Killing Eagles (Page 2): I Believe that if you look at third party studies there are not nearly as many killed as people that have an agenda would have you believe.

Toby

Canisdirus wrote:

No one wants to talk about that.
Those wind turbines are bird and bat killing machines.

I Believe that if you look at third party studies there are not nearly as many killed as people that have an agenda would have you believe.

Canisdirus

Toby wrote:

I Believe that if you look at third party studies there are not nearly as many killed as people that have an agenda would have you believe.

Source them, please.
What I see is the green industry for the most part...doesn't want to report anything about it.
The media does the same.

Raptors are especially drawn to windmill farms by the non-raptor birds already killed/wounded and fallen on the ground.

The problem with these farms is...they are put smack dab into the wind highways (naturally) that the birds have been using for millennia. The idea that it is green energy...is the final insult to intelligence.

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

The numbers I posted were from the USDA. Numbers from the Smithsonian Magazine, Nature Magazine and US Fish and Wildlife Service were similar. There is plenty of media attention given to the subject. All you have to do is Google it. So while we're at it - why didn't you source your statements?

Canisdirus

rplain1 wrote:

The numbers I posted were from the USDA. Numbers from the Smithsonian Magazine, Nature Magazine and US Fish and Wildlife Service were similar. There is plenty of media attention given to the subject. All you have to do is Google it. So while we're at it - why didn't you source your statements?

Here's one I found in 30 seconds... it's alarming.
I'm against the trade-off for an inefficient energy source.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160929143808.htm

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

Canisdirus wrote:

Here's one I found in 30 seconds... it's alarming.
I'm against the trade-off for an inefficient energy source.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160929143808.htm

Your article does not state over what period of time those deaths occurred. However, even if those are annual deaths, they come to less than 500,000. I am much more concerned with the 920,000,000 deaths from other human sources.

Canisdirus

rplain1 wrote:

Your article does not state over what period of time those deaths occurred. However, even if those are annual deaths, they come to less than 500,000. I am much more concerned with the 920,000,000 deaths from other human sources.

Well...more importantly..it's a single site!
The damage done is quite apparent.
We are talking about placing more importance on an energy source we actually can do without (we have alternatives)...
Over something, we cannot do without. It's also blatantly unfair...those are their wind highways after all...
Do we have to have...everything?

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

It is not a single site - those are world-wide figures.

Toby

Canisdirus wrote:

Source them, please.
What I see is the green industry for the most part...doesn't want to report anything about it.
The media does the same.

Raptors are especially drawn to windmill farms by the non-raptor birds already killed/wounded and fallen on the ground.

The problem with these farms is...they are put smack dab into the wind highways (naturally) that the birds have been using for millennia. The idea that it is green energy...is the final insult to intelligence.

Thank you and everyone who listed a reliable source. I would have listed my source but I read the report several years ago but do not remember exactly when or where. A local public school was considering installing a few windmills and it raised concerns about bird kills. The local paper published a study that was done by having a third party investigate how many and what type of dead birds they found under windmills. The results showed few bodies.
Windmills are not like fans and I oftened wondered why, after seeing the acrobatic flights some birds make, they couldn't avoid the blades. I think there are many birds, at least at my house , killed by flying into my windows every year. Multiply that by the number of houses! Maybe I shouldn't feed them in front of my windows.
Lastly, if we compare birds lost to windmills versus from polution from other forms of energy generation sources it might be interesting.

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

DirtFarmer wrote:

There is still some controversy about this. While experimental studies (in the '60s) showed thinning of egg shells in some birds fed traces of DDT, other studies pointed out problems with the original studies. DDT was banned based on the original studies but there is some suggestion that it might be brought back to address malaria issues in some countries today.

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

DirtFarmer wrote:

There is still some controversy about this. While experimental studies (in the '60s) showed thinning of egg shells in some birds fed traces of DDT, other studies pointed out problems with the original studies. DDT was banned based on the original studies but there is some suggestion that it might be brought back to address malaria issues in some countries today.

You're absolutely correct. There are no solutions, only trade-offs. There is a lot of information circulating about DDT, some of it accurate, some of it lore. DDT was banned in the early 70's, primarily due to the Carson book and studies done at the time. Some species of birds have reemerged since then but at what cost? Approximately 500,000 people die from malaria each year, two-thirds of them children. The reason is that a truly effective pesticide like DDT is not generally available. In our litigious world, it's a big gamble for a chemical company to try and develop a DDT replacement and so far none has.

Different species have different reactions to the same chemical. And it is true that fat-soluble chemicals like DDT can bioaccumulate and there may be some chronic toxicity issues associated with that but it is not acutely toxic for humans. You can eat it but wouldn't recommend it for any species. There is also the issue with toxic vs hazardous. Toxicity is the potential to cause harm. Hazardous it to likelihood that that harm will occur. Many chemicals are toxic, far fewer are hazardous. Some view no action as reckless. But premature action can also be reckless. I't a complicated issue, be careful what you wish for.

Canisdirus

Toby wrote:

Thank you and everyone who listed a reliable sourc... (show quote)

Lol...what?
Who cares if anyone ponders why they cannot avoid them...the fact is...they don't.
I'm an environmentalist and am all for good solutions...
Windmill farms are NOT one of them.