Are Wind Turbines Affecting Health!? *Revised for Culminating*

Image courtesy of Detroitnews.com

The use of wind turbines are at the heart of many recent social and political debates in Canada, but in my eyes the pros substantially outweigh the arguable “cons.

While the provincial government, partnered with other private manufacturers such as Samsung Renewable Energy Inc. and Capital Power LP, have begun the large roll-out of these turbines, 31% of Ontarians alone are against the machines as a result of claimed health problems stemming from annoyance. [1] With so many reasons to make the switch to renewable energy sources, why still does such a large group of Canadians reject the development in their homeland?

Those against these turbines rely on the fact that the low frequency noise has a severe health impact on those living near the turbines. As the majority of debates revolve around health, the arguments include dizziness and migraines, chronic illnesses such as heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes, measures of stress levels, such as heart rate, blood pressure and cortisol, and self-reported or measured quality of sleep. [2] A Toronto lawyer representing farm families stated to judges: “The nightmare neighbour can split your eardrums or he can drive you crazy, but either way, you end up with serious health effects,”. Obviously these residents have become very passionate with their opinion and have begun to consider these wind turbines as “nightmares”. The  federal government plays a huge role in the rollout of wind energy and endorsing harm on it’s citizens would be unexceptional. It states in section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that “Governments must not impose a reasonable prospect of serious harm on their citizens in order to protect security of the persons”. [3] So, are these government turbines imposing harm on Canadian citizens?

Image courtesy of Industrytap.com

I believe, along with the majority of Canadians, that the use of these turbines and the benefits that come with them are too great to be dismissed due to annoyance. The energy needs of our country are most certainly not going to decrease in the upcoming years, and the use of renewable energy is no doubt safer than the current use of fossil fuels. [4] And to expand on the potential of the government imposing harm, Health Canada conducted a study of the effects of wind turbine noise in Ontario and P.E.I. in 2012 to put any skepticism to rest. This study found that not only did the turbines not have any solid connection to the quality of life of nearby residents, but in all cases that reported loss of sleep or headaches, were claimed to be only slightly worse or just as bad as the common headache. The study also contained certain groups that were convinced that the experience was going to be a bad experience before hand, and a group that was convinced that it wouldn’t make a difference at all. The “placebo effect”, and the less common “nocebo effect” which these cases experimented with were proved once again. The majority of those who were expecting a bad outcome didn’t enjoy the turbines, and those who expected to be fine also didn’t mind being near the turbines at all. [5]

So no, I don’t think that the government and the turbines that it is currently installing across the country have enough evidence against them in order to discontinue or interrupt the rollout and/or use. The opposing effort is seen and their arguments must be acknowledged whenever a new issue arises. But, this brings attention to the importance of attitude and optimism, I advise anyone confused about the political position of any issue to do their own research and be open to new ideas and points of view.


What do you think about wind turbines? Should they continue operating or do the claimed health effects veto the environmental benefits? Let me know in the comments section below!

References:

[1] “Redirecting Anti-Wind Energy.” AJ – Canada’s Environmental Voice. 1 Sept. 2014. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. <http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/energy-and-resources/redirecting-anti-wind-energy>.

[2] News, CBC. “Wind Turbine Noise Not Linked to Health Problems, Health Canada Finds – Technology & Science – CBC News.”CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 6 Nov. 2014. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/wind-turbine-noise-not-linked-to-health-problems-health-canada-finds-1.2826206>.

[3] “Legal Battle over Ontario Wind Turbine Farm May Redefine ‘harm'” The Globe and Mail. 21 Nov. 2014. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/legal-battle-over-ontario-wind-turbine-farm-may-redefine-harm/article21714017/>.

[4] Maehlum, Mathias Aarre. “Wind Energy Pros and Cons – Energy Informative.”Energy Informative. 6 Dec. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. <http://energyinformative.org/wind-energy-pros-and-cons/>.

[5] “Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results.” Health Canada. Health Canada, 30 Oct. 2014. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. <http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/noise-bruit/turbine-eoliennes/summary-resume-eng.php>.

 

Romeo and Juliet: Balcony Scene Comparison *Culminating*

Introduction:

“Romeo and Juliet (1968 Film).” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 11 June 2015.

In Romeo and Juliet, there are many important scenes that hold strong purpose. The balcony scene in my opinion is the most significant one.

It is amazing to me just how many things differ between the 1968 film’s representation and the 1996 movie from the position of Juliet, to acting style and wardrobe choices.

 

Position of Juliet:

The position of Juliet seems to be the largest difference between the two representations. When I read the play and it described Juliet up on the balcony, I did not think that any director would change such an important event. This was true for the 1968 film and Juliet was up on the balcony while Romeo was looking up at her in awe. In this scene it was clear that Juliet was more important than Romeo, and Romeo would do whatever he could to get to her and see her. I believe that this may be due to the recent debate of gender roles. In the 1996 film, both man and woman are at the same level and no one is looking up to the other. The fact that the old scene was set at an old castle and the new one was at a pool doesn’t make that much of a difference, but the position of Juliet is.

 

Acting Style:

Starting with Romeo, In the 1968 film he is very over dramatic and loud. He is not the only one in the original film that is like this. The majority of the characters in the 1968 film are very obnoxious and this makes the movie a lot less realistic to me. In the 1996 movie, Romeo and Juliet are very quiet while they meet at the pool. The acting seems to be very toned down in this film. The more realistic acting makes the event a lot more believable in modern day circumstances. I think that maybe movies were a lot different way back in 1968, and movies have evolved to be a bit more realistic.

 

Wardrobe:

“Ay Me! Romeo and Juliet In Education (Part 1 of 2).” Literary Undertakings. 26 Apr. 2015. Web. 11 June 2015.

This one relies almost entirely on the time that the film was set. In the 1968 version, the clothing reminded me of a medieval time period. The poofy dresses, and parachute pants really give it a King Arthur feel. But, the wardrobe was very impressive and I could tell that a lot of work went into the creation of the costumes. It is amazing to see the detail in the fabrics and I respect the designers for that. The wardrobe choices in the 1996 film are almost polar opposites in some ways. The wardrobe was significantly toned down in the more recent film, alike the acting style. The costumes were still very impressive in the way that they express each of the characters. If I had to choose a favorite, I would have to say that I like the newer wardrobe. This is likely due to the fact that their clothes aren’t too far off of modern dress.

 

Conclusion:

Romeo and Juliet is truly a classic love story, and there is no reason not to recreate it every once in a while in a film. Shakespeare had his own vision of the characters in his mind and on the stage, and every director will alter it to how they visualize it. It is amazing how different two people could imagine the same play, but it is true, and that is why the 1968 and 1996 films are so different, yet the same.

Romeo and Juliet Movie Comparison

Romeo and Juliet Movie Comparison

Trent Arnold                                                                                April 6th, 2015

When watching two of the most popular Romeo and Juliet films back to back I found myself more often than not thinking about the various different ways the directors recreated the same story. After finishing the first scene however, I narrowed down the list to five contrasting elements that stood out to me in the 1968 and 2013 movies.

 

  • Realistic or not?

  • In the 1968 version, the actors seemed to be very over dramatic, this reminds me of characters in a comedy who are always looking for attention and wanting to be center stage
  • In the 2013 version, the acting and the way the director envisioned the scenes is more believable to be real compared to the older film. I see the actors as more realistic and could see the events happening in real life.
  • Theme:

  • The older movie seems to be more of a comedic film, and has a lot of over exaggeration and silly moments. This takes away from the seriousness of Romeo and Juliet’s love for eachother and forces the viewer to step back and examine whether or not their “love” is serious.
  • The latter appears to be significantly more serious. The reading of the script tends to be tuned down a bit, with less emotion at times. To me, this makes the movie less comedic and more of a dramatic love story.
  • Following along with the script:

  • The original movie was a bit longer than the 2013 edition, which meant that the film crammed in a lot more detail than the shorter, newer movie. This made it harder to follow along with since some of the less important scenes in the script were exaggerated in the movie.
  • With a shorter amount of film, came less small details and a simpler plot. This made it very easy to follow along with while at my desk with my copy of the script beside me.
  • Wardrobe:

  • The wardrobe in the older movie seemed to be very colorful and poofy. With the recording technology at the time, the costumes don’t look as good as they could. For example, it was hard to tell whether or not an outfit had smooth or rough fabric because of the blurrier picture. Other than that, the wardrobe looked similar to other images of people in that time period.
  • The newer film seems to be set in more of a medieval timeframe, and the wardrobe follows suit. Less colour is seen in the characters outfit’s but the image is clearer and the beauty of the costume design is seen well.
  • Casting/How I imagined the characters:

  • The 1968 film was surprisingly close to how I imagined the characters looked like. Since plenty of classmates stressed about the young age of Juliet, I expected a young actress, which the movie used. Romeo looks more mature than Juliet, and I expected that too, since he had already been looking at girls for a while.
  • The 2013 movie was a lot different than the characters I imagined when reading the script. I believe that this might be because we watched the 1968 version first, and the characters were still fresh in my mind, but still I think Romeo and Juliet look older than they are said to be in the script.