A truly bizarre piece of journalism in today's New York Times examines the "dangerous" transportation of wind turbine components. The article by Kate Galbraith, "Slow, Costly and Often Dangerous Road to Wind Power," describes wind turbine transport as a "nuisance," where "plenty can go wrong," and even manages to gin up a fatality (though admitting that it was just a truck carrying a turbine being hit by another car and local investigators found no fault with the truck driver.) Not only that, but Galbraith raises the grim spectre of road wear and tear, though the best she can come up with is costs of "hundreds of thousands of dollars" from accidents and a complaints about damaged pavement.

This, in the headline writer's mind, justifies "Often Dangerous?" WTF? Is this what print journalists hold up as an example of "objectivity?" To ask the Edward Tufte question, "Compared to what?" And then you have to ask the follow on, "Cui bono?"

Transportation of large wind turbine components is highly controlled and carefully permitted. Trucks are monitored and only allowed on certain roads, at certain times. But there are vehicles on our roads transporting the raw materials for the energy sector that pound the pavement far more often, mix with everyday traffic, and carry cargo that is far more dangerous.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, truck movements of oil and gasoline accounted for about 2 billion road miles in 2002, the most recent year for which data are available. With just a quick Google of "tanker truck accident," I found more fatalities and destruction in five minutes than the Times could attribute to wind power.

There is, in fact, a very interesting story here that Galbraith dances around in her last few graphs: large loads have begun to expose the limitations (weight, clearance, turn radius) of our Interstate system. But, sadly, neither the headline — nor the story — do that justice.

Wag of the finger.