quote:
Originally posted by gypsy69
SO Alaska doesn't get a kick back?. Texas or South Dakota doesn't have cheaper gas or tax?. Geothermal and helco are promising what in the future for Puna? Why has geothermal not paid for an independent health study to clear their bad business rep?. The quicker the state works with the existing plant regarding heath studies or sharing of gross royalties back to the community the better for everyone right?. Schools, hospital, roads, ect.. are needed for their future here as well as ours. Oahu needs geo, not Puna. If and only IF some bad disaster happens here like what just happened in the Phillipines, we here in Puna are going to be in a similar situation. So help us help you approach should be taken. I am truly sorry for pointing out the obvious again but why no health study after 30 years? Why does no one mention the thousands of gallons of waste or the mixed other chemicals in geothermal's input and output on a daily basis. We don't just smell water heated by rocks a handful of times a year, and the noise of the drilling carries through the lava tubes so a sound barrier wouldn't always fix the problem. This is just a thought, but there seems to be a large number of boy's born in leilani compared to girl's in the last 10 year's?. Is it possible the chemical's released by geothermal could affect our future families?. I know of 25 boy's and only 1 girl born in leilani in the last 10 years. Please enlighten me if I am wrong, now a good impartial health study could look into these concerns and other's right?. I only brought up one of many of leilani's concern's when you listen to the PEOPLE.
Couple of points gypsy69: health studies were done back in the 1980's - they didn't find any credible impact from the geothermal then but, of course, they weren't adequate according to those who want no geothermal anywhere. And I expect if the State or the County does another one that finds no impacts, then that one will also be deemed inadequate by the same people. There is an excellent study published on the effects, or lack thereof, of exposure to geothermal emissions in Rotorua New Zealand where the hydrogen sulfide exposures are far higher than anything experienced in Puna. It is the best study of long term exposure to hydrogen sulfide (and other geothermal emissions) that has been published anywhere - and it found no adverse impact on respiratory health associated with the exposure - in fact, the study found a decrease in adverse respiratory episodes for people living in the elevated hydrogen sulfide area compared to those living outside that area. The epidemiologists conducting the study speculated that the hydrogen sulfide exposure actually had a therapeutic effect since people with reactive airway syndrome-like problems are often characterized by lower than average
endogenous levels of hydrogen sulfide in their cells (endogenous - meaning that your body naturally produces hydrogen sulfide in the cell). That information was provided to the health effects study group, but entirely ignored it in their assessment of the potential health effects from geothermal emissions. (Is there possibly a pattern here: any finding not in conformance with a predetermined conclusion is to be ignored and anything that supports that conclusion, even if it is completely imaginary, is to be accepted without question??).
Which brings me to my second point - and I have to congratulate you - you have come up with an absolutely new alleged health impact that I haven't heard a hundred times already: geothermal emissions cause boy babies... Sounds like we're missing an opportunity here for a new sector of the tourist industry...
In terms of return of funds to the County - a significant portion of the royalty payments made to the state come back to the county.
In point of fact, it wouldn't be a bad idea if some of those funds were used for a properly designed health study - one that wasn't biased at the outset as would be the one proposed by the Adler report. Do a broadly based health assessment to look at all the potential exposures - natural, man-made, and self-induced - properly randomized so that the anti-geothermal faction couldn't bias the outcome - and see what actually correlates with the adverse health status of Puna residents: poverty, lack of education, poor dietary habits, poor hygiene, volcanic emissions, geothermal emissions, substance abuse (legal or otherwise), lack of medical support/access, and a host of other recognized adverse influences on human health. (My guess, based on what I have seen in the scientific literature, is that hydrogen sulfide exposure won't make it off the bottom of that list.) But such a study would help the State and the County prioritize actions and investments in improving the public health conditions in Puna regardless of whether additional geothermal development happens there or not.
