Unintended Consequences

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
Federal Study Highlights Spike in Eagle Deaths at Wind Farms ? The Great Energy Challenge Blog

Federal Study Highlights Spike in Eagle Deaths at Wind Farms
Posted by Patrick J. Kiger on September 12, 2013



A newly published study by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service researchers says that wind energy facilities have killed at least 85 golden and bald eagles between 1997 and 2012—and that eagle fatalities possibly may be much higher.

The study also indicates that eagle deaths have increased dramatically in recent years as the nation has turned increasingly to wind farms as a source of renewable, low-pollution energy, with nearly 80 percent of the fatalities occurring between 2008 and 2012 alone. (See related post: “Wind Farm Faces Fine Over Golden Eagle’s Death.”)

The study, published in the September issue of Journal of Raptor Research, is one of the first efforts to calculate the injuries and deaths suffered by eagles that fly into the blades of horizontal wind turbines. Many of the areas that are promising sources of wind energy unfortunately also overlap with eagle habitats, and eagles are at risk because their senses tend to be focused upon the ground as they look for prey, rather than staring ahead to see spinning blades. Dismemberment or blunt-force trauma from colliding with the turbines seems to be the most common fate for the eagles that fly into the facilities, though at least one eagle was electrocuted.

“This adds to the concerns that we have about protecting the eagle population,” said Alicia King, a spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s migratory bird program.

However, the significance of the findings is not completely clear.

John Anderson, an official with the American Wind Energy Association, said that the eagle deaths cited in the study only represent an “extremely small portion” of human-caused mortality for both golden and bald eagle species. A statement on the industry association’s website also noted that most eagle fatalities are concentrated at a small number of older wind facilities built in the 1980s, before the interaction of eagles with turbines was well understood.

The study found that the majority of the eagle deaths between 1997 and 2012 occurred in Wyoming, which had 29 deaths, and California, which had 27. Oregon came in a distant third with six deaths, and three states—Washington, Colorado and New Mexico—each had five eagles killed during that period. (See related post: “Montana Wind Turbines Give Way to Raptors.”)

The researchers warned that the survey most likely understates the number of eagle deaths, because of a lack of rigorous monitoring and reporting. The study also excluded the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area in California, where various studies suggest that between 40 and 116 golden eagles are killed annually, according to a 2006 California Energy Commission report, though recently the farm has shown progress in reducing overall bird deaths. (See related post: “Notorious Altamont Wind Area Becomes Safer for Birds.”)

Fish and Wildlife official King said there is a lack of reliable data about overall eagle mortality, but noted that wind energy facilities are just one of numerous risks to the birds, who also die in collisions with power lines and buildings, and are sometimes killed by cars while eating roadkill.
 
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1029-1042.pdf

Therefore, on average, we calculate approximately 20,000 (3.04 times 6374 MW) to 37,000 (2.11 times 17,500 turbines) die annually from collisions with wind turbines in the United States.

Oil Pits
Man-made pits associated with oil and gas development are another well-documented source of bird mortality. Esmoil (1995) found 282 dead birds during weekly sampling of 35 oil pits in 1989, and 334 dead birds during weekly sampling of 53 pits in 1990. The largest affected taxonomic group was passerines (41 percent). Banks (1979), based on estimates made for the San Joaquin Valley in the early 1970s, conservatively estimated 1.5 million birds die annually due to these pits.

We use the mean estimate (adjusted for scavenging and searcher efficiency bias) of 750,000/2,875 = 261/mile of high tension line. Extrapolating the mid-range of this estimate to the 500,000 miles (800,000 km) of bulk transmission lines in the United States would lead to a fatality estimate of approximately 130 million birds per year. Given the large, but unknown number of miles of power and other high tension lines in the U.S., and the lack of standardized data in the U.S., this estimate may be off by an order of magnitude or more.
 
Eagles killed by wind turbines are guaranteed passage to Paradise. It is an honor for them to be sacrificed to the god Wind Power.

Where do people go, Dave, who intentionally use bad science to prevent humanity from responding to a serious threat?
 
There is no choice between birds and electricity. The high power lines that crisscross our nation have a far higher kill of birds than do the windmills. And the oil pits from petroleum extraction has a far higher kill than the mill and power lines put together. This is just another red herring put together by the 'Conservative' luddites.
 
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1029-1042.pdf

Therefore, on average, we calculate approximately 20,000 (3.04 times 6374 MW) to 37,000 (2.11 times 17,500 turbines) die annually from collisions with wind turbines in the United States.

Oil Pits
Man-made pits associated with oil and gas development are another well-documented source of bird mortality. Esmoil (1995) found 282 dead birds during weekly sampling of 35 oil pits in 1989, and 334 dead birds during weekly sampling of 53 pits in 1990. The largest affected taxonomic group was passerines (41 percent). Banks (1979), based on estimates made for the San Joaquin Valley in the early 1970s, conservatively estimated 1.5 million birds die annually due to these pits.

We use the mean estimate (adjusted for scavenging and searcher efficiency bias) of 750,000/2,875 = 261/mile of high tension line. Extrapolating the mid-range of this estimate to the 500,000 miles (800,000 km) of bulk transmission lines in the United States would lead to a fatality estimate of approximately 130 million birds per year. Given the large, but unknown number of miles of power and other high tension lines in the U.S., and the lack of standardized data in the U.S., this estimate may be off by an order of magnitude or more.

But how many of those were large birds of prey as discussed here? Environmentalists were perfectly willing to sacrifice millions of human lives in third world countries to malaria to ban DDT because it threated these birds. Now someone brings up thier precsious wind turbines and the kills get poo-poohed as a nessesary evil.

Hypocrites, all of you.
 
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1029-1042.pdf

Therefore, on average, we calculate approximately 20,000 (3.04 times 6374 MW) to 37,000 (2.11 times 17,500 turbines) die annually from collisions with wind turbines in the United States.

Oil Pits
Man-made pits associated with oil and gas development are another well-documented source of bird mortality. Esmoil (1995) found 282 dead birds during weekly sampling of 35 oil pits in 1989, and 334 dead birds during weekly sampling of 53 pits in 1990. The largest affected taxonomic group was passerines (41 percent). Banks (1979), based on estimates made for the San Joaquin Valley in the early 1970s, conservatively estimated 1.5 million birds die annually due to these pits.

We use the mean estimate (adjusted for scavenging and searcher efficiency bias) of 750,000/2,875 = 261/mile of high tension line. Extrapolating the mid-range of this estimate to the 500,000 miles (800,000 km) of bulk transmission lines in the United States would lead to a fatality estimate of approximately 130 million birds per year. Given the large, but unknown number of miles of power and other high tension lines in the U.S., and the lack of standardized data in the U.S., this estimate may be off by an order of magnitude or more.

But how many of those were large birds of prey as discussed here? Environmentalists were perfectly willing to sacrifice millions of human lives in third world countries to malaria to ban DDT because it threated these birds. Now someone brings up thier precsious wind turbines and the kills get poo-poohed as a nessesary evil.

Hypocrites, all of you.

Damn. Are you truly that fucking stupid? DDT is not banned from use in third world nations for use on malarial mosquitoes. It is not used in many places because the mosquitoes have developed an immunity to it. If you are going to regurgitate the ravings of an obese junkie on the radio, at least credit your source.
 
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1029-1042.pdf

Therefore, on average, we calculate approximately 20,000 (3.04 times 6374 MW) to 37,000 (2.11 times 17,500 turbines) die annually from collisions with wind turbines in the United States.

Oil Pits
Man-made pits associated with oil and gas development are another well-documented source of bird mortality. Esmoil (1995) found 282 dead birds during weekly sampling of 35 oil pits in 1989, and 334 dead birds during weekly sampling of 53 pits in 1990. The largest affected taxonomic group was passerines (41 percent). Banks (1979), based on estimates made for the San Joaquin Valley in the early 1970s, conservatively estimated 1.5 million birds die annually due to these pits.

We use the mean estimate (adjusted for scavenging and searcher efficiency bias) of 750,000/2,875 = 261/mile of high tension line. Extrapolating the mid-range of this estimate to the 500,000 miles (800,000 km) of bulk transmission lines in the United States would lead to a fatality estimate of approximately 130 million birds per year. Given the large, but unknown number of miles of power and other high tension lines in the U.S., and the lack of standardized data in the U.S., this estimate may be off by an order of magnitude or more.

But how many of those were large birds of prey as discussed here? Environmentalists were perfectly willing to sacrifice millions of human lives in third world countries to malaria to ban DDT because it threated these birds. Now someone brings up thier precsious wind turbines and the kills get poo-poohed as a nessesary evil.

Hypocrites, all of you.

Damn. Are you truly that fucking stupid? DDT is not banned from use in third world nations for use on malarial mosquitoes. It is not used in many places because the mosquitoes have developed an immunity to it. If you are going to regurgitate the ravings of an obese junkie on the radio, at least credit your source.

I dont listen to Rush dipshit.

and from wikipedia:

It has also been alleged that donor governments and agencies have refused to fund DDT spraying, or made aid contingent upon not using DDT. According to a report in the British Medical Journal, use of DDT in Mozambique "was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT."[129] Roger Bate asserts, "many countries have been coming under pressure from international health and environment agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants: Belize and Bolivia are on record admitting they gave in to pressure on this issue from [USAID]."[130]

Souce 129: Malaria epidemic expected in Mozambique

Source 130: CID at Harvard University :: A Case of the DDTs: The war against the war against malaria, National Review, 5/14/01

DDT use decline in Africa after Rachel Carsons screed, and people started dying more. A ban on agricultural use, which made sense, turned into a de facto ban on residential use for mosquito control. Typical environementalist all or nothing mentaility.
 
65 birds isn't a big deal....

Oil, cars, and smog from coal kill millions.

Provide sources for those numbers, or shove it.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publication.../1029-1042.pdf

Therefore, on average, we calculate approximately 20,000 (3.04 times 6374 MW) to 37,000 (2.11 times 17,500 turbines) die annually from collisions with wind turbines in the United States.

Oil Pits
Man-made pits associated with oil and gas development are another well-documented source of bird mortality. Esmoil (1995) found 282 dead birds during weekly sampling of 35 oil pits in 1989, and 334 dead birds during weekly sampling of 53 pits in 1990. The largest affected taxonomic group was passerines (41 percent). Banks (1979), based on estimates made for the San Joaquin Valley in the early 1970s, conservatively estimated 1.5 million birds die annually due to these pits.

We use the mean estimate (adjusted for scavenging and searcher efficiency bias) of 750,000/2,875 = 261/mile of high tension line. Extrapolating the mid-range of this estimate to the 500,000 miles (800,000 km) of bulk transmission lines in the United States would lead to a fatality estimate of approximately 130 million birds per year. Given the large, but unknown number of miles of power and other high tension lines in the U.S., and the lack of standardized data in the U.S., this estimate may be off by an order of magnitude or more.
 
Eagles killed by wind turbines are guaranteed passage to Paradise. It is an honor for them to be sacrificed to the god Wind Power.

Where do people go, Dave, who intentionally use bad science to prevent humanity from responding to a serious threat?
:rofl: So now you're saying I face eternal damnation because I'm helping expose your fraud.


And you get angry when we say AGW is a cult.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1029-1042.pdf

Therefore, on average, we calculate approximately 20,000 (3.04 times 6374 MW) to 37,000 (2.11 times 17,500 turbines) die annually from collisions with wind turbines in the United States.

Oil Pits
Man-made pits associated with oil and gas development are another well-documented source of bird mortality. Esmoil (1995) found 282 dead birds during weekly sampling of 35 oil pits in 1989, and 334 dead birds during weekly sampling of 53 pits in 1990. The largest affected taxonomic group was passerines (41 percent). Banks (1979), based on estimates made for the San Joaquin Valley in the early 1970s, conservatively estimated 1.5 million birds die annually due to these pits.

We use the mean estimate (adjusted for scavenging and searcher efficiency bias) of 750,000/2,875 = 261/mile of high tension line. Extrapolating the mid-range of this estimate to the 500,000 miles (800,000 km) of bulk transmission lines in the United States would lead to a fatality estimate of approximately 130 million birds per year. Given the large, but unknown number of miles of power and other high tension lines in the U.S., and the lack of standardized data in the U.S., this estimate may be off by an order of magnitude or more.

But how many of those were large birds of prey as discussed here? Environmentalists were perfectly willing to sacrifice millions of human lives in third world countries to malaria to ban DDT because it threated these birds. Now someone brings up thier precsious wind turbines and the kills get poo-poohed as a nessesary evil.

Hypocrites, all of you.

Damn. Are you truly that fucking stupid? DDT is not banned from use in third world nations for use on malarial mosquitoes. It is not used in many places because the mosquitoes have developed an immunity to it. If you are going to regurgitate the ravings of an obese junkie on the radio, at least credit your source.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/opinion/20roberts.html?_r=0
DDT, the miracle insecticide turned environmental bogeyman, is once again playing an important role in public health. In the malaria-plagued regions of Africa, where mosquitoes are becoming resistant to other chemicals, DDT is now being used as an indoor repellent. Research that I and my colleagues recently conducted shows that DDT is the most effective pesticide for spraying on walls, because it can keep mosquitoes from even entering the room.

The news may seem surprising, as some mosquitoes worldwide are already resistant to DDT. But we’ve learned that even mosquitoes that have developed an immunity to being directly poisoned by DDT are still repelled by it.

--

Today, indoor DDT spraying to control malaria in Africa is supported by the World Health Organization; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and the United States Agency for International Development.

The remaining concern has been that the greater use of DDT in Africa would only lead mosquitoes to develop resistance to it. Decades ago, such resistance developed wherever DDT crop spraying was common. After the DDT bans went into effect in the United States and elsewhere, it continued to be used extensively for agriculture in Africa, and this exerted a powerful pressure on mosquitoes there to develop resistance. Although DDT is now prohibited for crop spraying in Africa, a few mosquito species there are still resistant to it. But DDT has other mechanisms of acting against mosquitoes beyond killing them. It also functions as a “spatial repellent,” keeping mosquitoes from entering areas where it has been sprayed, and as a “contact irritant,” making insects that come in contact with it so irritated they leave.

--

DDT’s spatial repellency, by keeping mosquitoes from making physical contact, reduces the likelihood that the insects will develop resistance. Even those mosquitoes already resistant to poisoning by DDT are repelled by it.

It would be a mistake to think we could rely on DDT alone to fight mosquitoes in Africa. Fortunately, research aimed at developing new and better insecticides continues — thanks especially to the work of the international Innovative Vector Control Consortium. Until a suitable alternative is found, however, DDT remains the cheapest and most effective long-term malaria fighter we have.​
 
But how many of those were large birds of prey as discussed here? Environmentalists were perfectly willing to sacrifice millions of human lives in third world countries to malaria to ban DDT because it threated these birds. Now someone brings up thier precsious wind turbines and the kills get poo-poohed as a nessesary evil.

Hypocrites, all of you.

Damn. Are you truly that fucking stupid? DDT is not banned from use in third world nations for use on malarial mosquitoes. It is not used in many places because the mosquitoes have developed an immunity to it. If you are going to regurgitate the ravings of an obese junkie on the radio, at least credit your source.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/opinion/20roberts.html?_r=0
DDT, the miracle insecticide turned environmental bogeyman, is once again playing an important role in public health. In the malaria-plagued regions of Africa, where mosquitoes are becoming resistant to other chemicals, DDT is now being used as an indoor repellent. Research that I and my colleagues recently conducted shows that DDT is the most effective pesticide for spraying on walls, because it can keep mosquitoes from even entering the room.

The news may seem surprising, as some mosquitoes worldwide are already resistant to DDT. But we’ve learned that even mosquitoes that have developed an immunity to being directly poisoned by DDT are still repelled by it.

--

Today, indoor DDT spraying to control malaria in Africa is supported by the World Health Organization; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and the United States Agency for International Development.

The remaining concern has been that the greater use of DDT in Africa would only lead mosquitoes to develop resistance to it. Decades ago, such resistance developed wherever DDT crop spraying was common. After the DDT bans went into effect in the United States and elsewhere, it continued to be used extensively for agriculture in Africa, and this exerted a powerful pressure on mosquitoes there to develop resistance. prohibited for crop spraying in Africa, a few mosquito species there areAlthough DDT is now still resistant to it. But DDT has other mechanisms of acting against mosquitoes beyond killing them. It also functions as a “spatial repellent,” keeping mosquitoes from entering areas where it has been sprayed, and as a “contact irritant,” making insects that come in contact with it so irritated they leave.

--

DDT’s spatial repellency, by keeping mosquitoes from making physical contact, reduces the likelihood that the insects will develop resistance. Even those mosquitoes already resistant to poisoning by DDT are repelled by it.

It would be a mistake to think we could rely on DDT alone to fight mosquitoes in Africa. Fortunately, research aimed at developing new and better insecticides continues — thanks especially to the work of the international Innovative Vector Control Consortium. Until a suitable alternative is found, however, DDT remains the cheapest and most effective long-term malaria fighter we have.​

Exactly what I said. DDT is not prohibited, and we even provide funds for its use. What is prohibited is the crop spraying that resulted in the development of resistance to DDT by the mosquitoes.
 
There is no choice between birds and electricity. The high power lines that crisscross our nation have a far higher kill of birds than do the windmills.
Oh, yeah, you get credit for the kills caused by new lines out to the wind farms, too.

OK. And you can take all the credit for the millions of birds killed by petroleum extraction. See how that works?
 
Damn. Are you truly that fucking stupid? DDT is not banned from use in third world nations for use on malarial mosquitoes. It is not used in many places because the mosquitoes have developed an immunity to it. If you are going to regurgitate the ravings of an obese junkie on the radio, at least credit your source.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/opinion/20roberts.html?_r=0
DDT, the miracle insecticide turned environmental bogeyman, is once again playing an important role in public health. In the malaria-plagued regions of Africa, where mosquitoes are becoming resistant to other chemicals, DDT is now being used as an indoor repellent. Research that I and my colleagues recently conducted shows that DDT is the most effective pesticide for spraying on walls, because it can keep mosquitoes from even entering the room.

The news may seem surprising, as some mosquitoes worldwide are already resistant to DDT. But we’ve learned that even mosquitoes that have developed an immunity to being directly poisoned by DDT are still repelled by it.

--

Today, indoor DDT spraying to control malaria in Africa is supported by the World Health Organization; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and the United States Agency for International Development.

The remaining concern has been that the greater use of DDT in Africa would only lead mosquitoes to develop resistance to it. Decades ago, such resistance developed wherever DDT crop spraying was common. After the DDT bans went into effect in the United States and elsewhere, it continued to be used extensively for agriculture in Africa, and this exerted a powerful pressure on mosquitoes there to develop resistance. prohibited for crop spraying in Africa, a few mosquito species there areAlthough DDT is now still resistant to it. But DDT has other mechanisms of acting against mosquitoes beyond killing them. It also functions as a “spatial repellent,” keeping mosquitoes from entering areas where it has been sprayed, and as a “contact irritant,” making insects that come in contact with it so irritated they leave.

--

DDT’s spatial repellency, by keeping mosquitoes from making physical contact, reduces the likelihood that the insects will develop resistance. Even those mosquitoes already resistant to poisoning by DDT are repelled by it.

It would be a mistake to think we could rely on DDT alone to fight mosquitoes in Africa. Fortunately, research aimed at developing new and better insecticides continues — thanks especially to the work of the international Innovative Vector Control Consortium. Until a suitable alternative is found, however, DDT remains the cheapest and most effective long-term malaria fighter we have.​

Exactly what I said. DDT is not prohibited, and we even provide funds for its use. What is prohibited is the crop spraying that resulted in the development of resistance to DDT by the mosquitoes.
That's not quite exactly what you said.

"It is not used in many places because the mosquitoes have developed an immunity to it."

It's not used as a crop spray, but as a repellent, it's ideal because it repels even immune mosquitoes.
 

Forum List

Back
Top