Compensation paid on the basis proximity to Windfarm may be a health threat

SusieBlue

That isn't the first spurious claim that family has been involved in, they are well known for these kinds of antics.

Runaways

Soooo....wind causes injuries and we now can all claim

Just hilarious

Runaways

We could heat every house in Ireland for decades with the hot air from this very forum and here they are getting angry about some wind or some gawl making money from an imaginary injury from the wind.

Never change ireland

10000maniacs

They should do what they do in Holland and the UK. Put the wind turbines out at sea. Hugh arrays of wind turbines doing nobody any harm.

Cordell

_Brian wrote: »

House near us gets shadow flicker from turbines, have to say it would drive me nuts if it were my house.

Sure, but will it cause your nose to bleed, skin to rash, hands to swell and ears to ache?

TheBoyConor

10000maniacs wrote: »

They should do what they do in Holland and the UK. Put the wind turbines out at sea. Hugh arrays of wind turbines doing nobody any harm.

hazard to shipping, hazard to marine life, vastly more expensive to construct and vastly more difficult and expensive to maintain and operate.

Plumbthedepths

Runaways wrote: »

Soooo....wind causes injuries and we now can all claim

Just hilarious

Hilarious that you ignored the fact the injuries are attributed to a wind turbine .
Doubt you can claim injuries caused by a wind turbine if you live nowhere near one.
Well done on the outrage though.

Muahahaha

Would imagine that ruling is pretty serious for the wind industry, especially when trying to get permission for new turbines as well as more claims coming down the track.

Was reading before that land based turbines are pretty inefficient compared to what can be achieved at sea where the turbines can be a lot bigger. Isnt there plans afoot for a large wind farm off the east coast?

The Satanist

There's turbines about 75km from me and everytime I drink 26 pints I have a rotten headache. Where's my ****in money?

jiltloop

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

I accepted it can be affected in an earlier post sure, I'm still waiting to be told why that should be anyone's concern other than the property owner themselves.


Again, if they wanted a solid investment, they should not have picked a house.

I think your logic on buying a house is flawed. I bought a house, not as an investment but to live in for the rest of my life. I (like everyone else) pay a level of interest on the house which means by the time the mortgage is paid off I will have paid the value of the house plus around 50-60% (if i'm lucky!). Also anytime I need to switch my mortgage providers I have to pay for a valuation on the house, this valuation could have serious repercussions on the rate I must pay on my mortgage or even the ability to switch at all. If you were not able to switch you are forced to accept the rate of the bank you are currently locked in with.

If you're buying a house to live in and you don't consider the future value of the house then I think you are very ill advised.

Tacitus Kilgore

jiltloop wrote: »

I think your logic on buying a house is flawed. I bought a house, not as an investment but to live in for the rest of my life. I (like everyone else) pay a level of interest on the house which means by the time the mortgage is paid off I will have paid the value of the house plus around 50-60% (if i'm lucky!). Also anytime I need to switch my mortgage providers I have to pay for a valuation on the house, this valuation could have serious repercussions on the rate I must pay on my mortgage or even the ability to switch at all. If you were not able to switch you are forced to accept the rate of the bank you are currently locked in with.

If you're buying a house to live in and you don't consider the future value of the house then I think you are very ill advised.

I am considering it, I am considering that the value can both go up, which in simple terms would reduce my LTV, and that the value can also go down, decreasing my LTV.

I am not going into the purchase without being wise to the fact that these values and many of the factors that go into the assessment of same are completely out of my control.

Using house values as an argument against creating infrastructure is not acceptable from my viewpoint.

jiltloop

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

I am considering it, I am considering that the value can both go up, which in simple terms would reduce my LTV, and that the value can also go down, decreasing my LTV.

I am not going into the purchase without being wise to the fact that these values and many of the factors that go into the assessment of same are completely out of my control.

Using house values as an argument against creating infrastructure is not acceptable from my viewpoint.

Generally I agree but it would be unreasonable to completely disregard the investments people have made in their homes. Because no matter how much you say that a home isn't or shouldn't be an investment it most certainly is even if you intend to never resell and that's my point.

That's not to say I agree with opposing wind farms being built beside someone's home. In most cases as long as there is some consideration by planners to nearby residents I don't think they should be opposed. the effects of wind farms on residents is definitely blown (pun intended) out of proportion but's not to say that there is no effect on them (for example, look up strobing effects from wind turbines).

Beasty

Thread merged

10000maniacs

Muahahaha wrote: »

Would imagine that ruling is pretty serious for the wind industry, especially when trying to get permission for new turbines as well as more claims coming down the track.

Was reading before that land based turbines are pretty inefficient compared to what can be achieved at sea where the turbines can be a lot bigger. Isnt there plans afoot for a large wind farm off the east coast?

I hope there were no army deafness claimants making claims about the noisy turbines.

hatrickpatrick

In fairness, this would drive you absolutely mental after a while:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQksc1-5Zoc

It's fairly obvious that these things shouldn't be built in locations where they will impact somebody's day to day home life to this extent. That kind of pulsating light for hours at a time would drive anyone up the wall IMO.

mikemac2

facehugger99 wrote: »

There's a sizable cohort in this country, who want every mod-con available to them but will whinge and whine if a necessary part of the underlying infrastructure, to support their modern lives, is placed within a few miles of them.

Crying about the health hazards of mobile phone masts while blasting the networks for poor coverage is the most common example in rural Ireland

Gynoid

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In fairness, this would drive you absolutely mental after a while:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQksc1-5Zoc

It's fairly obvious that these things shouldn't be built in locations where they will impact somebody's day to day home life to this extent. That kind of pulsating light for hours at a time would drive anyone up the wall IMO.

Horrible.
They also create a very low but noticeable "whomp" sound. A pal of mine who had them built very close to their house says there is an actual feeling in the body when outside. I think it is quite plausible.