Great blog by Patti Kellar, describing the dire situation in Ontario.

It could easily have been describing Ireland.

It is important to keep smiling, despite the madness all around.


About Neil van Dokkum

Neil van Dokkum (B. SocSc; LLB; LLM; PGC Con.Lit) Neil is a law lecturer and has been so since arriving in Ireland from South Africa in 2002. Prior to that Neil worked in a leading firm of solicitors from 1987-1992, before being admitted as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of South Africa (a barrister) in 1992. He published three books in South Africa on employment law and unfair dismissal, as well as being published in numerous national and international peer-reviewed journals. Neil currently specialises in employment law, medical negligence law, family law and child protection law. He dabbles in EU law (procurement and energy). Neil retired from practice in 2002 to take up a full-time lecturing post. He has published three books since then, “Nursing Law for Irish Students (2005); “Evidence” (2007); and “Nursing Law for Students in Ireland” (2011). He is an accredited and practising mediator and is busy writing a book, with Dr Sinead Conneely, on Mediation in Ireland. His current interest is Ireland’s energy policy and its impact on the people and the environment. He is also researching the area of disability as a politico-economic construct. Neil is very happily married to Fiona, and they have two sons, Rory and Ian.
This entry was posted in EirGrid; Insurance; Law; Cancer; EMF. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. fclauson says:

    The problem with the internet is that truths get turned into factoids which get turned in to sound bites which get turned into nonsense

    The notion that a wind turbine will never repay is embedded carbon deficit is farcical – its not me saying that – I will leave it to the NREL in the US

    to quote: Wind energy’s total life cycle GHG emissions are similar to other renewables and nuclear energy, and much lower than fossil fuel.

  2. Pat Swords says:


    A valid point, but this is only a superficial analysis presented by NREL. Until you can demonstrate what is the value of avoiding a tonne of carbon, i.e. what is its environmental damage cost, all you are doing is calculating silly numbers. As I point out to people, children learn to count in the kindergarten phase, adults, when they reach that stage and not all children do, should know the value of what they are counting. So this carbon counting is what would have traditionally been referred to as a ‘false god’. If you can’t demonstrate that you have a value worked out for a tonne of carbon avoided, then with this carbon counting you are only paying homage to a new form of ‘group think’ / cult.

    In fairness, I think the author was right to raise this issue herself, in that you have to go to the core of the justification, if these turbines can’t actually deliver any impact on the weather, and there isn’t the slightest evidence that they can, then the whole thing is based on delusions. There is no environmental doomsday, just chronically bad and unaccountable decision making.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s