< Previous 1 2 Next >

Darrellbrado on February 20, 2021 at 7:53 AM said:

???????? ???? ???????
_________________
?????? ???????? 777 ?????? - ?????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ???? ? ???????.

Morrisplows on February 17, 2021 at 1:04 AM said:

?????? ??????
_________________
??????? ?????? ????????

zithromax on February 13, 2021 at 3:02 AM said:

zpak for uti zithromax buying zithromax instructions

hydroxy on February 12, 2021 at 10:27 AM said:

hydroxy cloroquin hydroxychloroquine sulfate oral hcq 200

gjaknjxob on December 3, 2020 at 11:20 AM said:

???????, +
_________________
???? ?? ??????? ??????

Lisa on November 6, 2020 at 2:23 AM said:

I just won a lawsuit against nrg who is dba:spruce and a bunch of other company's. They have destroyed the people of America and are now in Australia foing the same. They put liens on your home and threaten to take it. Their target is seniors. In California Newsome is making dollar roofs mandatory. This company was aided by Obama. they have destroyed ppl all over the country especially Australia. I fought them through consumer affairs it's all a hoax for money the panels don't even work

ctfnidhxe on October 29, 2020 at 2:50 AM said:

??????? ?? ????
_________________
500? ?? ??????????? ??????

qohkiidxk20 on October 27, 2020 at 2:47 PM said:

??????? ?? ????
_________________
????? ?????? ???????????

qmqqipgju on October 17, 2020 at 4:15 PM said:

???????
_________________
??????? ??????? ???????? ?????? pin up casino ????????????? ????? ???, ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????.

Margaret on October 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM said:

I have come across your site here in Australia and I'm very excited to see the extent of your protest group. We live in a beautiful small (pop 2700) and very historic town 300 kilometers north west of Sydney. When it comes to the larger solar plants (they are not farms) we have very little say as to whether they go ahead. We already have an 87 mw plant less than 5 kilometers from town which covers 300 hectares and is almost as big as the town itself! This plant was built over two waterways. There are a further 810 hectares of solar plants in the planning stages in the same area as the existing one. A smaller one, 16 hectares is before our local council now for DA approval. It will be approximately 600 meters from town! Across the road from our town water treatment plant which processes the bore water underneath us in an are that is to be declared fire prone due to the high risk of grass fires! We have had some very serious grass fires that have destroyed stock and property not too far from here. This area is also periodically a wetland which lasts for months and attracts nesting swans, pelicans, cranes and other water birds. I have photos from 2010 and 2016. This waterway spills over the site too. I have further information that I would love to share with you. Do you have an email address? I don't use social media.

Ed on October 24, 2019 at 12:46 PM said:

The People of Riverhead and Calverton do not want this hazardous toxic waste dump above their precious drinking water and fertile agricultural land in case of a natural disaster, short and long term corrosion due to salt air factor, and the fact that the expected life expectancy of these panels are only 15-20 years before they have to be replaced due to corroding, inefficient and damaged panels. Sounds like the so-called republican plan for dirty air and dirty water. Their is no decommissioning plan for solar panels in near future and it will be a huge problem for the east end of long island including riverhead and calverton who will have to deal with the toxic waste material and trust me they do not want any part of that especially for such low yield energy. The people feel this solar plan is being shoved down their throat without any knowledge of possible hazards and evacuation plans in case these chemicals go airborne due to fire and/or leach into our ground water after a hurricane, tornado, hail storm, plane crash, car crash, ice storm, bird crap, and other possible natural or man made disasters. The animal ecosystems that this will destroy is unimaginable and was not even closely represented in their environmental study done over 5 years ago. Their was a tremendous amount of environmental facts absent and misleading information from their study including the migratory birds found on the property which were not accurately mentioned. A complete animal and plant ecosystem exists on these properties and were not given enough attention in the study. The Board Members have to seek special permit approvals to cut down over 1000 trees over 3 inches in diameter and regrade the mounds throughout the proposed land. Solar farms were never intended to go on viable land with trees, animal and plant ecosystem, and non flat land that can be farmed in the future. Crops can be grown on its fertile soil in the future and one of the properties is viable with catering hall, 18 hole mini golf course which local residents love, and over 60 acres of pristine recreational land that has attracted families from all over the tri-state area. The residents do not appreciate the fact you are willing to endanger their children and grand children's quality of drinking water and soil based crops from local farmers over solar panels that only collect energy from the sun a few hours a day and only on sunny days. The East End of Long Island does have enough sunny days per year and hours of daylight to make any of these plans viable especially with the potential of such natural and unnatural risks involved. There should be a moratorium placed on this project and all solar projects proposed for the east end of long island to address these potential dangers and allow the people to understand the risks of such a project and let them fully understand the true impact of placing millions of hazardous toxic waste contained panels above their pristine water basin for periods of 20 years or more. Lastly, the costs involved in decommissioning these solar farms cannot even be measured because they are astronomical to the taxpayers who are the ones granting money to and subsidizing these solar companies unknowingly until they go bankrupt which more than half of these companies have done so far. Too many questions, not enough answers to these important issues that need much more input from the local residents, definitely more than 30 days notice. This Green New Deal Plan for Long Island is a New Green Disaster for our Kids, Grandkids, water basin and our environment, not to mention the taxpayers across the country. People will be held accountable for this negligence once the first person is admitted with a lung or kidney cancer that can be linked to contaminated water, crops, or inhaled smoke from a solar farm fire or natural disaster that damages these panels. Consider this your notice of potential harm to the community and if dismissed you can be found liable.

Concerned Resident on May 30, 2019 at 6:55 PM said:

How toxic are your solar panels? The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), a group that has done more than any other to clean up the electronics industry, attempted to answer that question today with the release of its Solar Scorecard. It didn’t get very far. Of the 25 solar manufacturers that SVTC contacted, only 14, which together represent just 24 percent of the solar market, even responded. And their answers weren’t always heartening. Among SVTC’s findings:
Six companies report that their products contain lead, a potent neurotoxin.
Three companies report that their products contain cadmium, a known carcinogen.
One company uses nitrogen triflouride, a potent greenhouse gas
Only seven companies provide recycling free of charge
Only eight companies said their would support “extended producer responsibility” laws that would require them to take back or recycle their products
That many solar panels contain lead and cadmium, which are being phased out by computer manufacturers, is no small matter. In the coming years, SVTC estimates that 1.5 billion pounds of solar panel waste containing 2 million pounds of lead and 600,000 pounds of cadmium will be disposed of in California alone. Some older solar panels are already being ditched well ahead of their 20-year lifespans as cheaper, more efficient versions hit the market. Nevertheless, even the stringent recyling laws of California and Europe exempt solar panels (though Europe’s may soon include them).

< Previous 1 2 Next >