Home Viewpoints Politics The Enemy of My Enemy? Friday, 03 July 2009
             
The Enemy of My Enemy? PDF Print E-mail
Tuesday, 19 August 2008 07:21

For years, commentators on the right have railed against the problems trial lawyers cause to legitimate businesses.  Some of the most famous instances of legalistic excess have become household jokes.  We"ve all heard of the time McDonald"s was sued for millions by a lady who dumped her hot coffee in her lap and found it to be, well, hot.  Books have been published and the Internet stuffed full of countless similar examples.  It"s easy to blame lawyers for all manner of problems and excessive expenses; "tort reform" is a perennial goal of Republicans, yet a never-achieved one.

The dreadful costs of a litigious society are a two-edged sword.  Ridiculous lawsuits can fell otherwise powerful companies and can make construction or other changes take forever, and ever, and ever, until they"re finally abandoned.  As Americans, we believe in progress, so this is usually bad.  But as we"ve discussed, change just for its own sake is unwise.  Some changes are bad and should be stopped.  The Oregonian brings us a report that presents a great opportunity for the right to use the left"s favorite weapon against them.

Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y., coined the phrase "wind turbine syndrome" for what she says happens to some people living near wind energy farms. She has made the phrase part of the title of a book she"s written called "Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on the Natural Experiment." It is scheduled for publication next month by K-Selected Press, of Santa Fe, N.M.  In contrast to those who consider wind turbines clean, green and an ideal source of renewable energy, Pierpont says living or working too close to them has a downside. Her research says wind turbines should never be built closer than two miles from homes...

Pierpont"s findings suggest that low-frequency noise and vibration generated by wind machines can have an effect on the inner ear, triggering headaches; difficulty sleeping; tinnitus, or ringing in the ears; learning and mood disorders; panic attacks; irritability; disruption of equilibrium, concentration and memory; and childhood behavior problems.

Concerns also are coming out of Europe about low-frequency noise from newly built wind turbines. For example, British physician Amanda Harry, in a February 2007 article titled "Wind Turbines, Noise and Health," wrote of 39 people, including residents of New Zealand and Australia, who suffered from the sounds emitted by wind turbines.

Is this research convincing?  Who knows?  But is it not the left that demands we apply the "Precautionary Principle" to everything?  This misbegotten "rule" claims that the promoters of anything new must be obliged to prove its safety before it can be used anywhere.  We"ve explored the reasons why that"s ridiculous: most good things have potential hazards, but the benefits outweigh the hazards.  However, the benefits are not fully understood or realized until the innovation is in use, whereas at least the most severe hazards can be clearly predicted.  The inventor of fire couldn"t have imagined its use in cars or rocketships, but he sure did notice the pain when he got his finger too close to the flames.

As dumb as the "Precautionary Principle" is, though, the left tries to apply it to everything good.  It seems only fair to hold them to the same standard, doesn"t it?  If it were a petroleum refinery or nuclear plant being constructed, technologies which have seen decades of mostly safe use, the local judge would be buried under a pile of lawsuits filed by radical environmentalists - which is why there have been no new refineries or nuke plants built in many years, leading to today"s high prices, shortages, or both.  Where is the lawyer willing to use the exact same tactics against this new idol to environmental political correctness, the windmill?

And who knows?  Once the environmentalists see the havoc that frivolous lawsuits wreak on their beloved pet projects, well, maybe that will finally collect enough allies to bring on desperately needed tort reform.  Harness the winds of change!

Visit my Blog...

Comments
Discuss Viewpoint
Title: (optional)
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
Receive update notifications?

3.23 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 

MBAA Poll

Via the Interest Rate, what can the Federal Reserve Affect?
 

Quotes

Obviously everyone wants to be successful, but I want to be looked back on as being very innovative, very trusted and ethical and ultimately making a big difference in the world. - Sergey Brin

Visit Sponsors

Your are currently browsing this site with Internet Explorer 6 (IE6).

Your current web browser must be updated to version 7 of Internet Explorer (IE7) to take advantage of all of template's capabilities.

Why should I upgrade to Internet Explorer 7? Microsoft has redesigned Internet Explorer from the ground up, with better security, new capabilities, and a whole new interface. Many changes resulted from the feedback of millions of users who tested prerelease versions of the new browser. The most compelling reason to upgrade is the improved security. The Internet of today is not the Internet of five years ago. There are dangers that simply didn't exist back in 2001, when Internet Explorer 6 was released to the world. Internet Explorer 7 makes surfing the web fundamentally safer by offering greater protection against viruses, spyware, and other online risks.

Get free downloads for Internet Explorer 7, including recommended updates as they become available. To download Internet Explorer 7 in the language of your choice, please visit the Internet Explorer 7 worldwide page.