Newcastle Herald Letters to the Editor and Short Takes for Tuesday, June 20, 2023

Why go ahead with such a stupid, dangerous, expensive project for our future power requirements?

Negatives: costs in manufacture, installation and on-going maintenance. Costs in human dangers and misery during installation, with ongoing maintenance of these non-recyclable materials, easily dumped when no longer usable. This shallow shelf off our coast has the roughest weather, including gales, on the whole of the east coast, it has busy shipping lanes and migrating whales. It will increase environmental vandalism of our coastal water.

Most of these systems shut down once wind and gales exceed 80kmh, and having to link these floating monstrosities covering large distances defeats their purpose with loss of energy over transmission lines.

Land-based solar farms allow for ease of installation, ease of maintenance, and are recyclable, with sheep able to graze around them. Land-based wind turbines in responsible locations makes much more sense for these same reasons. I submitted my thoughts to the powers that be regarding the ridiculous off-coast wind farms and I am still to receive recognition. My thoughts are that when drilling the seabed with hundreds of anchor points we will hear: "Oops, we just tapped the natural gas reserve".

That's exactly what all governments want at the moment.

I agree with John Tierney when he suggests the proposed 'forest' of wind farms off the Hunter will create an eyesore, particularly for beachgoers ('Coastal wind farms a potential danger zone', Herald, 17/6).

The floating wind turbines off the coast, from the Hunter to the Illawarra, will pose some danger to marine life, including whales. Ships and boats will need to navigate more carefully. But I don't accept Tierney's assertion that whales would be in any danger if they surfaced to breathe near wind turbines. Whales are smart, use echolocation and can see underwater.

There is an extra cost of 20 per cent for offshore wind turbines versus onshore wind turbines. The turbines are best located off shore because the ocean wind is stronger and more reliable. If the turbines are on land, the further away from the coast, the less reliable and weaker the wind is. Wind usually blows over the ocean, even when the inland is calm.

The turbines are best anchored above the shallower continental shelf for access and servicing. If the turbines were anchored in deep water, beyond the continental shelf, below the horizon and out of sight, they would be much more expensive. The turbines themselves would need to be more robust, and their power cables would need to be longer, deeper and stronger.

I agree with Tierney that the financial cost of the turbines will be high, although floating wind turbines are proven technology. But the environmental cost, and ultimately the financial cost, would be even higher if Australia doesn't develop renewables such as offshore wind turbines to replace fossil fuel power.

The analogy of the tolerance of the Newcastle federal electorate as evidenced by the results of the same-sex marriage survey of 2017 ('Stay vigilant against hate', Herald, 17/6), to the acceptance of gender ideology is disingenuous. As a yes voter to same-sex marriage, I was more than happy to say "yes" to consenting adults of the same sex being able to marry.

What I did not vote "yes" to was the rollout of gender ideology in our schools and institutions, and the resultant harm being done to young people. I believe they are being taught that feelings of discomfort in puberty may mean they were "born in the wrong body", and that they may alter their bodies with irreversible hormones and surgeries.

What I did not vote yes to was the loss of sex-based language and the right to define women and girls as female, the acceptance of males in female sports, toilets, change rooms, prisons, or the roll-out of "gender neutral" toilets and facilities and the resultant loss of privacy, dignity and possibly safety.

The implications of these changes are only just starting to be realised by the general public. All over the world, organisations are being established to raise awareness of the harms of gender ideology - Transgender Trend, One Million Mums, Partners for Ethical Care, and Active Watchful Waiting to name a few. Is Justin Ellis, a senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Newcastle, oblivious to the global discussion taking place about how "gender affirming" care can harm vulnerable young people?

The concerns being raised by people I know who are speaking out are neither hateful nor extreme. The irreversible harm being done to young people and the dismantling of the rights of women is what is extreme.

I have to say Bryn Roberts (Short Takes, 10/6), I have read some pretty disgusting comments in my time, but your comments regarding Ben Roberts-Smith are up there for nomination. You appear to indicate that Roberts-Smith was sent to Afghanistan against his own free will. The man, and I use that word loosely, was a soldier, and a soldier can of course expect to be sent anywhere anytime. Because you say he was not sent of his own free will, that gave him good reason to act against common decency.

Reflect on what you have said. Really?

About 20 places in the northern half of NSW are named for members of the Dangar family. While all carry the family name, none - as far as I can discover - include a first name. The use of a first name would let us know just who the site celebrates, and it would prevent the confusion that led Gavin Green to call for a re-naming of Mayfield's Dangar Park ('Removing Dangar's name right thing to do', Letters, 15/6).

In general, I do not think that removing monuments, statues, names, and so on dedicated to people of the past is a good move. I'd prefer to retain the name and tell the whole story, with all its nuances: the positives, the negatives, and the shades grey. In the present case though I'd join those voices that have in previous times plumped for the tweaking of the name to Albert Dangar Park. Augustus Albert Dangar owned number of acreages in Mayfield East, Waratah and Wickham, some of which he developed for urban living and some of which he donated for parkland. Of course, Dangar's land was Aboriginal land, as was all land occupied by our colonisers and this illustrates Gavin Green's broader point about the horrendous injustices of invasion and colonisation. Gavin Green calls for respect, healing, and justice for Australia's Aboriginal people, and he asks that we acknowledge and celebrate their contribution to modern Australia. A voice to the parliament would enable Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people to pursue these issues to the betterment of all.

I first saw Morgan Evans at the Civic Theatre in February 2013. He was the opening act for Glenn Frey, from the Eagles. Morgan put on a very good show at the time. Glenn mentioned that Morgan was going to be a star in years to come. Turns out he was correct. If only Glenn was still with us to see just how far Morgan has come. He would be proud.

While we have been concentrating on the apparent sex romps in Canberra it appears that Ben Hu, an employee of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, has been identified as Patient Zero who caught COVID-19 first. Five Eyes intelligence has been sitting on this information for a very long time and maybe Trump was correct all along.

Having long celebrated the demise of the coal mining industry, Phillip O'Neill ('Royalty Boost: Qld books better ticket on coal gravy train', Opinion, 19/6) now wants it to contribute even more to NSW Treasury coffers. Surely he can't have it both ways.

The Minerals Council needs to find a better way than their ridiculous ads. Even if they're stupid enough to employ a lazy or inexperienced person, how does that affect the pay of someone beside them earning the award wage or taking away anything? Labour hire and casualisation of the workforce is being used to drive down wages so more profit goes overseas.

While everyone is talking about the housing crisis and telling investors how they should manage their housing, has anyone thought about the public buildings that are empty? I am sure the old Maitland Hospital could house a few people. Let's start thinking outside the box

I gather you are a black-and-white, letter-of-the-law kind of guy, Alan Hamilton (Short Takes, 16/6), but you must admit Ben Roberts-Smith has big-name backers such as Kerry Stokes, Brendan Nelson and high-ranking army officers. Not so Roberts-Smith's SAS colleagues or Afghan victims' families. Justice is always delayed when you have powerful friends.

I want to echo the comments of Tahlia Kelso ('Privatisation's the worry, not pool operators', Letters, 16/6). The Beresfield community not only raised money to build it initially, but co-funded improvements at the pool over many years. We are concerned, if the pool is privatised, the entry fees will rise and that would put it out of reach for many families in this area. A single entry for an adult at Stockton is $5.40, a child over three years is $4.40, alternatively a family pass is $19.