the only real solution to protect the health of residents and others in the countryside now, and for future generations, is to switch to totally non-chemical methods..

Back in late 1980s I watched a TV farming program ( probably Countryfile ) that highlighted the compulsory ( Government ) dipping of sheep in Organophosphate Pesticides which consequently lead to the poisoning of hundreds of English/Welsh hill farmers.. for that one reason alone my diet is now mainly made up of organically grown foods..


Regarding Government risk assessments .. do assessments take in both evaporation of airborne pesticides and contact with pesticide spray residues, i.e. contact and distance spray drifts before complete evaporation being of the upper most importance

I say that because I've just read an extremely sad case of 22 children in India dying after eating a free school lunch that was tainted with Organophosphate Pesticides residues..

see link

http://www.thehealth
rebel.com/insecticid
e-in-soy-kills-22-ch
ildren-in-india/



Referencing Wikipedia.. we are told OP PESTICIDES DISINTEGRATE QUICKLY IN AIR, However, OP residues linger on fruits and vegetables residues..



ORGANOPHOSPHATE POISONING

FROM WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA

OP pesticide exposure occurs through inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact. Because OP pesticides disintegrate quickly in air and light, they have been considered relatively safe to consumers. However, OP residues linger on fruits and vegetables. Certain OP pesticides have been banned for use on some crops, for example methyl parathion is banned from use on some crops while permitted on others.

The Environmental Working Group has developed lists for concerned consumers, identifying crops with the highest pesticide residue quantities and the lowest.

THE "DIRTY DOZEN" CROPS ARE UPDATED YEARLY AND IN 2012 INCLUDED APPLES, CELERY, SWEET BELL PEPPERS, PEACHES, STRAWBERRIES, IMPORTED NECTARINES, GRAPES, SPINACH, LETTUCE, CUCUMBERS, DOMESTIC BLUEBERRIES AND POTATOES.

Forty-five fruits and vegetables are listed by the Environmental Working Group as being regularly found with Pesticide residue associated with OPs.

Examples

Insecticides including malathion, parathion, diazinon, fenthion, dichlorvos, chlorpyrifos, ethion

Nerve gases including soman, sarin, tabun, VX

Ophthalmic agents: echothiophate, isoflurophate

Antihelmintics such as trichlorfon

Herbicides including tribufos , merphos are tricresyl phosphate–containi
ng industrial chemicals.

EXPOSURE TO ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE LISTED ORGANOPHOSPHATES OCCURS ON A DAILY BASIS THROUGH INHALATION, ABSORPTION, AND INGESTION, MOST COMMONLY OF FOOD THAT HAS BEEN TREATED WITH AN ORGANOPHOSPHATE HERBICIDE OR INSECTICIDE.

The chemicals chlorpyrifos and malathion have been linked to reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and birth defects. Dichlorvos has also been linked to reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, and kidney/liver damage, as well as being a possible carcinogen

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Organophosp
hate_poisoning



Thanks again Georgia you have my whole hearted support , keep up the good work..
[quote][p][bold]Georgina Downs[/bold] wrote: It is important that I clarify one point in relation to the latest development re pesticides to avoid any confusion. The drop from 8 metres to 2 metres is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with no spray zone distances. It is to do with the distances that the Government stipulates for the risk assessments carried out for the exposure of people in the countryside. It is completely absurd that to date the Government has ONLY based an assessment to bystanders (as until now there has not been an assessment for residents at all) on the assumption that someone will NOT be any closer than 8 metres from a sprayer. This has meant that anyone who is closer than that (and many residents in fact live within a metre away from sprayed fields, and indeed even many bystanders can walk closer to a sprayed field than 8 metres and I have many pics to show both residents and bystanders being closer than 8 metres) have not ever been accounted for. This is a serious public health issue and people in the countryside have been put in a guinea pig style experiment and it is, as I have always said, one of the biggest public health scandals of our time. It was important I clarify this after seeing a post that thought the distance issue was to do with no spray zone sizes when it has nothing to do with that at all and in fact there is not even any requirement in the Government's existing (wholly unprotective) policy for a no spray zone at all. Based on the evidence that exists internationally of how far pesticides have been shown to travel and the calculated health risks for people within those distances then no pesticides should be sprayed within at least a mile of residents' homes, schools, playgrounds etc. The only real solution to protect the health of residents and others in the countryside now, and for future generations, is to switch to totally non-chemical methods (and I DO NOT mean the red herring that is Integrated Pest Management (IPM) that a number of NGOs have been pressing for, and which is still a system that uses pesticides and will do nothing to protect people in the countryside from exposure to pesticides). Thanks, Georgina Downs, UK Pesticides Campaign www.pesticidescampai gn.co.uk[/p][/quote]Thanks Georgina for the clarification I totally agree with all and especially.. It's one of the biggest public health scandals of our time, the only real solution to protect the health of residents and others in the countryside now, and for future generations, is to switch to totally non-chemical methods.. Back in late 1980s I watched a TV farming program ( probably Countryfile ) that highlighted the compulsory ( Government ) dipping of sheep in Organophosphate Pesticides which consequently lead to the poisoning of hundreds of English/Welsh hill farmers.. for that one reason alone my diet is now mainly made up of organically grown foods.. Regarding Government risk assessments .. do assessments take in both evaporation of airborne pesticides and contact with pesticide spray residues, i.e. contact and distance spray drifts before complete evaporation being of the upper most importance I say that because I've just read an extremely sad case of 22 children in India dying after eating a free school lunch that was tainted with Organophosphate Pesticides residues.. see link http://www.thehealth rebel.com/insecticid e-in-soy-kills-22-ch ildren-in-india/ Referencing Wikipedia.. we are told OP PESTICIDES DISINTEGRATE QUICKLY IN AIR, However, OP residues linger on fruits and vegetables residues.. ORGANOPHOSPHATE POISONING FROM WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA OP pesticide exposure occurs through inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact. Because OP pesticides disintegrate quickly in air and light, they have been considered relatively safe to consumers. However, OP residues linger on fruits and vegetables. Certain OP pesticides have been banned for use on some crops, for example methyl parathion is banned from use on some crops while permitted on others. The Environmental Working Group has developed lists for concerned consumers, identifying crops with the highest pesticide residue quantities and the lowest. THE "DIRTY DOZEN" CROPS ARE UPDATED YEARLY AND IN 2012 INCLUDED APPLES, CELERY, SWEET BELL PEPPERS, PEACHES, STRAWBERRIES, IMPORTED NECTARINES, GRAPES, SPINACH, LETTUCE, CUCUMBERS, DOMESTIC BLUEBERRIES AND POTATOES. Forty-five fruits and vegetables are listed by the Environmental Working Group as being regularly found with Pesticide residue associated with OPs. Examples Insecticides including malathion, parathion, diazinon, fenthion, dichlorvos, chlorpyrifos, ethion Nerve gases including soman, sarin, tabun, VX Ophthalmic agents: echothiophate, isoflurophate Antihelmintics such as trichlorfon Herbicides including tribufos [DEF], merphos are tricresyl phosphate–containi ng industrial chemicals. EXPOSURE TO ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE LISTED ORGANOPHOSPHATES OCCURS ON A DAILY BASIS THROUGH INHALATION, ABSORPTION, AND INGESTION, MOST COMMONLY OF FOOD THAT HAS BEEN TREATED WITH AN ORGANOPHOSPHATE HERBICIDE OR INSECTICIDE. The chemicals chlorpyrifos and malathion have been linked to reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and birth defects. Dichlorvos has also been linked to reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, and kidney/liver damage, as well as being a possible carcinogen http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Organophosp hate_poisoning Thanks again Georgia you have my whole hearted support , keep up the good work.. Dan Soton

11:40am Mon 9 Dec 13

Wind Energy's Absurd says...

What a lot of nonsense being spouted by armchair experts and windies. The latter, in their haste to put a spin on the subsidy cuts, are shooting themselves in the foot. Large and small developers and their hangers-on are bleating like mad. Without subsidy, paid for by all consumers and driving so many into fuel poverty, onshore becomes less financially viable. The gravy train, which supports so many foreign companies and already wealthy landowners at the expense of the ordinary Jo Public is hitting the buffers.
https://www.facebook
.com/WindEnergysAbsu
rd
What a lot of nonsense being spouted by armchair experts and windies. The latter, in their haste to put a spin on the subsidy cuts, are shooting themselves in the foot. Large and small developers and their hangers-on are bleating like mad. Without subsidy, paid for by all consumers and driving so many into fuel poverty, onshore becomes less financially viable. The gravy train, which supports so many foreign companies and already wealthy landowners at the expense of the ordinary Jo Public is hitting the buffers. https://www.facebook .com/WindEnergysAbsu rd Wind Energy's Absurd

3:10pm Mon 9 Dec 13

loosehead says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
loosehead wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy.
offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy.
Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors?
Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site?
having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections?
Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?
THe point is Loosehead that if we had a new Nuclear Reactor of 3.6GW At Hinckley Point, or any one of 20 other locations we wouldn't need to build it on this site and it could do the job of 100 other hideous wind farms - only it could do the job cheaper, safer and more reliably. THe point that you forgot to mention is that the Grid is forced to buy renewable electricity at favourable rates regardless of whether it is needed or not - and yet the Country still needs to keep other power stations on warm standby in case the wind isn't blowing. It is a total fallacy to talk in terms of "cheap" windpower when it is a rigged market. Not only is WIndpower expensive and unreliable but we have to pay these so called "Green Taxes" so that windfarms don't have to pay for their own pylons and towers. Not one person in the whole of Britain has been killed by Nuclear Power and we have already lost a dozen workers building windfarms, so which exactly is "safe" anyway?
haven't you read the reports? haven't you listened to the chancellors statement saying the subsidy for onshore wind farms is finished as those windfarms are now profitable & are producing far more power than expected so are a viable financial way of producing electricity?
You want Nuclear? okay how long does the radioactive waste product take to finish being lethal to life on earth?
Exactly how much radioactive waste does Wind or Solar generate? Answer NONE.
I would rather see this whole island surrounded with Wind,Wave & Tidal farms than see one nuclear reactor.
I've read the reports Loosehead - I work in the sector, and you are quoting what is unfortunately a minister's typically misleading and distorted picture. Wickham was basically correct - if a windfarm has a guaranteed outlet for whatever it produces when it chooses to produce it then of course it will make an operating profit - the reality is worse than that - windfarms are often paid when they actually contribute nothing. We have engineered a ridiculous skewed market that has taken us back over 100 years in terms of its flexibility, because of Government's cowardice in facing up to Green extremism. You have an unnecessary phobia about nucler waste (a term which covers a wide spectrum of material). SPent fuel would be lethal if you decided to go and camp next to it, but unless you have a plan to do that I don't understand your fear. Your car produces poison that would kill you and your family if you all slept in a tent with it and left the engine running. So Is that any reason to get rid of cars, on the off chance someone would do that?
Andy you say the governments cowardice? Which government? the one that set into motion green tax levies on our power bills? the one who set into motion increases in petrol tax to try to cut our use of the car so cutting our Carbon emissions? on both of these wasn't it Labour that put these taxes into position?
Andy you know I'm into Bio Mass & I'd love to see more plants like the one in Lancashire turning sewage into power & compost but we've stalled doing those projects here yet Norway & Sweden are forging ahead with our technology benefitting them why?
There is Fission & Fusion give me fusion any day but I'll always be opposed to Fission.
Wind you say isn't good enough so why aren't we also building tidal generators as the Bristol Mayor & several Welsh authorities are planning to do with the river severn after all we have the Itcvhen,Test & the hamble rivers don't we?
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Echo why not give the whole story? the reason the subsidy for onshore has been dropped is because they are so cost effective & are making a good profit even with out the subsidy there's an incentive there already(profit) so no need for a subsidy. offshore needs infrastructure so is costly to set up hence the subsidy. Why oh why is it we need energy yet we get these Anti Wind farm protestors? Would they prefer a nuclear reactor on this site? having seen wind farms across Europe & still noticed the beautiful countryside I really don't get their objections? Tourists go to the beach to sunbathe & maybe a swim most don't go there to look out to sea just to see water do they? but look at the idiots excuses for not having it down Bournemouth way?[/p][/quote]THe point is Loosehead that if we had a new Nuclear Reactor of 3.6GW At Hinckley Point, or any one of 20 other locations we wouldn't need to build it on this site and it could do the job of 100 other hideous wind farms - only it could do the job cheaper, safer and more reliably. THe point that you forgot to mention is that the Grid is forced to buy renewable electricity at favourable rates regardless of whether it is needed or not - and yet the Country still needs to keep other power stations on warm standby in case the wind isn't blowing. It is a total fallacy to talk in terms of "cheap" windpower when it is a rigged market. Not only is WIndpower expensive and unreliable but we have to pay these so called "Green Taxes" so that windfarms don't have to pay for their own pylons and towers. Not one person in the whole of Britain has been killed by Nuclear Power and we have already lost a dozen workers building windfarms, so which exactly is "safe" anyway?[/p][/quote]haven't you read the reports? haven't you listened to the chancellors statement saying the subsidy for onshore wind farms is finished as those windfarms are now profitable & are producing far more power than expected so are a viable financial way of producing electricity? You want Nuclear? okay how long does the radioactive waste product take to finish being lethal to life on earth? Exactly how much radioactive waste does Wind or Solar generate? Answer NONE. I would rather see this whole island surrounded with Wind,Wave & Tidal farms than see one nuclear reactor.[/p][/quote]I've read the reports Loosehead - I work in the sector, and you are quoting what is unfortunately a minister's typically misleading and distorted picture. Wickham was basically correct - if a windfarm has a guaranteed outlet for whatever it produces when it chooses to produce it then of course it will make an operating profit - the reality is worse than that - windfarms are often paid when they actually contribute nothing. We have engineered a ridiculous skewed market that has taken us back over 100 years in terms of its flexibility, because of Government's cowardice in facing up to Green extremism. You have an unnecessary phobia about nucler waste (a term which covers a wide spectrum of material). SPent fuel would be lethal if you decided to go and camp next to it, but unless you have a plan to do that I don't understand your fear. Your car produces poison that would kill you and your family if you all slept in a tent with it and left the engine running. So Is that any reason to get rid of cars, on the off chance someone would do that?[/p][/quote]Andy you say the governments cowardice? Which government? the one that set into motion green tax levies on our power bills? the one who set into motion increases in petrol tax to try to cut our use of the car so cutting our Carbon emissions? on both of these wasn't it Labour that put these taxes into position? Andy you know I'm into Bio Mass & I'd love to see more plants like the one in Lancashire turning sewage into power & compost but we've stalled doing those projects here yet Norway & Sweden are forging ahead with our technology benefitting them why? There is Fission & Fusion give me fusion any day but I'll always be opposed to Fission. Wind you say isn't good enough so why aren't we also building tidal generators as the Bristol Mayor & several Welsh authorities are planning to do with the river severn after all we have the Itcvhen,Test & the hamble rivers don't we? loosehead

4:07pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Dan Soton says...

The Coal/Oil Billionaire Koch Brothers are using their wealth to Break Wind power and undermine sustainable energy projects.


Lets not forget if we don't have a massive increase in pollution free Wind/Solar power generation in Southampton we will be hit by multimillion-pound EU fines..

Southampton already suffers from illegal levels of pollution we don't need the Coal/Oil Koch Brothers and Oxbows anti sustainable energy stance destroying an economic recovery..



Ref: EU fines for Southampton.. failing in its legal duty to protect people from the harmful effects of air pollution.


http://www.clientear
th.org/201305012170/
news/press-releases/
supreme-court-rules-
uk-government-is-bre
aking-air-pollution-
laws-2170



Ref: Huge Koch/Oxbow pollution generating sulphur plant planned for Southampton.


http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/10381867
.Giant_sulphur_plant
__developers_to_face
_residents/




THE KOCH BROTHERS ARE STILL TRYING TO BREAK WIND.

Posted: 12/09/2013 9:01 am.

AS CONGRESS DITHERS FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME OVER EXTENDING A KEY SUBSIDY FOR WIND ENERGY, THE INDUSTRY ONCE AGAIN IS UP IN THE AIR.

Called the production tax credit (PTC), the subsidy helps level the playing field between wind and fossil fuels and has proven to be critical for financing new projects, helping to make wind one of the fastest growing electricity sources in the country.

Given the planet needs to transition as quickly as possible away from coal and natural gas to carbon-free energy to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, who would be against renewing wind's tax credit?

The Koch brothers, that's who.

Charles G. and David H. Koch -- the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and gas Koch Industries conglomerate -- have enlisted their extensive network of think tanks, advocacy groups and friends on Capitol Hill to spearhead a campaign to pull the plug on the PTC.

NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY HAS AVERAGED FOUR TIMES WHAT THE WIND TAX CREDIT IS WORTH IN FEDERAL TAX BREAKS AND SUBSIDIES ANNUALLY FOR THE LAST 95 YEARS.

The Koch network is fighting the wind industry on a number of fronts. Last month, Koch-funded Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) sent a letter signed by 52 House members to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, urging him to let the PTC expire. Meanwhile, a coalition of some 100 national and local groups organized by the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity sent a letter to each member of Congress asking them to do the same. And earlier this month, the Koch-funded Institute for Energy Research launched an anti-PTC ad campaign and released a report claiming that only a handful of states actually benefit from the subsidy.

MALCOLM GLADWELL DIDN'T INCLUDE THIS BATTLE IN HIS NEW BOOK DAVID AND GOLIATH BECAUSE, GIVEN THE ODDS, IT'S MORE LIKE BAMBI VERSUS GODZILLA.

The Kochs' Man in Congress

The fact that Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo is the Kochs' point man to scuttle the PTC in the House is a bit ironic given his state is a wind energy leader. Kansas has the second highest wind potential in the country, it has already attracted more than 5 billion in wind industry investment, and last year wind generated 11.4 percent of its electricity. With stats like that, the industry has broad bipartisan support. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Sens. Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts -- all Republicans -- are big fans.
But there's a catch. Although it appears evenhanded, Pompeo's bill would severely hamper wind and solar but preserve a number of oil, gas and coal subsidies, including the percentage depletion allowance, the ability to expense the costs of exploration, and the accelerated depreciation of certain kinds of "geologic property." These and other tax breaks he left out of his bill would be worth about 12.5 billion to the oil and gas industry from 2011 through 2015, according to a March 2012 Congressional Research Service report.

Why is Pompeo so down on wind? Perhaps it's because Koch Industries is headquartered in Wichita, smack-dab in the middle of his district -- and the fact that the company is by far and away his biggest campaign contributor. Since 2010, Koch Industries has given him 200,000, more than four times what his second highest contributor kicked in. Besides Koch Industries, three other oil companies are among Pompeo's top five contributors -- McCoy Petroleum, Mull Drilling and Richie Exploration -- and they're also based in Wichita.

So who signed the AFP letter? About half of the signatories are local tea party affiliates and anti-wind NIMBY groups of indeterminate size and funding. The other half are, for the most part, relatively obscure national groups, but there are a few that have attracted attention over the years for their contrarian views on climate science and renewable energy. Like AFP, those groups are awash in petrodollars. The American Energy Alliance (and its parent, the Institute for Energy Research), Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedom Works, Frontiers of Freedom and Heritage Action (and its parent, the Heritage Foundation) collectively have received millions of dollars from Koch family foundations, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's premier trade association.

Given that it takes years to plan, finance and construct a wind farm, Congress is again undermining the industry's potential by slow-walking the PTC extension this year. And that potential is tremendous. Wind currently generates about 4 percent of U.S. electricity, but by 2030 it could produce more than 20 percent, the U.S. Department of Energy. The DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory also is bullish on wind and renewables writ large. LAST YEAR, IT PUBLISHED A REPORT THAT CONCLUDED TODAY'S COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES COULD EASILY GENERATE 80 PERCENT OF U.S. ELECTRICITY BY 2050, WITH NEARLY HALF COMING FROM WIND. IF THE KOCH BROTHERS AND THEIR ALLIES HAVE THEIR WAY, HOWEVER, IT LIKELY WILL TAKE A LOT LONGER TO GET THERE -- AND IT WILL COST A HELL OF A LOT MORE.

http://www.huffingto
npost.com/elliott-ne
gin/the-koch-brother
s-are-sti_b_4396033.
html





,,
The Coal/Oil Billionaire Koch Brothers are using their wealth to Break Wind power and undermine sustainable energy projects. Lets not forget if we don't have a massive increase in pollution free Wind/Solar power generation in Southampton we will be hit by multimillion-pound EU fines.. Southampton already suffers from illegal levels of pollution we don't need the Coal/Oil Koch Brothers and Oxbows anti sustainable energy stance destroying an economic recovery.. Ref: EU fines for Southampton.. failing in its legal duty to protect people from the harmful effects of air pollution. http://www.clientear th.org/201305012170/ news/press-releases/ supreme-court-rules- uk-government-is-bre aking-air-pollution- laws-2170 Ref: Huge Koch/Oxbow pollution generating sulphur plant planned for Southampton. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10381867 .Giant_sulphur_plant __developers_to_face _residents/ THE KOCH BROTHERS ARE STILL TRYING TO BREAK WIND. Posted: 12/09/2013 9:01 am. AS CONGRESS DITHERS FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME OVER EXTENDING A KEY SUBSIDY FOR WIND ENERGY, THE INDUSTRY ONCE AGAIN IS UP IN THE AIR. Called the production tax credit (PTC), the subsidy helps level the playing field between wind and fossil fuels and has proven to be critical for financing new projects, helping to make wind one of the fastest growing electricity sources in the country. Given the planet needs to transition as quickly as possible away from coal and natural gas to carbon-free energy to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, who would be against renewing wind's tax credit? The Koch brothers, that's who. Charles G. and David H. Koch -- the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and gas Koch Industries conglomerate -- have enlisted their extensive network of think tanks, advocacy groups and friends on Capitol Hill to spearhead a campaign to pull the plug on the PTC. NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY HAS AVERAGED FOUR TIMES WHAT THE WIND TAX CREDIT IS WORTH IN FEDERAL TAX BREAKS AND SUBSIDIES ANNUALLY FOR THE LAST 95 YEARS. The Koch network is fighting the wind industry on a number of fronts. Last month, Koch-funded Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) sent a letter signed by 52 House members to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, urging him to let the PTC expire. Meanwhile, a coalition of some 100 national and local groups organized by the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity sent a letter to each member of Congress asking them to do the same. And earlier this month, the Koch-funded Institute for Energy Research launched an anti-PTC ad campaign and released a report claiming that only a handful of states actually benefit from the subsidy. MALCOLM GLADWELL DIDN'T INCLUDE THIS BATTLE IN HIS NEW BOOK DAVID AND GOLIATH BECAUSE, GIVEN THE ODDS, IT'S MORE LIKE BAMBI VERSUS GODZILLA. The Kochs' Man in Congress The fact that Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo is the Kochs' point man to scuttle the PTC in the House is a bit ironic given his state is a wind energy leader. Kansas has the second highest wind potential in the country, it has already attracted more than 5 billion in wind industry investment, and last year wind generated 11.4 percent of its electricity. With stats like that, the industry has broad bipartisan support. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Sens. Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts -- all Republicans -- are big fans. But there's a catch. Although it appears evenhanded, Pompeo's bill would severely hamper wind and solar but preserve a number of oil, gas and coal subsidies, including the percentage depletion allowance, the ability to expense the costs of exploration, and the accelerated depreciation of certain kinds of "geologic property." These and other tax breaks he left out of his bill would be worth about 12.5 billion to the oil and gas industry from 2011 through 2015, according to a March 2012 Congressional Research Service report. Why is Pompeo so down on wind? Perhaps it's because Koch Industries is headquartered in Wichita, smack-dab in the middle of his district -- and the fact that the company is by far and away his biggest campaign contributor. Since 2010, Koch Industries has given him 200,000, more than four times what his second highest contributor kicked in. Besides Koch Industries, three other oil companies are among Pompeo's top five contributors -- McCoy Petroleum, Mull Drilling and Richie Exploration -- and they're also based in Wichita. So who signed the AFP letter? About half of the signatories are local tea party affiliates and anti-wind NIMBY groups of indeterminate size and funding. The other half are, for the most part, relatively obscure national groups, but there are a few that have attracted attention over the years for their contrarian views on climate science and renewable energy. Like AFP, those groups are awash in petrodollars. The American Energy Alliance (and its parent, the Institute for Energy Research), Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedom Works, Frontiers of Freedom and Heritage Action (and its parent, the Heritage Foundation) collectively have received millions of dollars from Koch family foundations, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's premier trade association. Given that it takes years to plan, finance and construct a wind farm, Congress is again undermining the industry's potential by slow-walking the PTC extension this year. And that potential is tremendous. Wind currently generates about 4 percent of U.S. electricity, but by 2030 it could produce more than 20 percent, the U.S. Department of Energy. The DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory also is bullish on wind and renewables writ large. LAST YEAR, IT PUBLISHED A REPORT THAT CONCLUDED TODAY'S COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES COULD EASILY GENERATE 80 PERCENT OF U.S. ELECTRICITY BY 2050, WITH NEARLY HALF COMING FROM WIND. IF THE KOCH BROTHERS AND THEIR ALLIES HAVE THEIR WAY, HOWEVER, IT LIKELY WILL TAKE A LOT LONGER TO GET THERE -- AND IT WILL COST A HELL OF A LOT MORE. http://www.huffingto npost.com/elliott-ne gin/the-koch-brother s-are-sti_b_4396033. html ,, Dan Soton

3:03pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Georgina Downs wrote:
It is important that I clarify one point in relation to the latest development re pesticides to avoid any confusion. The drop from 8 metres to 2 metres is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with no spray zone distances. It is to do with the distances that the Government stipulates for the risk assessments carried out for the exposure of people in the countryside. It is completely absurd that to date the Government has ONLY based an assessment to bystanders (as until now there has not been an assessment for residents at all) on the assumption that someone will NOT be any closer than 8 metres from a sprayer. This has meant that anyone who is closer than that (and many residents in fact live within a metre away from sprayed fields, and indeed even many bystanders can walk closer to a sprayed field than 8 metres and I have many pics to show both residents and bystanders being closer than 8 metres) have not ever been accounted for. This is a serious public health issue and people in the countryside have been put in a guinea pig style experiment and it is, as I have always said, one of the biggest public health scandals of our time. It was important I clarify this after seeing a post that thought the distance issue was to do with no spray zone sizes when it has nothing to do with that at all and in fact there is not even any requirement in the Government's existing (wholly unprotective) policy for a no spray zone at all. Based on the evidence that exists internationally of how far pesticides have been shown to travel and the calculated health risks for people within those distances then no pesticides should be sprayed within at least a mile of residents' homes, schools, playgrounds etc. The only real solution to protect the health of residents and others in the countryside now, and for future generations, is to switch to totally non-chemical methods (and I DO NOT mean the red herring that is Integrated Pest Management (IPM) that a number of NGOs have been pressing for, and which is still a system that uses pesticides and will do nothing to protect people in the countryside from exposure to pesticides). Thanks, Georgina Downs, UK Pesticides Campaign www.pesticidescampai


gn.co.uk
Thanks Georgina for the clarification


I totally agree with all and especially.. It's one of the biggest public health scandals of our time, the only real solution to protect the health of residents and others in the countryside now, and for future generations, is to switch to totally non-chemical methods..

Back in late 1980s I watched a TV farming program ( probably Countryfile ) that highlighted the compulsory ( Government ) dipping of sheep in Organophosphate Pesticides which consequently lead to the poisoning of hundreds of English/Welsh hill farmers.. for that one reason alone my diet is now mainly made up of organically grown foods..


Regarding Government risk assessments .. do assessments take in both evaporation of airborne pesticides and contact with pesticide spray residues, i.e. contact and distance spray drifts before complete evaporation being of the upper most importance

I say that because I've just read an extremely sad case of 22 children in India dying after eating a free school lunch that was tainted with Organophosphate Pesticides residues..

see link

http://www.thehealth

rebel.com/insecticid

e-in-soy-kills-22-ch

ildren-in-india/



Referencing Wikipedia.. we are told OP PESTICIDES DISINTEGRATE QUICKLY IN AIR, However, OP residues linger on fruits and vegetables residues..



ORGANOPHOSPHATE POISONING

FROM WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA

OP pesticide exposure occurs through inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact. Because OP pesticides disintegrate quickly in air and light, they have been considered relatively safe to consumers. However, OP residues linger on fruits and vegetables. Certain OP pesticides have been banned for use on some crops, for example methyl parathion is banned from use on some crops while permitted on others.

The Environmental Working Group has developed lists for concerned consumers, identifying crops with the highest pesticide residue quantities and the lowest.

THE "DIRTY DOZEN" CROPS ARE UPDATED YEARLY AND IN 2012 INCLUDED APPLES, CELERY, SWEET BELL PEPPERS, PEACHES, STRAWBERRIES, IMPORTED NECTARINES, GRAPES, SPINACH, LETTUCE, CUCUMBERS, DOMESTIC BLUEBERRIES AND POTATOES.

Forty-five fruits and vegetables are listed by the Environmental Working Group as being regularly found with Pesticide residue associated with OPs.

Examples

Insecticides including malathion, parathion, diazinon, fenthion, dichlorvos, chlorpyrifos, ethion

Nerve gases including soman, sarin, tabun, VX

Ophthalmic agents: echothiophate, isoflurophate

Antihelmintics such as trichlorfon

Herbicides including tribufos , merphos are tricresyl phosphate–containi

ng industrial chemicals.

EXPOSURE TO ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE LISTED ORGANOPHOSPHATES OCCURS ON A DAILY BASIS THROUGH INHALATION, ABSORPTION, AND INGESTION, MOST COMMONLY OF FOOD THAT HAS BEEN TREATED WITH AN ORGANOPHOSPHATE HERBICIDE OR INSECTICIDE.

The chemicals chlorpyrifos and malathion have been linked to reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and birth defects. Dichlorvos has also been linked to reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, and kidney/liver damage, as well as being a possible carcinogen

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Organophosp

hate_poisoning



Thanks again Georgia you have my whole hearted support , keep up the good work..
Georgina Downs says.. Pesticides, one of the biggest public health scandals of our time..


I guess UK farmers will keep on spraying until there's overwhelming scientific evidence that neonicotinoids are toxic to life..

as far as I'm concerned the UK is in denial and risk turning overwhelming scientific evidence into an Imaginary concept



BEE PESTICIDES MAY 'HARM DEVELOPING BRAINS OF UNBORN BABIES'

Experts find chemicals that may adversely affect neurons and brain structures associated with learning and memory

Damian Carrington

theguardian.com, Tuesday 17 December 2013 16.52 GMT

Pesticides harmful to bee as well as children

Controversial pesticides linked to declines in bee populations may harm the developing brains of unborn babies, experts at the European Food Safety Authority ruled on Tuesday. They want maximum exposure limits to the chemicals cut while more research is carried out.

The experts found the chemicals "may adversely affect the development of neurons and brain structures associated with functions such as learning and memory," an EFSA statement said. "Some current guidance levels for acceptable exposure may not be protective enough to safeguard against developmental neurotoxicity and should be reduced."

The UK was one of the 8 EU member states that fought against the neonicotinoid ban, arguing the scientific evidence was insufficient, but was outvoted by other nations. A UK study of neonicotinoids and bees, which ministers said showed no evidence of harm, was said by EFSA to have "several weaknesses

http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/2
013/dec/17/bee-pesti
cides-harmful-childr
en




Thanks again Georgina you have my whole hearted support
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgina Downs[/bold] wrote: It is important that I clarify one point in relation to the latest development re pesticides to avoid any confusion. The drop from 8 metres to 2 metres is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with no spray zone distances. It is to do with the distances that the Government stipulates for the risk assessments carried out for the exposure of people in the countryside. It is completely absurd that to date the Government has ONLY based an assessment to bystanders (as until now there has not been an assessment for residents at all) on the assumption that someone will NOT be any closer than 8 metres from a sprayer. This has meant that anyone who is closer than that (and many residents in fact live within a metre away from sprayed fields, and indeed even many bystanders can walk closer to a sprayed field than 8 metres and I have many pics to show both residents and bystanders being closer than 8 metres) have not ever been accounted for. This is a serious public health issue and people in the countryside have been put in a guinea pig style experiment and it is, as I have always said, one of the biggest public health scandals of our time. It was important I clarify this after seeing a post that thought the distance issue was to do with no spray zone sizes when it has nothing to do with that at all and in fact there is not even any requirement in the Government's existing (wholly unprotective) policy for a no spray zone at all. Based on the evidence that exists internationally of how far pesticides have been shown to travel and the calculated health risks for people within those distances then no pesticides should be sprayed within at least a mile of residents' homes, schools, playgrounds etc. The only real solution to protect the health of residents and others in the countryside now, and for future generations, is to switch to totally non-chemical methods (and I DO NOT mean the red herring that is Integrated Pest Management (IPM) that a number of NGOs have been pressing for, and which is still a system that uses pesticides and will do nothing to protect people in the countryside from exposure to pesticides). Thanks, Georgina Downs, UK Pesticides Campaign www.pesticidescampai gn.co.uk[/p][/quote]Thanks Georgina for the clarification I totally agree with all and especially.. It's one of the biggest public health scandals of our time, the only real solution to protect the health of residents and others in the countryside now, and for future generations, is to switch to totally non-chemical methods.. Back in late 1980s I watched a TV farming program ( probably Countryfile ) that highlighted the compulsory ( Government ) dipping of sheep in Organophosphate Pesticides which consequently lead to the poisoning of hundreds of English/Welsh hill farmers.. for that one reason alone my diet is now mainly made up of organically grown foods.. Regarding Government risk assessments .. do assessments take in both evaporation of airborne pesticides and contact with pesticide spray residues, i.e. contact and distance spray drifts before complete evaporation being of the upper most importance I say that because I've just read an extremely sad case of 22 children in India dying after eating a free school lunch that was tainted with Organophosphate Pesticides residues.. see link http://www.thehealth rebel.com/insecticid e-in-soy-kills-22-ch ildren-in-india/ Referencing Wikipedia.. we are told OP PESTICIDES DISINTEGRATE QUICKLY IN AIR, However, OP residues linger on fruits and vegetables residues.. ORGANOPHOSPHATE POISONING FROM WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA OP pesticide exposure occurs through inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact. Because OP pesticides disintegrate quickly in air and light, they have been considered relatively safe to consumers. However, OP residues linger on fruits and vegetables. Certain OP pesticides have been banned for use on some crops, for example methyl parathion is banned from use on some crops while permitted on others. The Environmental Working Group has developed lists for concerned consumers, identifying crops with the highest pesticide residue quantities and the lowest. THE "DIRTY DOZEN" CROPS ARE UPDATED YEARLY AND IN 2012 INCLUDED APPLES, CELERY, SWEET BELL PEPPERS, PEACHES, STRAWBERRIES, IMPORTED NECTARINES, GRAPES, SPINACH, LETTUCE, CUCUMBERS, DOMESTIC BLUEBERRIES AND POTATOES. Forty-five fruits and vegetables are listed by the Environmental Working Group as being regularly found with Pesticide residue associated with OPs. Examples Insecticides including malathion, parathion, diazinon, fenthion, dichlorvos, chlorpyrifos, ethion Nerve gases including soman, sarin, tabun, VX Ophthalmic agents: echothiophate, isoflurophate Antihelmintics such as trichlorfon Herbicides including tribufos [DEF], merphos are tricresyl phosphate–containi ng industrial chemicals. EXPOSURE TO ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE LISTED ORGANOPHOSPHATES OCCURS ON A DAILY BASIS THROUGH INHALATION, ABSORPTION, AND INGESTION, MOST COMMONLY OF FOOD THAT HAS BEEN TREATED WITH AN ORGANOPHOSPHATE HERBICIDE OR INSECTICIDE. The chemicals chlorpyrifos and malathion have been linked to reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and birth defects. Dichlorvos has also been linked to reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, and kidney/liver damage, as well as being a possible carcinogen http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Organophosp hate_poisoning Thanks again Georgia you have my whole hearted support , keep up the good work..[/p][/quote]Georgina Downs says.. Pesticides, one of the biggest public health scandals of our time.. I guess UK farmers will keep on spraying until there's overwhelming scientific evidence that neonicotinoids are toxic to life.. as far as I'm concerned the UK is in denial and risk turning overwhelming scientific evidence into an Imaginary concept BEE PESTICIDES MAY 'HARM DEVELOPING BRAINS OF UNBORN BABIES' Experts find chemicals that may adversely affect neurons and brain structures associated with learning and memory Damian Carrington theguardian.com, Tuesday 17 December 2013 16.52 GMT Pesticides harmful to bee as well as children Controversial pesticides linked to declines in bee populations may harm the developing brains of unborn babies, experts at the European Food Safety Authority ruled on Tuesday. They want maximum exposure limits to the chemicals cut while more research is carried out. The experts found the chemicals "may adversely affect the development of neurons and brain structures associated with functions such as learning and memory," an EFSA statement said. "Some current guidance levels for acceptable exposure may not be protective enough to safeguard against developmental neurotoxicity and should be reduced." The UK was one of the 8 EU member states that fought against the neonicotinoid ban, arguing the scientific evidence was insufficient, but was outvoted by other nations. A UK study of neonicotinoids and bees, which ministers said showed no evidence of harm, was said by EFSA to have "several weaknesses http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 013/dec/17/bee-pesti cides-harmful-childr en Thanks again Georgina you have my whole hearted support Dan Soton

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree