Anecdotal Evidence of Wind Turbine Syndrome

By Keith Kloor | April 18, 2013 7:42 pm

I was goofing around on Twitter today:

If you’re unfamiliar with that last reference, I refer you to my recent Slate piece:

In the past several years, scores of people living near wind farms have claimed to have been sickened by noise from the rotating blades. They have complained of everything from headaches and depression to conjunctivitis and nosebleeds. Is “wind turbine syndrome” real? Is it just another imaginary illness stoked by loons on the Internet? Are the victims a bunch of fakers?

Read the piece (if you haven’t already) to learn what’s behind wind turbine syndrome. Meanwhile, my tweet prompted someone to share a hilarious graphic he drew.

It’s by Ketan Joshi, who works for a renewable energy ( solar & wind) company in Australia. As he openly says on his blog:

I have a vested interest in supporting wind energy – so check my facts, check my sources, and call me out on something, if I’m wrong.

I’m pretty sure he’s got this wind turbine thing figured out.

  • Buddy199

    Honest to God, with the real problems in the world there are people who occupy themselves with this crap.

    • Zach B.

      If you lived next to a wind turbine and you, your family, and the animals around you, all start experiencing weird and unexplained symptoms after they become operational. You wouldn’t think it’s just “crap”.

      • myopiczeal

        Based on the actual scientific evidence, and not the anecdotes of easily suggestible humans, I’d probably assume it was all in my head.

      • http://www.facebook.com/matt.holmes.1004 Matt Holmes

        Except show me a case where that actually happened. It doesn’t. If there was such a widespread problem I would check the air and the water, not a subtle background noise and distant electrical charge. If such a slight sound had such an impact, then cities would be uninhabitable. Though it is possible the footing upset a shallow well or mineral deposit, but that’s construction/civil engineering and would happen regardless of what was built on that spot (and by all means, be careful where you build).

      • Blair Donaldson

        The easiest person to fool is yourself. When you look through the list of symptoms allegedly caused by wind farms, an objective reader will will recognise that a large percentage of the population have any number of those symptoms despite not living anywhere near a windfarm. Unfortunately a few people are susceptible to hysteria whipped up by windfarm opponents.

        • rucio

          The people complaining of these symptoms did not have them before the wind turbines started operating. They find relief when they leave the area and when the wind isn’t blowing. It is highly improbably that a large percentage of the general population has symptoms whipped up by windfarm opponents despite not living anywhere near a windfarm.

          • Blair Donaldson

            I can’t speak for where you live but there are certainly plenty of cases in Victoria where the people complaining about wind turbines had various medical conditions before projects were even planned. There were people claiming illness before a local project was even constructed.

            In Canada a case against wind farms collapsed when all those who complained windfarms were causing ill-health were required to present their medical records covering a number of years before the project was proposed.

          • DanWrightman

            Blair’s weak “evidence” is based on Chapman’s evidence which is nothing more than fluff. For instance the case in Canada collapsed because the ERT had ruled that victims had 6 days to produce 10 years of personal medical records which was impossible to do, The same case will be heard before the Ostrander Point ERT this month with the victims medical records. .

          • Blair Donaldson

            Actually Dan, the evidence comes from the windfarm opponents inability to provide any tangible link that stands up to objective assessment. As for your excuse regarding the medical records, that’s all it is, an excuse – and you know it.

          • DanWrightman

            That’s your layman’s opinion which is not backed up by the evidence. This pretty much sums up Chapman’s “study” : it is has a lot of opinion and very little science.

          • Spencerforhire

            NIMBYS can NOT reproduce their results BUT Chapman, Crichton, Dodd, Schmid, Gamble, Petrie, American Psychological Association, CAN!!!!

          • myview1872

            How? By using cooked statistics and vitriol.

          • Spencerforhire

            Medical Journals are full of fun stuff Dan. Including turbines come from turbines. But there is no case of Wind Turbine syndrome anywhere!

            Here is a perfect example of how silly your posts are!!

            From The New England Journal of Medicine! A 66 year old man went to his general
            practitioner, complaining of pain in his right calf for 4
            days durations.

            The doctor examined the man and couldn’t find anything wrong, except that
            he was tender over this spot in his right calf. A
            couple of nights later this man was in bed and had just fallen asleep when
            he was awakened by a sharp pain in his right calf. The cause was a kick
            from his wife. He told her not to kick him there because that’s where the
            leg hurts. She replied, “You were snoring again, and that’s where I always
            kick you to stop it.” Subsequently, his wife agreed to stop kicking his
            calf in spite of the fact that he continued to snore and the leg got better.

            NIMBys are a nuisances and cause health issues.

          • myview1872

            What does an tired old joke have to do with wind turbines?

          • Spencerforhire

            It is a peer reviewed and published article in the New England Journal of medicine that shows how Snoring causes leg pain (actual Adverse health issues) just like you say Wind does.

            This guy suffered more than any NIMBY!!

            Just goes to show you what an old joke you and Dan are!!

            Nacelles still 1804 feet in the air? LOL!!

          • DanWrightman

            Wow what evidence. Did you find that joke in Readers Digest or something?

        • Valewood

          I guess that means that all of those people who have lung cancer, got it because they read the warnings on the cigarette packs.
          Hysterical idiots.

          • Blair Donaldson

            So for lack of anything reasonable to say, you’re left with sarcasm and logical fallacies? The negative health impacts attributed to tobacco have been known and documented in recognised journals for over 50 years. There are no peer-reviewed papers in any recognised journals that suggest there is any link between windfarms and ill-health.

          • Valewood

            Just following your logic. If one is plausible, then so is the other.

          • Blair Donaldson

            Except there is no evidence that reading the print on the cigarette packet causes lung cancer while there is plenty of evidence that people are susceptible to believing almost anything if they are provided very selective information. That’s how the advertising industry works. Clearly you don’t grasp the concept of logic very well.

          • rucio

            Lung cancer wasn’t caused by cigarettes until researchers and clinicians started to make the connection. That’s precisely where the science is with illness caused by wind turbines. And, just like the tobacco industry, or concurrently the fracking industry, the wind industry is doing all that it can to mock its victims and thwart scientific investigation.

          • Blair Donaldson

            Then you don’t know anybody in the wind industry or you’re in denial. I know people who believe turbines make them ill and I also know people from the wind industry. To say the wind industry is not working with communities is nonsense. I can’t speak for other countries but I certainly can for Australia because I’ve been following the development of wind energy for over 20 years. It’s the self appointed cranks dreaming up non-existent, at least yet to be demonstrated, medical conditions that are the chief source of illness and problem causing. I wonder why you aren’t questioning the demonstrable fact that many of these individuals are either directly or indirectly funded by the fossil fuel and nuclear industries?

            The only people mocking people who believe they are sick are those who use them for their own purposes. Namely the likes of Pierpoint and Laurie. Do your homework.

          • rucio

            Oh, please. Mockery is Simon Chapman’s only method, which his acolytes have enthusiastically embraced.

          • Blair Donaldson

            There is no need to mock the wilfully uninformed, or, the self-serving critic like Pierpoint and Laurie. Their cherry picking and conspiracy theories speak for themselves and say lots about their lack of objectivity. Every time they get caught out, they move the goalposts. Just like you.

            Whether or not you like Chapman’s comments, the evidence is independent. You shoot the messenger while ignoring the facts.

            You might be interested in this:

            Medical ethics violations by anti-wind lobbyists such as Dr Laurie…

            http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/medical-ethics-violations-by-anti-wind-lobbyists-such-as-sarah-laurie-receiving-attention/

          • myview1872

            Now where we know where Blair get’s his ‘information’. Did Mike hire you to increase traffic to his self-centered blog?

          • Blair Donaldson

            Once again, you have nothing credible to say and have to resort to straw manning. More evidence your claims are vacuous.

          • Valewood

            The fact that you use a wind shill like Mike Barnard as your reference source, speaks volumes and has now totally discredited every comment you’ve made.

            Your assertion that anti-wind groups are funded by the fossil fuel industry is another clear indication that you’re only spouting the propaganada line. The wind industry is the fossil fuel industry,….Enbridge, Suncor, BP, Shell, etc. are all big time players in the wind industry game.

            And why would that be I wonder? Again, it goes back to one of my earlier comments. $$$$$$$

            My question is why are people (like you and Barnard and Joshi) so intent on denying others their right to health and quality of life? These people who are suffering aren’t asking for money. They’re only asking for their lives back.

            And what is wrong with that request? Isn’t that a basic right that everyone is entitled to? Why are you more deserving of good health and quality of life than they are?

          • Blair Donaldson

            I’m not sure whether you are being intentionally ignorant or have a penchant for denial. Learn a little about Peter Mitchell, company owner with interests in oil, coal etc and chief funder of the Waubra Foundation. Deny the facts all you like, the facts won’t change, inconvenient as they may be for you.

          • rucio

            When it comes to wind turbines, Chapman does not deal with facts. His “evidence” for nocebo effects is a joke, as has been explained by several people elsewhere. And he completely misinterprets most of his “17 reviews”, which has also been shown by many people. The ethics complaint is illustrative: You are presenting the accusation as the fact.

          • Spencerforhire

            Chapman, Crichton, Dodd, Schmid, Gamble, Petrie, American Psychological Association, can reproduce their results BUT NIMBYs CANNOT!

          • myview1872

            How do they prove their results? Quote more wind company propaganda, of course.

          • Spencerforhire

            The University of Sydney and of Auckland, Chapman, Crichton, Dodd, Schmid, Gamble, Petrie, American Psychological Association, etc..etc..etc..etc..etc..etc..etc..

            Peirpoint is “SELF PUBLISHED”

          • myview1872

            From page 1 of the most recent version of that ‘study': “Pre-Print: This paper has been submitted for publication to a peer reviewed journal.”

            Submitted for publication is not the same as being published. Hey has that garbage been peer-reviewed yet?

          • Spencerforhire

            The study from Crichton, Dodd, Schmid, Gamble, Petrie, has been reviewed by The University of Sydney and of Auckland and the American Psychological Association.

            See the published article : Can Expectations Produce Symptoms From Infrasound Associated With Wind Turbines?

            I guess you are an idiot and I can’t blame you.

            Sorry you keep thinking I’m talking about Chapman so you are not an idiot you are insane under Einstein’s definition.

            You keep going on about the Chapman “study” I have never mentioned the Chapman “study” or “rant” as you call it!

            Didn’t your mother (if you ever had one) tell you not to tell fibs about other people??

          • myview1872

            The very first page of the most recent revision of the Chapman ‘study’ states it has been submitted for review. That means it has not yet been reviewed.

          • Spencerforhire

            Stop I’m going to split my sides Oldtimer! LOL !!!

            NEVER SAID Chapman study !!!!!

            The study from Crichton, Dodd, Schmid, Gamble, Petrie, has been reviewed by The University of Sydney and of Auckland and the American Psychological Association.

            See the published article : Can Expectations Produce Symptoms From Infrasound Associated With Wind Turbines?

            You are too funny please stop ! It makes it so hard to type when I’m laugh at YOU this much!!

            BUT BTW you have reviewed the Chapman study and Dan has reviewed it and David Suzuki has reviewed it and Wind Watch has reviewed it and and and . . .

            LOL you are too funny , ya ol’frack!

          • myview1872

            I have been discussing the Chapman ‘study’. Dan, David Suzuki or myself do not qualify as peer review.

            I know it’s hard but please try to stay on topic.

          • Blair Donaldson

            They actually do research, a concept beyond your understanding apparently. You on the other hand prefer just making up and BS

          • myview1872

            Look up the Chapman ‘study’ and look at the first page. It HAS NOT BEEN PEER-REVIEWED!

          • Blair Donaldson

            I don’t recall ever claiming SC’s latest paper had been peer-reviewed as yet. Another misconception on your part it would same, you’re good at that. As I understand it it’s being peer-reviewed now. It should appear in the relevant journals in the not too distant future. Suck eggs.

          • Spencerforhire

            NIMBYS can NOT reproduce their results BUT Chapman, Crichton, Dodd, Schmid, Gamble, Petrie, American Psychological Association, CAN!!!!

          • myview1872

            From page 1 of that ‘study': “Pre-Print: This paper has been submitted for publication to a peer reviewed journal.”

          • Spencerforhire

            I guess you are an idiot and can’t blame you.

            Sorry you keep thinking I’m talking about Chapman so you are not an idiot you are insane.

            You keep going on about the Chapman “study” I have never mentioned the Chapman “study” or “rant” as you call it!

            Didn’t your mother (if you ever had one) tell you not to tell fibs about other people??

            The study from Crichton, Dodd, Schmid, Gamble, Petrie, has been reviewed by The University of Sydney and of Auckland and the American Psychological Association.

            See: Can Expectations Produce Symptoms From Infrasound Associated With Wind Turbines?

          • myview1872

            From the American Physiological Association abstract for the Auckland paper: “Results suggest psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints”. Notice the word ‘could’. That is not the same as saying the paper proves anything at all.

          • Spencerforhire

            I thought you said you and Dan are not Qualified to make judgments like that ??LOL!!!

            You guys just keep getting funnier and funnier .

            BTW Every scientific paper says that. Look at anything on a NIMBY site !!

            You guys just keep getting funnier and funnier .

          • Blair Donaldson

            Thank you for demonstrating you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about.

          • DanWrightman

            I guess the British Medical Journal isn’t a recognized journal in Blair’s eyes.
            Editorial Wind turbine noise Christopher D Hanning and Alun Evans
            British Medical Journal,
            Here are 18 other peer reviewed articles regarding adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines:
            1)The Problems With ”Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment
            Bob Thorne
            2)Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise
            on health related quality of life
            by Daniel Shepherd, David McBride, David Welch, Kim N. Dirks, Erin M. Hill
            3)Mitigating the Acoustic Impacts of Modern Technologies:
            Acoustic, Health, and Psychosocial Factors
            Informing Wind Farm Placement
            Daniel Shepherd and Rex Billington
            4)Public Health Ethics, Legitimacy, and the Challenges of Industrial Wind Turbines:
            The Case of Ontario, Canada
            Martin Shain
            5)Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans
            Alec N. Salt and James A.Kaltenbach Infrasound
            6)Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds,
            infrasound and wind turbines.
            Alec N. Salt and T.E. Hullar.
            Department of Otolaryngology,
            Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
            7)Occupational Health and Industrial Wind Turbines: A Case Study
            Robert W. Rand, Stephen E. Ambrose, and Carmen M. E. Krogh
            8)Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects
            of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents
            Carl V. Phillips
            9)Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects
            in the Environs of Industrial Wind Turbines:
            Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis
            Robert Y. McMurtry
            10)Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines
            Henrik Møller and Christian Sejer Pedersen
            Section of Acoustics, Aalborg University,
            Fredrik Bajers Vej
            11)WindVOiCe, a Self-Reporting Survey: Adverse Health Effects,
            Industrial Wind Turbines, and the Need for Vigilance Monitoring
            Carmen M.E. Krogh, Lorrie Gillis, Nicholas Kouwen, and Jeffery Aramini
            12)Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice?
            Carmen M.E. Krogh
            13)Wind Turbines Make Waves:
            Why Some Residents Near Wind Turbines Become Ill
            Magda Havas and David Colling
            14)Literature Reviews on Wind Turbines and Health : Are They Enough?
            Brett Horner, Roy D. Jeffery and Carmen M. E. Krogh
            ,15)Wind Turbine Noise
            John P. Harrison
            16)The Noise from Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s Well-Being
            Arline L. Bronzaft
            17)WIND TURBINE NOISE,
            SLEEP AND HEALTH
            Response to:
            The Northumberland County Council Core
            Issues and Options Report Consultations
            Dr Christopher Hanning
            18)Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health
            Michael A. Nissenbaum, Jeffery J. Aramini1, Christopher D. Hanning

          • Spencerforhire

            Research done for “Wind Vigilance” is as good as the C.R.A.P. done for the tobacco industry.

            I’m sure if you follow the money for Bob Thorne, and the rest, it would have passed through grubby hands of the Tobacco lawyers!

            To funny Dan , research from the Wind industry, Wild Life , and 99.9997 % of the scientists on the planet is bunk but NIMBY’s drivel is brilliant!! LOL Too funny

          • DanWrightman

            19 peer reviewed articles on wind turbines and health effects including one published in the British Journal of Medicine. Meanwhile Chapman selectively picked information from 17 articles of which only 4 were peer reviewed. I guess peer review is irrelevant to wind industry cheerleaders like Blair and Spencer.

          • Spencerforhire

            17 reviews of HUNDREDS of peer reviewed health studies with nothing more to show than headaches and nuisances !

            Now shown to be caused by NIMBYs .

            Still cannot reproduce ANY results. Why ? because the NIMBYs cause the problem , Wind Concerns Quacks review the complaints, spread it and people become sick .

            BUT when Science Looks at it or tries to reproduce it it vanishes!

            What YOU have is NIMBYs complaining like they have the Blue Flu!

            And that is all you have.

            meanwhile Chapman (And others) have done searches through , literally, MILLIONS of medical journals and have found nothing to support NIMBYs.

            If the Tobacco industry could not buy him how can the Wind industry????

          • myview1872

            Millions of medical journals? So, how many hours did they spend on that? The.reason they foundd nothing to support health issues is because they weren’t looking for it.

          • Spencerforhire

            Now you are just going off the deep end Oldtimer.

            Do a search oh wait you can’t I forgot!

          • Blair Donaldson

            You’re really getting desperate now, lying to yourself is a sure sign that your grasp on reality is slipping.

          • myview1872

            What lies are you talking about? Please be specific.

          • Blair Donaldson

            You only need to read your earlier ridiculous claims and compare them with those of us who actually know what it’s like to live near windfarms. You are really starting to lose it.

          • myview1872

            I asked you to tell me what lies I’ve told. You obviously can’t answer a direct question.

            Either you have no idea of what it’s like to live near a wind turbine development or you have a financial interest in them.

          • http://ffggippsland.blogspot.com/ Blair Donaldson

            Here are three examples of your lies, although they probably qualify as simple distortions of fact.

            * There you go referencing that garbage ‘study’ from Simon Chapman

            *Standing under wind turbines does not give the same noise effect as moving away from the turbine.

            *The.reason they foundd nothing to support health issues is because they weren’t looking for it.

            You know nothing about Chapman’s study and how it was conducted, sound propagates from the source in all directions and you have no idea about the parameters being investigated in the 17 reviews of hundreds of peer-reviewed health studies. In short, you’re intentionally misrepresenting facts to distort the truth. That’s lying.

          • rucio

            All 3 of those are actually correct.

            1. Chapman’s study has no null hypothesis. He only seeks to verify his hypothesis (4 versions of it). His discussion of limitations only admit to being to generous about what qualified as a complaint. A pathetic performance at every step.

            2. It is well documented that the sound, particularly in the low frequencies, is greater at some distance from a wind turbine than right under it. For health concerns, there is also the factor of building resonance.

            3. This is casuistic. Chapman acknowledges health issues, but, as described in (1), seeks only to ascribe them to “anti-wind activism”.

          • Braeden Cowbrough

            Now if you actually didn’t just regurgitate that as I have been recently reviewing that point you would see that 15 of those “studies” are posted from a single journal by a handful of authors between the lot of them… Oddly enough they all state the syndrome as being well documented without a reference and they cite EACHOTHER. Don’t believe me, I will gladly link you to the pdf files of those articles. It is retarded once you read them

          • DanWrightman

            Oh wow, scientists are citing each other, that is definitely wrong because scientists should only be conducting their research in cloistered rooms with no reference to field research done by other scientists. (sarcasm off)

          • Blair Donaldson

            Stick with your denial Dan, it’s all you’ve got apart from ad hominem attacks and misrepresentation of the facts. Seems like others here are on to your deceptions as well.

          • DanWrightman

            Like I said 19 peer reviewed articles and Chapman only reviewed 4 peer reviewed articles out of his 17 and one of those 17 articles was a web page from CANWEA. What a laughable joke.

          • Blair Donaldson

            Okay, so now we know you haven’t got a clue what’s involved with doing a review. I suspected as much.

          • DanWrightman

            I stand by statement. The 19 articles I have cited are peer reviewed published and only 4 out of the 17 articles that Chapman cites are peer reviewed. Prove me wrong or do you believe that web pages from CANWEA are sufficient to be considered “peer reviewed”.

          • Braeden Cowbrough

            There is a difference between scientists citing papers, and scientists citing themselves and a select group. None of those papers are science grade, hell, I’ve read articles by highschool students made better… The articles are similar to seralini et al and their papers where they cite themselves far to much. Take ten minuets to actually read those studies you are referring to. I have, and it isn’t impressive to say the least. There is not actual research done. There is nothing novel about them.

          • Dan Wrightman

            So Cowbrough took 10 minutes to read 19 peer reviewed studies to come to his layman’s conclusions? He is either an accomplished speed reader or just another disinterested ideologue.

          • Braeden Cowbrough

            Um…. no, I actually read them unlike you lol. I had read them for another reason before ever actually seeing your post as there is a wind farm development in my home town and those 19 articles were presented by the “anti-wind” group as factual evidence so I looked at them. I only started with one, then found the rest by looking at the same journal by accident which just made me laugh.

            https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0bW46S9m61KMVA1THFKOHZPZ0k&usp=sharing

            Don’t believe me, I even collected them for you :P

            Take a bit to read them. After a while I tended to skip the introductions as they tended to get repetitive and very similar to say the least… These are papers, this is bullshit. Reading them you notice the differences. Also, that only two of them don’t come from this singular journal…

            Try these ones as a rebuttal to the “conclusions” made by those papers

            https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0bW46S9m61KSk5yMEV6cm5TdG8&usp=sharing

            noticeably the difference in quality.

          • Spencerforhire

            You are sick in the head!

            Wind is nothing like cigarettes , and you know it!!

            Nobody, Doctors or Health professionals, went to a cancer victims and said “it is all in your mind!”

            Like Cancer , “Mass Hysteria” is real. Wind Turbine Syndrome is not!!

          • Blair Donaldson

            Spencer, you have to admit these misguided individuals provide excellent examples of cognitive dissonance. Lacking any evidence to support their increasingly shrill assertions they dredge up every logical fallacy, probably without even realising it, to steer the unwary into another maze of obfuscation, deception and unadulterated fiction.

          • Spencerforhire

            Cosmically and Organically in sync with that emotion . . I would only add obtuse to their crimes against logic and intelligence.

            So long as we are talking about Valewood, Myview1872, and Dan et al . . .

            Just verifying LQTM

    • Valewood

      It’s only ‘crap’ when it doesn’t affect you personally.

  • jh

    I bet you could do a similar thing for climate change, no? :) The best thing about the hypoclimatia, though, is that most of the ecological and sociological ills haven’t even happened yet! Hypoclimatiacas are people who worry excessively about what might happen in 40-80 years. There isn’t even anecdotal evidence to support their worries!

    • Braeden Cowbrough

      Depends what you would consider hypocLimitia? If there is a generally fear of a one degree warming, that’s relatively substantiated, as is a slight rise in sea level due to thermoexpansjon and ice melt.

      • jh

        Agreed that some climatic changes are substantiated. Not agreed as to the causes of those climatic changes. I accept CO2 as a potential – even likely – but not “substantiated” cause.

        For the most part I’m referring to tragedies that are ascribed to the (mostly distant) future, such as increasing danger of flying due to turbulence, collapse of farming due to drought, changes in intensity and location of precipitation, massive extinctions due to temp changes (massive extinctions are ongoing, and mostly due to development). More floods, less floods, the end of snow (and therefore skiing), massive sea level rise, etc.

        Incidentally, the buzz among climate literati is that AGW didn’t really take hold until the 1970s. What caused the sea level to rise from 1900-1970? Personally, I think there’s a long climb still to “substantiate” anything about AGW, except the changing temp.

        • http://www.facebook.com/matt.holmes.1004 Matt Holmes

          Meteorology is a lot more substantiated than you’re giving it credit for, and the effects of climate change are already being felt around the world with an increase in record high temperatures and related droughts. The risk of superstorms, droughts that don’t end, radical rise in sea levels, are all what is on the verge of happening. The point of the matter is that we are already noticing these changes taking place. We can already see the impact, measure it. We are half a step away from being incapable of reversing the process. This isn’t something that happens over night. If we curb our ways today, it will take years for the cycle to shift back in our favor, and it’s taken centuries for it to get to this point. And in the end, if the planet is warming on it’s own and we’re just a drop in the bucket… is it such a bad thing to prefer resources we can replenish, to preserve our biosphere, our forests, our air and water quality? Nothing bad is coming out of the climate change agenda; why are we fighting it so hard?

          • jh

            Matt, Need I refer you to the 2011 SREX? :) No change in tropical storm scale or frequency; no change flooding frequency; no change in tornado frequency; only a slight change in drought frequency. One or two years doesn’t change these conclusions.

            “is it such a bad thing to prefer resources we can replenish…?”

            Not at all, unless those resources cost substantially more and provide only a small benefit for the cost. Which happens to be the case.

            Money is a natural resource. Wasting it on immature technologies is a waste of natural resources.

          • Braeden Cowbrough

            With regards to AGW and CO2 it is fairly certain the effects that are due to increased levels. Now, the effects are one certainly based on increased intensities of storms due to humidity increases along with temperature increases. We can’t forget that with increased warming we will see permafrost thaw, and the methane belch following that is substantial and can certainly make the process run away, similar to wha scientists think happened on Venus. To say not to make investments in wind is stupid, but it would be equally so to put all our eggs in one basket. Wind certainly has perks, as well as faults, the trick is to use the perks where they are most beneficial, the same with other energy sources. We can’t keep using cheapness of coal as an excuse…. Regardless, effects of a two degree change in temperature would be more expensive. We will be lucky to stop the co2 levels at what we have now….

          • myview1872

            Global warming, climate change or whatever it’s called may or may not be happening. Please explain how wind turbines, which are unreliable and require 100% backup, do anything at all to change it?

            After all the money and resources that have been sunk into wind energy, it only makes up about 3% of the world’s electricity. That’s pretty measly when you think about it. It’s time to shut down this little enterprise and start looking for a truly safe and reliable energy source.

          • Braeden Cowbrough

            Myview, I am pro-nuclear… II honestly think it’s a travesty the views towards it, but, I am also pro-renewables….

            I just understand this isn’t a one shoe fits all situation. Different markets and environments require different solutions. Nuclear power is difficult to build, unless we can work out modular a bit better, and requires high levels of regulation. However, it has the advantage of having one of the highest capacity factors (>90%) and it seems like the lifetimes have been increased above most initial expectations and can run for a damn long time. (25 years is the typical length, but it seems 50 isn’t a far off dream).

            Now with renewables, most of the cost is shouldered in just the production and transmission portion. I.e. the tech is expensive and setting up the transmission portion can be a hassle if coming from multiple sources (MicroFIT had this problem in Ontario, everyone saw that you would make a profit if you got the deal so everyone got on it, then ran into the problem that HydroOne and all the power companies didn’t hook them all up to the grid so they couldn’t even get the agreement).

            Now, with regards to the global warming/climate change… We can say with a reasonable degree of certainty, that all indications show that global temperatures are in deed increasing at a rate above expectations, that lags CO2 increases, and does not correlate with solar activity outputs. To say climate change, specifically a net increase in global temperatures is not occurring is not supported by the evidence.

            Myview, you’re incorrect when saying they need 100% backup… that doesn’t really make any sense you don’t see Denmark or the Germany, both substantial wind producers (by percentage of their total output) requiring 100% back up. Yes, it raises prices, but new tech can have this effect. We would have seen this when electricity was first produced through fossil fuels. We paid for those costs back then. Yes, wind has variability to it. Not denying that factor. We can remove small amounts of variability through weather forecast trends and previous years (some, not all). We can complement it with PV as it tends to follow trends at opposite periods to wind, but again, not perfect. Nulcear and hydro can act as buffers, as can NG-fired if we can reduce this it would be good as well.

            As to the effects, depends what you would consider substantial. If you’re going by lower emission fossil fuels to electricity comparison, the emission reductions are substantial I suppose… 500 TWh from wind is a relative estimate for 2012 based on 2011 (I don’t have the figure). that is a substantial reduction in GHG. Remember this isn’t about being 100% wind, or solar or tidal or hydro or geothermal or nuclear. It is about using tech where it is best suited.

          • myview1872

            I will agree that nuclear energy has been unduly maligned. It is expensive to build but here in Ontario we have a good supply already in place.

            Not one shoe fits all. I have no problem at all with small-scale wind or solar. Remote properties or areas would benefit from these technologies. Some want to reduce their reliance on the gird and that’s fine but don’t expect me to assist you in financing the installation by selling to the grid.

            Industrial wind and solar operations are built for one reason: TO MAKE MONEY. Do you think these installations would be built at all if there was not money to be made? Do you think that companies such as Suncor or Enbridge would build them if there was not a big profit in it for them?

            Europe has been building IWT for years as has California. After all this time, wouldn’t there be scientific studies that actually show CO2 reductions? Nope, nothing. Way too much damage has been done in the pursuit of ‘green’ wind energy. It’s time to cut our losses and get out of the wind business.

          • Braeden Cowbrough

            All power installations are essentially for profit though…? The CO2 reductions can only be speculated, but calculating a good estimate is possible. It depends on what carbon power source you compare it to though. Wind has building costs, as does nuclear, and these add to CO2 outputs. Remember pouring concrete releases GHG as well.

            Wind has perks, and if it can make a profit in certain areas, why not. I would like to see more personal owned versions though, as I hope to purchase enough to be a net generator once I am well set in my future career (only a biochem student lol).

            Wind is advantageous in certain locations and areas. I use to work by the Port Burwell Wind Farm in ontario, and it certainly is interesting. It can make use of land that would otherwise just be empty space, and tends to be much higher frequency in certain locations.

          • myview1872

            Most new electricity installation are privately owned and are for profit. The problem with wind developments is the profit is out of proportion to the actual energy produced. Wind energy comprises a measly 3% of our energy supply.

          • Braeden Cowbrough

            It comprises 3% yes, and fossil fuel contributes a vast majority. The difficulty arises in that one largely predates the other in implementation. Considering how rapidly the wind amount is contributing, it stands as a major producer for sure. Likely it will be comparable to nuclear soon since that isn’t getting developed worth crap anywhere but china.

          • myview1872

            If wind was performing so well, why is Ontario building NG plants?

          • Braeden Cowbrough

            Again, 3 % even though its only relatively recently been getting developed. I am sure you are a supporter of nuclear. Do you think people made that nuclear was only say 1% of the power system when it was first getting developed? It doesn’t make any sense does it…

          • myview1872

            Wind turbines have been built for years. The industry has had plenty of time to develop. 3 percent is pretty lousy.

          • Braeden Cowbrough

            Have been built for years… not really. Larger scale ones are relatively recent mind you. With something like wind or solar mass production is required to reduce cost. Period. It is the same thing we need to do for a lot of things to solve problems on top of developing the new technologies along with it.

            Now, you make note of the 3%, which is true, but it isn’t a good stat to use and you know that.

            Listen, I am not a hippie, I hate most of them typically, they just get on my nerves. I’m not against nuclear, I am just against using fossil fuels, especially oil that stuff is valuable in so many other ways than as a fuel source, if there are other viable options that may cost a bit more but won’t contribute as hefty a tole to our planet in terms of carbon dioxide production.

            Now, if you were to use a figure how about the growth of installed capacity…and when you start looking at that its quite impressive. Starting with the 6.1 GW installed in 1996 to 282.4 GW in 2012. that is a bit of a change… 4600% increase in 16 years. Not bad. With the past five years averaging a growth of 25% the amount installed each year has been increasing every year for the past 16…

            Now in 2011, we had 459.9 Twh coming from 238 GW of installed capacity. Running the math, you get 22% capacity factor globally. Definitely not the greatest capacity factor, but extrapolating using a 15% increase each year in installed capacity (lower than any other year) and we get by 2020 863 GW installed which at the same 22% would produce 1669 TWh. Now I know this is all speculative, but its relatively modest expectations based on growth wouldn’t you say as the trend of 15% only needs to continue for 7 years.

            The technology has been around for longer then fossil fuel yes, that is true. The problem with that though is the newer turbines haven’t been around for that long. 5 MW turbines were unheard of 20 years ago. I know spain is testing a 10 MW one… which is crazy.

            Develop Nuclear. Develop wind. Develop Solar. Use each where it’s best suited. I am sure deserts solar is much better suited than where its dark for six months in the year :P

    • D V

      Same for Hoplophobia.

  • Rob Hooft

    The best part of the “evidence” is the fact that the results can be felt 100km away…. This is almost as true as the observation that almost 95% of earthquakes happen within a week before or after either a new moon or a full moon…..

    • Valewood

      When you make such an outrageous claim, you really should back it up with a link to the source of such nonsense. I have never heard or read of any such claim from anyone who lives around industrial wind factories.

    • rucio

      Such “outliers” are generally ignored while attempting to understand what is happening. The glee with which ALL evidence is thrown out on the basis of such outliers reveals a desire to NOT try to understand what is happening.

      Nonetheless, the UK Ministry of Defense is able to detect vibrations from wind turbines 80km away from its nuclear test ban treaty monitoring station in Eskdalemuir, Scotland. https://docs.wind-watch.org/AEG-Eskdalemuir.pdf

      • http://twitter.com/ArghJoshi Ketan Joshi

        Rucio,

        Are you implying that the individual who made the ‘100km’ claim is a liar?

        By classifying him as an ‘outlier’, aren’t you ignoring his anecdotal evidence as the primary guidance for research? By your logic, shouldn’t we be investigating and researching his claim?

        • rucio

          God, you are pathetic. Hundreds of people complain of similar symptoms within, say, 2 km of wind turbines. That is obviously the first thing to investigate. Anyway, I don’t think the 100 km claim is an actual case, but rather a note that infrasound from wind turbines can travel that far in certain areas. You shouldn’t rely on Simon Chapman for your info.

  • Nicholas Williams

    I’m visiting family in Spain as I write this. Some family members live on the farm just outside this small town. There are wind generators on the farm and all over the countryside here in southern Spain. I have stood directly beneath the rotating blades of one of these massive generators. I can tell you for a fact that you can barely hear the blades swoosh by as they rotate. So anyone who claims to be able to hear them a 100 yards away must have remarkable hearing.

    • jh

      “anyone who claims to be able to hear them a 100 yards away must have remarkable hearing.”
      I can hear those in my region more than 100 yards away.

      I’m sure different manufacturers products have different noise levels. Windspeed (and thus turbine speed) also matters.

    • D V

      You are ignoring the effect of sub-sonic and ultra-sonic noise though.

      • Spencerforhire

        It’s been shown to be a SHAM

        Google anti wind turbine groups make people sick

        • myview1872

          There you go referencing that garbage ‘study’ from Simon Chapman again. Has that thing been peer-reviewed yet? Go back to school and find our what REAL science is.

          • Spencerforhire

            Not a “study” by “Chapman” what a scaredy cat !

            Two universities and YES it has been reviewed !

          • myview1872

            Who has done the peer review? I searched and FOUND NO REFERENCE

          • Spencerforhire

            have already, many times, try and keep up.

            I’m still waiting for you to provide anything, even a bugs bunny cartoon – sorry “Steamboat Micki”- reference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • DanWrightman

            The Chapman study is not peer reviewed Spencer.

          • Spencerforhire

            Sorry you keep thinking I’m talking about Chapman so you are not an idiot just INSANE insane under Einstein’s definition.

            show me where I say I’m Talking about “THEE Chapman ‘STUDY” ??

            The study from Crichton, Dodd, Schmid, Gamble, Petrie, has been reviewed by The University of Sydney and of Auckland and the American Psychological Association.

            See the published article : Can Expectations Produce Symptoms From Infrasound Associated With Wind Turbines?

            I guess you are an idiot and I can’t blame you.

            You keep going on about the Chapman “study”??

            I have never mentioned the Chapman “study” or “rant” as you call it!

            Didn’t your mother (if you ever had one) tell you not to tell fibs about other people??

          • rucio

            There are a few critiques of both the Crichton and the Chapman papers at https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/tag/nocebo/?titles=on — Another is currently being submitted to peer-reviewed (that sacred compound adjective!) journals.

          • Spencerforhire

            Seriously “Wind Watch” ?? HAVE I EVERY TOLD YOU (OR ANYONE) TO GO TO THE CANWEA SITE??

            Ya I think I will ask Bernardo for advice on dating!

            Please do not reply to me until you have actually read the real articles. If you still feel the need to point out Wind Watch sites, please, first follow the Big Oil Denier money that they get!!

            Reading NIMBY web site C.R.A.P. will just make everyone sick!

          • Spencerforhire

            And now you have reviewed it and David Suzuki has reviewed it and so on and they told two friends and so on LOL!!!

          • myview1872

            From page 1 of Chapman’s little rant: “Pre-Print: This paper has been submitted for publication to a peer reviewed journal.”

          • Spencerforhire

            You keep going on about the Chapman “study” I have never mentioned the Chapman “study” or “rant” as you call it!

            Didn’t your mother (if you ever had one) tell you not to tell fibs about other people??

            The study from Crichton, Dodd, Schmid, Gamble, Petrie, has been reviewed by The University of Sydney and of Auckland and the American Psychological Association.

            See: Can Expectations Produce Symptoms From Infrasound Associated With Wind Turbines?

            I guess you are an idiot and can’t blame you.

            Sorry you keep thinking I’m talking about Chapman so you are not an idiot you are insane.

          • rucio

            The Crichton study tested suggestibility only. It did not test exposure to infrasound as actually experienced in homes near wind turbines.

          • Spencerforhire

            Actually they did but regardless the “17 health reviews” already done were on Hundreds of Infrasound studies.

            All of which came back negative for your side.

            So jump ship while there is still a chance you will not be painted as an idiot!

          • rucio

            Or a MAAARRRROOON? It’s boring to say it again, but those “17 reviews” mostly recognize uncertainty and the need for more study. And although it will go right over your head to say all this, but maybe it will be of interest to other readers, none of the original sources of those reviews showed that there is no association between wind turbine noise and human distress.

          • Spencerforhire

            Again MAAARRROOOON (as Bugs Bunny would say) read the actual reports NOT the spoon-fed pablum from Wind Watch!

            Any MINOR NON-ADVERSE health issues associated with turbines are from NIMBYs!

    • myview1872

      Standing under wind turbines does not give the same noise effect as moving away from the turbine. Because the nacelle is high in the air, the sound travels.

      • Spencerforhire

        The Nacelle is 550 meters in the air??

        What a MAARRROOON

        • myview1872

          Where did I say the nacelle was 550 meters in the air? Who’s the moron?

          • Spencerforhire

            LOL right above right here!! LOL!!

            “Standing under a turbine is not the same as being at the edge of the 550 meter set back because they are so high in the air!”

            I think you are what Valewood thinks of when he says I’m a NIMBY asset !LOL!!

          • myview1872

            No, that does not say the nacelle is 550 metres in the air. I did not write it either. Reading comprehension giving you problems again?

    • Valewood

      People who say they have stood underneath a turbine and not heard anything, demonstrate to me that they don’t have even the slightest knowledge about how the dynamics of sound or infrasound travel works.
      Try standing under a loudspeaker at a stadium and tell me how clearly you hear what’s being broadcast. But stand across the stadium or 100 feet in front of the speaker and you can hear it fine.
      Newsflash — sound travels away, not down.

      • Spencerforhire

        Sound travels away not down LOL!! So if they put them on a hill (Usually do) then you are good with them??

        LOL!!!

        Google anti wind turbine groups make people sick

        infrasound : It’s been shown to be a SHAM

        • rucio

          Uh oh, here we go with Mr LOLLA-land. For a good explanation of how sound from wind turbines propagates, see http://docs.wind-watch.org/wind-shear-turbine-noise-propagation.pdf

          • Spencerforhire

            Wind Watch LOL what a MAARRROOOON!

            I live near John Harrison , he is a NIMBY of the Highest order!

            Read it, he compares a gas generator on a still lake to a wind turbine in hurricane!!

          • myview1872

            Spencer has learned a new word today. LMAO

          • Spencerforhire

            No the word that describes you is LAME-O

            LOL !!

  • kdk33

    Kloor,

    You misunderstand the syndrome. It isn’t the noise; it’s the lack of sanity that is contagious. It’s the squandering of taxpayer dollars to enrich the politically connected, blight the landscape, and contribute to society absolutely nothing of value – economic or otherwise.

    In other words: the wind energy farce is starting to make people sick.

  • http://www.facebook.com/smada808 Joshua Adams

    There used to be anecdotal evidence that the Earth was flat and that AIDS existed due to homosexual activity. I guess science should tackle this one, as well.

    • Valewood

      Yep, and cigarette manufacturers used to deny there were any ill health effects from their products as well.
      Thank God we trusted their word and never pursued that any further.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matt.holmes.1004 Matt Holmes

    Claims like these make me shake my head. So a subtle background noise does more damage to you than the pollutants released by most other power sources? Even if there was any truth to medical claims, it’s asinine to say that wind power has a more adverse effect on the population than coal or gas burning. Which, I might add, are the primary human causes for the climate crisis and could put untold numbers of people at severe risk if left unchecked. Lets take two steps forward and one step back. It’s better than not going forward at all.

    • kdk33

      “climate crises”, Pollutants released from burning gas, Untold numbers at severe risk.

      People imagine lots of things. Windmills aside.

    • myview1872

      Please explain exactly how wind turbines do anything at all to mitigate the effects of climate change, Be sure to include backup energy that wind turbines require in your explanation.

    • rucio

      Nobody said they did. But a greater wrong does not excuse the addition of a lesser one. If it is justified, then it needs to be assessed so that people can be properly compensated. Like when a village gets flooded for a hydro dam.

  • rucio

    Like freedom fighters, one person’s heartfelt testimony is another’s “anecdote”. Separate the two requires a little more than simply defending the wind industry from any criticism. Joshi has found a few irrelevant quotes about anecdote and made a poster of the list of complaints collected by Simon Chapman in Australia. Rather than consider that at least some of them might be worth investigating, he joins Chapman in this straw man attempt to obviate any such actual study, even as more physicians around the world acknowledge the complaints as valid, as acousticians increasingly document the presence of substantial infrasound in homes from wind turbines, and as physiologists discover more about the effects of infrasound. That Discover joins in this mockery is itself a disturbing sign of the state of scientific thinking.

    • http://twitter.com/ArghJoshi Ketan Joshi

      You describe the collated claims as ‘heartfelt testimony’.

      “Unexplained mass die-offs of livestock have occurred near some wind farms. In New Zealand, 400 goats dropped dead. In Wisconsin, a farmer lost most of his cattle herd after turbines went in.”
      http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/9425

      What you’re attempting to do is classify self-reported evidence as inscrutable, and inarguable. The anti-vaccination lobby deploy exactly the same fallacy.

      Would you classify the claim that wind turbines caused the mass death of 400 goats as the ‘heartfelt testimony’ of a ‘freedom fighter’?

      Do you think it’s worth diverting research funding away from medical research, to hire acousticians and epidemiologists, to ascertain whether wind turbines are causing the mass-deaths of livestock?

      If you cast aspersions on that claim, are you calling them a liar? Are you mocking their assertion? Isn’t that horribly insensitive?

      • rucio

        I have only noted that you are dismissing all such claims on your perception that some of them seem unbelievable. The “400 goats” story, by the way, was on a Taiwanese island, as reported by Reuters and the BBC among others in May 2009. The goats started to die after a nearby windfarm began operation, and after 3 years and the loss of more than half of the herd, the Council of Agriculture determined that the noise was preventing them from sleeping, which weakened and eventually killed them.

        • Blair Donaldson

          How then do you explain the apparently happy coexistence of cattle, sheep and horses around wind turbines in many places around the world? Can you not conceive a single alternative and more credible explanation for the deaths of these goats? What about age, disease, ingestion of some seasonal plant, unusual weather conditions, fertilisers?

          • rucio

            Surely the Taiwan Council of Agriculture considered those possibilities.

        • Blair Donaldson

          Maybe they did but I don’t have the details of the investigation. I can think of plenty of plausible explanations that don’t include wind turbines. Also, knowing how hardy goats are, I very much doubt any sound from a wind turbine, or turbines would be enough to keep them awake if they can happily sleep in paddocks alongside busy highways.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Barnard/604449062 Mike Barnard

      Actually, Chapman as well as Crichton in New Zealand agree completely with you that the anecdotal evidence is persuasive that an investigation is required. Their hypotheses were that the claimed ailments were psychogenic in nature and that the ailments were induced via the nocebo effect respectively.

      Both fully understand the ability of the human mind to cause real suffering. Both respect the individual claimants. Both respect that real health impacts are occurring.

      Both undertook well-designed and appropriate studies to test their hypotheses, found strong evidence to support them and published their results.

      The evidence of 17 reviews world wide of relevant literature as well as the anecdotal evidence all agreed that there was no physical mechanism for health impacts. Independent, credentialed, professional experts and teams of experts all found that the balance of evidence did not in any way support performing detailed medical studies or slowing the growth of wind energy.

      Chapman and Crichton looked upon those 17 reviews as not a reason to say “nothing to see here, move along”, but as a reason to ask “what could be causing all of these people to suffer this vastly disparate collection of symptoms?”

      Their answers are very persuasive and fall in line with recent studies from the UK showing that noise annoyance from wind energy is tightly coupled with negative personality orientation and neurotic personality types.

      That you dislike the answers that deeply intelligent, respected and competent researchers have found for the health claims against wind farms is immaterial except in one regard:

      You are continuing in the face of overwhelming evidence to be a vector of the communicated disease that is wind turbine syndrome. Through your actions, you are helping to make more people sick by spreading unfounded fears.

      You are fully aware that you are doing this and yet you do it anyway.

      I would suggest that you take a few months’ hiatus from your online campaign to spread health fears and think about what you are doing. You would probably like to be able to look yourself in the mirror in 20 years and say you did the right thing and your current behaviour isn’t leading to either your future peace or better health for those impacted by this communicated disease.

      Review the full evidence for and against here: http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/wind-farms-dont-make-people-sick-so-why-the-complaints/

      • rucio

        Crichton and Chapman did not perform studies of actual cases. And even for what they were, their “studies” were not at all well designed. So please spare us your self-promoting condescension. Your pretense of compassion rings loudly false, since its aim is not to find the real (and obvious) cause of, but only to silence complaint.

      • rucio

        And those 17 reviews! Most of them acknowledge the possibility that it is indeed wind turbine noise causing adverse health effects. Most of them call for more study of that possibility, not for finding ways to blame the complainants themselves.

      • myview1872

        Mike, of those 17 ‘reviews’ how many actually involved field work, taking measurements or medical examinations? Not one.

        Has Chapman’s ‘study’ been peer-reviewed yet?

      • DanWrightman

        Mike Barnard loves to breathlessly drone on about Simon Chapman’s list of 17 reviews . Too bad the claims that both Chapman and Barnard make about the 17 reviews have been thoroughly debunked by Wayne Gulden on his blog Wind Farm Realities. Of the 17 “reviews” only 4 are actual studies, the rest are trumped up literature reviews. Only 4 out of the 17 papers are actually peer reviewed. 3 aren’t even about wind turbines and human health and one of them is just a web page from CANWEA, which hardly qualifies as a health study by any standards. Furthermore the 4 peer reviewed papers were mail in surveys and no face to face interviews with residents were conducted. Nor did they take physical measurements like blood pressure readings or noise measurements inside or outside of homes to validate sound modeling. Google Wayne Gulden’s article titled “17 Health Studies (1 of 3)” and be sure to read Mike Barnard’s comments at the bottom where he complains about being personally maligned but in another comment he calls Jim Cummings a flake.

  • rucio

    From the Advil product label:
    Ibuprofen may cause a severe allergic reaction…. Symptoms may include: hives; facial swelling; asthma (wheezing); shock; skin reddening; rash; blisters. This product … may cause severe stomach bleeding. … Do not use: if you have ever had an allergic reaction to any other pain reliever/fever reducer; right before or after heart surgery. Ask a doctor before use if: stomach bleeding warning applies to you; you have problems or serious side effects from taking pain relievers or fever reducers; you have a history of stomach problems, such as heartburn; you have high blood pressure, heart disease, liver cirrhosis, kidney disease, or asthma; you are taking a diuretic. Ask a doctor or pharmacist before use if you are: under a doctor’s care for any serious condition; taking aspirin for heart attack or stroke, because ibuprofen may decrease this benefit of aspirin; taking any other drug. When using this product: take with food or milk if stomach upset occurs; the risk of heart attack or stroke may increase if you use more than directed or for longer than directed. Stop use and ask a doctor if: you experience any of the following signs of stomach bleeding: feel faint, vomit blood, have bloody or black stools, have stomach pain that does not get better; pain gets worse or lasts more than 10 days; fever gets worse or lasts more than 3 days; redness or swelling is present in the painful area; any new symptoms appear. If pregnant or breast-feeding, ask a health professional before use. It is especially important not to use ibuprofen during the last 3 months of pregnancy unless definitely directed to do so by a doctor because it may cause problems in the unborn child or complications during delivery.

    Ha ha, stupid ibuprofen sufferers.

  • Tom Fuller

    New phenomena tend to attract blame for existing conditions, of course. But people do get used to them. Who gets carsick or airsick anymore?

    • D V

      I always get car sick in the back seat of a car, that is why I generally want to be the driver.

    • Valewood

      You know. We’d save a hell of a lot of money on health care costs if someone would just convince those with lung cancer that it’s all in their heads and that smoking is actually harmless. They need to stop reading those warning labels on cigarettes and everything would be fine.
      Same for those gunshot victims. The only reason they fall down and die is because they grew up watching westerns.

  • rucio

    Anecdotal evidence is the first step towards scientific inquiry. Joshi and others of the industry clearly want to make sure it doesn’t go that far. Which is strong evidence that it should.

  • D V

    All of you are ignoring the possible effects of subsonic and ultra-sonic noise levels on human and the other animals, off course not all are effected but many are. When know that many animals are effected by ultra sonic sound just watch a dogs reaction to an emergency vehicles siren or watch horses reactions to low to med height flying air craft. Look at the problems with Dolphins and Navy sonar. Noise is noise, most of the time it is just merely annoying but then again ….

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Barnard/604449062 Mike Barnard

      No, actually, we aren’t ignoring the impacts. They’ve been assessed and found to be completely irrelevant to the discussion.

      Ultrasound — sound above the normal range of human hearing, typically greater than 20,000 Hz — was dismissed years ago: it’s a therapeutic tool used widely in medicine to provide imaging and to accelerate healing. It’s extremely well understood and known to be fully benign.

      Infrasound — sound below the normal range of human hearing, typically 0-20 Hz — is also well understood. The only evidence of harm from infrasound was at levels 1,000,000 (yes, that’s one million) times greater than that produced by wind turbines. People evolved with infrasound. The human heart and lungs produce over 100 dB of infrasound in their normal operation. The South Australian EPA studied infrasound at many human inhabited locations and found the lowest levels of it at the homes near wind farms whether the wind farms were operating or not. Blaming infrasound is junk science.

      http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/humans-evolved-with-infrasound-is-there-any-truth-to-health-concerns-about-it/

      • myview1872

        Assessed by who? Simon Chapman has been known, long before his ‘study’ (is that one peer-reviewed yet?) to denigrate those who report health effects from wind turbines. There are lots of ‘studies’ to show that IWT do not affect health but it you look at the details, all are written or commissioned by wind energy supporters.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Barnard/604449062 Mike Barnard

          The evidence is clear. Here’s the link to the reviews and the reviewers. I urge anyone who thinks MVrearviewmirror might be right to glance through the list. He’s so farcically wrong a quick glance is all it will take.

          http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindHealthReviews.pdf

          • rucio

            Chapman didn’t even interpret those 17 reviews very well, as others have noted. As I wrote in another comment on this page, most of them acknowledge the possibility that it is indeed wind turbine
            noise causing adverse health effects. Most of them call for more study
            of that possibility, not for finding ways to blame the complainants
            themselves.

          • Valewood

            Funny how Mike Barnard and others like him (Kaeten Joshi) who have a financial interest in wind energy always discount studies showing negative health effects, even when those studies are done by the Acoustic Society of America or UCLA or other credible sources, but they rally ’round farcical research like that of Simon Chapman and proclaim his work to the world like it’s gospel….even though it’s not better than a grade 3 science project.

          • myview1872

            Grade 3 is a little too generous.

  • noturbine

    If we need to fight global warming then we need
    solutions that work. However, INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES ARE A SHAM AND DO NOT
    PROVIDE CLEAN ENERGY! Not one coal or gas plant the world over has been
    decommissioned because of IWTs…and eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels
    is their whole purpose. To quote an expert: “Because wind blows intermittently,
    electric utilities must either keep their conventional power plants running all
    the time to make sure the lights don’t go dark, or continually ramp up and down
    the output from conventional coal-or gas-fired generators (called “cycling”).
    But coal-fired and gas-fired generators are designed to run continuously, and
    if they don’t, fuel consumption and emissions generally increase.” This is
    happening worldwide, and in places like Colorado and Texas where CO2 and power
    plant pollution have increased since installing wind farms:

    http://www.forbes.com/2011/07/19/wind-energy-carbon.htmlhttp://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15081808

    http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html

    http://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/article/610422–cost-of-green-energy-40-higher-than-government-estimates

    The wind industry is built on crony capitalism, it is the only way it can
    exist. Taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies build them and power companies are
    mandated to buy wind generated power at much higher rates than conventionally
    produced power. There is no true benefit, except to wind power companies,
    politicians and lobbyists.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Barnard/604449062 Mike Barnard

      More of the typical nonsense. Real world studies in Texas, the UK and Australia all show virtually one for one reduction in green house gases. The worst case was displacement of 99.8% of CO2e. The best case was actual improvement in efficiencies of coal generation plants.

      Every MWh of wind energy replaces a MWh of fossil fuel generation and virtually all of it’s CO2e. That’s a good thing.

      http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/wind-energy-reduces-green-house-gas-emissions/

      • myview1872

        If your have the evidence, post it here for all to see and form their own opinion. Everything I have seen from you is either someone’s opinion or wind company propaganda.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Barnard/604449062 Mike Barnard

          For those unfamiliar with MVstale’s road show, he stalk’s me on Disqus to post zero content challenges that would be resolved merely by clicking on the little links I provide. In his delusional world, I’m somehow gaining something on a volunteer blog if he hits the link.

          Nothing to see here folks. Just another random Internet crazy. Move along.

          • myview1872

            It’s better to post zero content than to spread misinformation. Where is REAL scientific evidence that IWT do anything at all to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions anywhere?

  • DanWrightman

    Here are 19 peer reviewed articles regarding adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines:
    1)The Problems With ”Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment
    Bob Thorne
    2)Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise
    on health related quality of life
    by Daniel Shepherd, David McBride, David Welch, Kim N. Dirks, Erin M. Hill
    3)Mitigating the Acoustic Impacts of Modern Technologies:
    Acoustic, Health, and Psychosocial Factors
    Informing Wind Farm Placement
    Daniel Shepherd and Rex Billington
    4)Public Health Ethics, Legitimacy, and the Challenges of Industrial Wind Turbines:
    The Case of Ontario, Canada
    Martin Shain
    5)Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans
    Alec N. Salt and James A.Kaltenbach Infrasound
    6)Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds,
    infrasound and wind turbines.
    Alec N. Salt and T.E. Hullar.
    Department of Otolaryngology,
    Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
    7)Occupational Health and Industrial Wind Turbines: A Case Study
    Robert W. Rand, Stephen E. Ambrose, and Carmen M. E. Krogh
    8)Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects
    of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents
    Carl V. Phillips
    9)Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects
    in the Environs of Industrial Wind Turbines:
    Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis
    Robert Y. McMurtry
    10)Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines
    Henrik Møller and Christian Sejer Pedersen
    Section of Acoustics, Aalborg University,
    Fredrik Bajers Vej
    11)WindVOiCe, a Self-Reporting Survey: Adverse Health Effects,
    Industrial Wind Turbines, and the Need for Vigilance Monitoring
    Carmen M.E. Krogh, Lorrie Gillis, Nicholas Kouwen, and Jeffery Aramini
    12)Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice?
    Carmen M.E. Krogh
    13)Wind Turbines Make Waves:
    Why Some Residents Near Wind Turbines Become Ill
    Magda Havas and David Colling
    14)Literature Reviews on Wind Turbines and Health : Are They Enough?
    Brett Horner, Roy D. Jeffery and Carmen M. E. Krogh
    15)Editorial Wind turbine noise Christopher D Hanning and Alun Evans
    British Medical Journal,
    16)Wind Turbine Noise
    John P. Harrison
    17)The Noise from Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s Well-Being
    Arline L. Bronzaft
    18)WIND TURBINE NOISE,
    SLEEP AND HEALTH
    Response to:
    The Northumberland County Council Core
    Issues and Options Report Consultations
    Dr Christopher Hanning
    19)Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health
    Michael A. Nissenbaum, Jeffery J. Aramini1, Christopher D. Hanning

    • Blair Donaldson

      Good one Dan, you cite one editorial from the BMJ about some research done by a known windfarm critic. The first line of the excerpt states, “Seems to affect health adversely and an independent review of evidence is needed.”

      No definite claim, it only “seems” as though health could be affected? Brilliant. As for more research, bring it on, everybody involved with windfarm development wants to see more independent research, in fact the EPA in South Australia is doing some monitoring right now. The only concern is that the anti-wind mob will try to nobble the recording equipment but hopefully video monitoring will alleviate that.

      The majority of the papers you referenced don’t seem to come from well-known, well recognised journals and the dedicated reader will discover the majority of the authors are also known wind farm opponents. Wonder why? Still all those citations look impressive and could lead the casual reader to think they all came from the BMJ when we both know they didn’t.

      • myview1872

        Do you count Mike Barnard’s blog among those ‘well-known, well recognised journals’? You did post a link to Mike’s vanity project, didn’t you?

        • Blair Donaldson

          It’s just one of the many blogs, news articles and community references, including some of the better known anti-wind sites I read. I’m not much fussed about who writes the articles, it’s what they write that interests me. It’s particularly telling that few of the anti-wind sites allow any opposing comments and actively kill dissenting posts. So much for openness and objectivity from the anti-wind folks? It seems there claims and “evidence” is so tenuous, it can’t stand any objective criticism.

          I’ll happily admit that I’m pretty skeptical of most of the self-serving, self obsessed commentary from windfarm opponents because of my direct experience with wind farm opponents in this region when two local windfarms were constructed 10 and 8 years ago. A third larger wind farm is under construction now. As most of us expected, none of the dire claims made by opponents have borne fruit, there is nobody in the approximately 8000 population (combining both areas) who suffer any ill-health attributed to wind turbines. All the other BS claims they made are equally empty.

          It’s because of my direct experience that I can reasonably judge who is lying when certain claims are made. Although I vehemently disagree with the few local opponents, we still work together in other areas. I’m sure that disappoints you.

          Ultimately, your childish attempts to demonise the industry and anybody who demonstrate any support for it will come to nothing because as time goes on, people will learn to live with them just as they have with every other technology that serves societies. It’s time you grew up and moved on.

          • DanWrightman

            You are repeating anecdotal stories, Blair and you know the wind industry is only interested in peer reviewed evidence, or at least they used to be. Now that the real medical evidence is slowly starting to come out the wind proponents seem to be singing a different tune.

          • Blair Donaldson

            What real medical evidence would that be? Surprise me.

          • DanWrightman

            Again here are 19 peer reviewed articles regarding adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines. Happy reading.
            1)The Problems With ”Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment
            Bob Thorne
            2)Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise
            on health related quality of life
            by Daniel Shepherd, David McBride, David Welch, Kim N. Dirks, Erin M. Hill
            3)Mitigating the Acoustic Impacts of Modern Technologies:
            Acoustic, Health, and Psychosocial Factors
            Informing Wind Farm Placement
            Daniel Shepherd and Rex Billington
            4)Public Health Ethics, Legitimacy, and the Challenges of Industrial Wind Turbines:
            The Case of Ontario, Canada
            Martin Shain
            5)Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans
            Alec N. Salt and James A.Kaltenbach Infrasound
            6)Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds,
            infrasound and wind turbines.
            Alec N. Salt and T.E. Hullar.
            Department of Otolaryngology,
            Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
            7)Occupational Health and Industrial Wind Turbines: A Case Study
            Robert W. Rand, Stephen E. Ambrose, and Carmen M. E. Krogh
            8)Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects
            of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents
            Carl V. Phillips
            9)Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects
            in the Environs of Industrial Wind Turbines:
            Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis
            Robert Y. McMurtry
            10)Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines
            Henrik Møller and Christian Sejer Pedersen
            Section of Acoustics, Aalborg University,
            Fredrik Bajers Vej
            11)WindVOiCe, a Self-Reporting Survey: Adverse Health Effects,
            Industrial Wind Turbines, and the Need for Vigilance Monitoring
            Carmen M.E. Krogh, Lorrie Gillis, Nicholas Kouwen, and Jeffery Aramini
            12)Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice?
            Carmen M.E. Krogh
            13)Wind Turbines Make Waves:
            Why Some Residents Near Wind Turbines Become Ill
            Magda Havas and David Colling
            14)Literature Reviews on Wind Turbines and Health : Are They Enough?
            Brett Horner, Roy D. Jeffery and Carmen M. E. Krogh
            15)Editorial Wind turbine noise Christopher D Hanning and Alun Evans
            British Medical Journal,
            16)Wind Turbine Noise
            John P. Harrison
            17)The Noise from Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s Well-Being
            Arline L. Bronzaft
            18)WIND TURBINE NOISE,
            SLEEP AND HEALTH
            Response to:
            The Northumberland County Council Core
            Issues and Options Report Consultations
            Dr Christopher Hanning
            19)Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health
            Michael A. Nissenbaum, Jeffery J. Aramini1, Christopher D. Hanning

      • DanWrightman

        Blair comments above: “the papers you referenced don’t seem to come from well-known, well recognised journals”
        Well Blair your comment is as in your own words above: “No definite claim, it only “seems” “

        • Blair Donaldson

          As you were caught out so easily, it’s easy to understand your embarrassment.

      • rucio

        Notice the self-protective thinking here. Any acknowledgement of adverse effects makes one a windfarm critic, and so that acknowledgement can be dismissed. Blair is already preparing his arguments for dismissing what the EPA might find. Elsewhere, the fact that an acoustician uses equipment and techniques to reliably detect infrasound is called a saboteur.

        • Blair Donaldson

          No preparation needed or required, those of us who have bothered to be informed already know and acknowledge a very small number of individuals are convinced windfarms make them ill. I doubt you’ll find anybody who denies that.

          The problem which you fail to understand is that these people cannot demonstrate any consistent link or plausible cause that doesn’t involve the denial of existing science.

          There is also the inconvenient problem for you and that there are many windfarms currently operating in Australia where no claims of ill-health had been reported. This presents a statistical anomaly that runs against claims made by anti-wind cranks. Finally, the evidence clearly shows that claims of ill-health occurred in exactly the same regions where windfarm opponents have been most active. It’s not hard to draw a fair conclusion that uninformed people can be unnecessarily worried by lies and distortions promoted by windfarm opponents.

          The lack of any credible medical link further undermines your mythical “real medical evidence.” Don’t worry though, you’ll catch on eventually.

          • DanWrightman

            Who would you trust with your health and well being? 71 professionals including doctors, researchers and acousticians or a greedy wind developer.

            Below is the list put together by EPAW of health practitioners, researchers and acousticians who have investigated or voiced concerns for the health of wind turbine neighbors.
            1 — Professor Mariana Alves Pereira, Biomechanical Engineer (Portugal, 2007)
            2 — Dr Ian Arra, Public Health Physician (Canada, 2013)
            3 — Mr Stephen Ambrose, Noise Engineer (USA, 2011)
            4 — Associate Professor Jeffrey Aramini, Epidemiologist (Canada, 2010)
            5 — Dr Huub Bakker, Engineer, (New Zealand, 2010)
            6 — Dr Linda Benier, Ear Nose & Throat specialist (Canada, 2011)
            7 — Dr Owen Black, Ear Nose & Throat specialist (USA, 2009)
            8 — Mr Wade Bray, Noise Engineer (USA, 2011)
            9 — Professor Arline Bronzaft, Psychologist & Researcher (US, 2010)
            10 — Dr Nuno Castelo Branco, Pathologist (Portugal, 2007)
            11 — Dr Christian Buhl, Institute of Biomedicine, Aarhus University (Denmark)
            12 — Dr Micheal Cooke, General Practitioner (Ireland, 2012)
            13 — Mr Steven Cooper, Acoustician (Australia, 2011)
            14 — Dr Herb Coussos, Medical Practitioner (US, 2010)
            15 — Dr R Crunkhorne, Ear Nose & Throat specialist (UK, 2013)
            16 — Mrs Jane Davis, Nurse (UK, 2010)
            17 — Professor Phillip Dickinson, Acoustician (New Zealand, 2009)
            18 — Associate Professor Con Doolan, Mechanical Engineer (Australia, 2012)
            19 — Mr Chuck Ebbing, Noise Engineer (USA. 2013)
            20 — Dr Alun Evans, Epidemiologist (Ireland, 2011)
            21 — Dr Amir Farboud, Ear Nose & Throat Specialist (UK, 2013)
            22 — Professor Jerome Haller, Neurology and Paediatrics (US, 2008)
            23 — Professor Colin Hansen, Mechanical Engineer (Australia, 2010)
            24 — Dr Chris Hanning, Sleep Physician (UK, 2010)
            25 — Professor John Harrison, Physicist (Canada, 2010)
            26 — Dr Amanda Harry, Rural Medical Practitioner (UK, 2003),
            27 — Professor Henry Horn, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (US, 2008)
            28 — Mr Les Huson, Acoustician (Australia, 2011)
            29 — Dr David Iser, Rural Medical Practitioner (Australia, 2004),
            30 — Associate Professor Rick James, Noise Engineer (USA, 2009)
            31 — Dr Roy Jeffrey, Rural Medical Practitioner (Canada, 2010)
            32 — Dr Mauri Johansson, Occupational Physician (Denmark, 2012)
            33 — Mr George Kamperman, Noise Engineer (USA, 2009)
            34 — Professor Ralph Katz, Epidemiologist (US, 2008)
            35 — Dr Noel Kerin, Occupational Physician (Canada, 2010)
            36 — Ms Carmen Krogh, Pharmacist, Researcher (Canada, 2009)
            37 — Dr Eckhard Kuck, Oral Surgeon (Germany, 2012)
            38 — Dr Sarah Laurie, Former Rural Medical Practitioner (Australia, 2010)
            39 — Dr David Lawrence, Rural Medical Practitioner (USA, 2012)
            40 — Professor Joel Lehrer, Earn Noise & Throat specialist (US, 2008)
            41 — Dr Hazel Lynn, Medical Officer of Health, Grey/Bruce County, ON (Canada, 2012)
            42 — Dr Robert McMurtry, Former Dean of Medical & Dental School, University of Western Ontario (Canada, 2010)
            43 — Dr Andja Mitric Andjic, Rural Medical Practitioner (Australia, 2011)
            44 — Dr Sarah Myhill, Rural Medical Practitioner, Wales (UK, 2012)
            45 — Professor Henrik Moller, Acoustician, Aalborg University (Denmark, 2011)
            46 — Dr Michael Nissenbaum, Medical Practitioner (US, 2010),
            47 — Dr Helen Parker, Psychologist (US, 2011)
            48 — Dr Robyn Phipps, Researcher (NZ, 2007)
            49 — Professor Christian Sejer Pedersen, Acoustician (Denmark, 2011)
            50 — Dr Eja Pedersen, Medical Sociologist (Sweden, 2006)
            51 — Dr Nina Pierpont, PhD, MD, Specialist Paediatrician, Fellow American Academy of Paediatrics (US, 2009)
            52 — Professor Carl Phillips, Epidemiologist (USA, 2010)
            53 — Dr Peter Prinds, Physician (Denmark)
            54 — Mr Rob Rand, Noise Engineer (USA, 2011)
            55 — Mr Bruce Rapley, Scientist (NZ, 2013)
            56 — Dr Sandy Reider, Medical Practitioner (USA, 2013)
            57 — Professor Alec Salt, Neurophysiologist (USA, 2010)
            58 — Dr Paul Schomer, Noise Engineer (USA, 2012)
            59 — Norma Schmidt, Retired Nurse (Canada, 2010)
            60 — Associate Professor Vivi Schunsslen, Occupational Physician (Denmark, 2012)
            61 — Dr Daniel Shepherd, Psychologist, Psychoacoustician (New Zealand, 2010)
            62 — Dr Wayne Spring, Sleep Physician (Australia, 2011)
            63 — Mr Mike Stigwood, Acoustician (UK)
            64 — Dr Scott Taylor, Rural Medical Practitioner (Australia, 2011)
            65 — Dr Henning Theorell, Medical Practitioner (Sweden, 2012)
            66 — Dr Bob Thorne, Psychoacoustician (Australia, NZ)
            67 — Mr Peter Trask, Psychologist (Australia, 2012)
            68 — Dr A Trinidade, Ear Nose & Throat specialist (UK, 2013)
            69 — Dr Alan Watts, Rural Medical Practitioner (Australia, 2011)
            70 — Dr Colleen Watts, Scientist (Australia, 2011)
            71 — Associate Professor Libby Wheatley, Medical Sociologist (USA, 2012)

          • http://ffggippsland.blogspot.com/ Blair Donaldson

            Dan, your list only proves that some professionals aren’t too fussy about the company they keep. Do a little homework and you’ll find very few of those individuals are actually qualified in the science of sound propagation and/or its effects on human health.

            The fact that the list includes Pierpoint, Watts, Laurie & Thorn perfectly illustrates the qualifying list has an extremely low bar. Anyway, lists are old hat. The creationists beat the EPAW to the punch with their own list of alleged experts who oppose evolution. The EPAW isn’t even original.

            You may be interested to know that David Iser is my GP, we have had a number of interesting discussions about windfarms. We both agree that more independent research is a great idea and would help clear the air, so to speak. I can assure you, he doesn’t hold anything like the dire concerns and conspiracy theories alleged by Dr Laurie who likes to trot out his name to add some semblance of credulity to her dwindling credibility.

            I remind you that Dr Laurie is now under investigation for breaches of ethical research codes. By comparison, Dr Iser is a genuinely lovely guy and dedicated doctor who has worked tirelessly to build to medical facilities in our community. You wouldn’t have any idea how much pressure was put on him by a few loudmouth individuals opposed to the two local projects. Now both windfarms are operating, the relevant individuals are strangely silent.

            That an anti-wind organisation such as the EPAW seems happy to include Laurie among their brethren highlights their desperation and your unfortunate propensity to cherry pick.

            You criticise anybody who disagrees with your point of view and call them shills of the industry yet you trot out a substandard list compiled by a known anti-wind organisation – and you expect people to take you seriously?

            Tell you what. Why don’t you drop the aggro for a moment and tell us a bit about yourself and why you don’t agree with wind energy? I’ll be happy to reciprocate. Ultimately we are both going to have to accommodate differing points of views and find some middle ground. I’m happy to give it a go, are you?

          • DanWrightman

            Blair says : “You criticise anybody who disagrees with your point of view:” yet his whole comment is critical of anybody professional or not that disagrees with his pointviews. Careful Blair, you shouldn’t pull a sliver out of your brothers eye when you have a log in your own.

          • http://ffggippsland.blogspot.com/ Blair Donaldson

            So you’re not adult enough to drop the aggro and would much prefer to continue the snark? You not interested in finding a middle ground?

          • Dan Wrightman

            You still have that log in your eye Blair.

          • http://ffggippsland.blogspot.com/ Blair Donaldson

            Dan, I really am interested in your experiences with wind farms, communities living near them and the general interaction between the above? Are you a farmer or do you living in a town or city? Have you had any direct interaction with a project developer for the managers of an existing wind farm? While you are at it, what are your thoughts on climate change and conspiracy theories?

            The questions are sincere. I am trying to avoid inferring anything that you, I would just like to know your positions on the subjects mentioned above. Over to you…

          • http://ffggippsland.blogspot.com/ Blair Donaldson

            What are your opinions about nuclear power, solar thermal etc? Do you think geothermal or wave power have any promise?

          • http://ffggippsland.blogspot.com/ Blair Donaldson

            Dan, seven days and no response? Does this mean you’re not really interested in any honest, open discussion and would prefer to oppose something like wind energy for nonrational reasons? I’d still like to believe you were sincere but your actions, or lack thereof, suggest otherwise. I hope you will prove me wrong.

          • myview1872

            “there are many windfarms currently operating in Australia where no claims of ill-health had been reported”. Are those wind turbine developments located in remote areas? What is the size of the wind turbines? What is the distance to the closest residence?

            “the evidence clearly shows that claims of ill-health occurred in exactly the same regions where windfarm opponents have been most active”. Is it possible that the problems from the wind turbine developments caused the wind opposition groups to form instead of the other way around?

          • http://ffggippsland.blogspot.com/ Blair Donaldson

            If you really wanted to know the answers to your questions, they are easy enough to find on the web. The turbines are a variety of sizes, some of the windfarms are in more remote areas, particularly those in Western Australia, I don’t know about proximity in W.A. but all the existing wind farms in the eastern half of Australia have residents within 2 km. And let’s not forget your hero Sarah Laurie, claims windfarms can affect people out to at least 10 km. Sadly the statistics just don’t support your rabid claims and you’re clutching at straws in an effort to defend that your ignorance.

            You ask, “Is it possible that the problems from the wind turbine developments caused the wind opposition groups to form instead of the other way around?”

            You really have no idea at all do you? In every case, opposition groups formed well before projects were even commenced. Just the rumour of a possible project was enough to get the anti-wind groupies out into communities spreading lies and misinformation. Your ignorance about the chronology of events is astounding.

  • Valewood

    I’m greatly disappointed that a magazine like Discover would join in with the disparaging of people who are legitimately suffering from the effects of the infrasound and shadow flicker from industrial wind turbines.

    Instead of being a lemming follower of trash studies by the likes of Simon Chapman, how about Discover send out a team to actually interview and speak to those who are so adversely affected.
    Chapman leaps to the conclusion that the rise of illnesses is directly caused by the rise of anti-wind groups, but I think it makes more sense that the rise of anti-wind groups is related to the rise in the number of people getting sick.

    People are abandoning their homes due to illness from living so close to turbines. That’s not just something happening in Australia, but Ontario, England, Sweden and other countries that are placing these giant 400 foot industrial machines too darn close to people’s homes.
    It’s well known that sleep deprivation is one of the prime affects. Any medical doctor will tell you that prolonged sleep deprivation can have disastrous health effects.

    Let’s see Discover Magazine take a pro-active stance and go do some field research of your own. One that doesn’t include speaking to anyone from the wind industry, but rather, one that focusses solely on wind victims. They’re not out for money. They just want their health and quality of life back.
    Is that such an outrageous thing to ask for?

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.evans.102977 James Evans

    Let’s all laugh at people who are suffering. It’s funny.

  • Valewood

    Oh wow! Look at this! An article out of Australia today that says that Chapman’s own publisher has serious doubts about his work.

    “He (Chapman) said there was no evidence of any health problems, choosing to ignore residents on the doorstep of his own project outside Daylesford, including a local doctor, who have been forced from their homes since the turbines began operating.

    Chapman’s study, still not peer-reviewed we understand, has been widely touted by the wind industry but also been the subject of extensive criticism for its poor (ie non) scientific method.”

    • Spencerforhire

      I just put that into Google and the Only result was ”

      Wind turbine sickness prevented by money drug”

      “still not peer-reviewed . . .but also been the subject of extensive criticism” that is an oxymoron Valewood darlin!

      What a bunch of loser NIMBYs!

      • Valewood

        As usual, you don’t know what the hell you’re doing. Nothing new here.

      • Valewood

        Here’s another quote from the same article:

        “Dr Daly, who described herself as a “greenie” who utilised solar power at home, said that up until two weeks before the meeting she had been the editor of the Australian New Zealand Journal of Public Health. She retired after more than 12 years in the role. She said Chapman had submitted his study to the Journal but the quality of his research was questionable.

        “I have to tell you that I think the evidence is at best equivocal,” she said, suggesting it was both ambiguous and deliberately designed to mislead.”

        Google away.

        • Spencerforhire

          No need to google as you have no point! As usual.

          But this one does show up on the Internet , as ambiguous as it is, BUT only on NIMBY sites

          keep trying Valery maybe someday someone will ask you for a dance!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Barnard/604449062 Mike Barnard

      For context, Valewood is quoting not an article, but a blog post on stopthesethings.com, a vitriolic anti-wind energy website run out of Australia. The post quotes one Dr. Daly, who was on the board of the New Zealand Journal of Public Health. It’s such a pity that Valewood has so much invested in this that he has posted it without bothering to check a few minor facts, just as the anonymous writer behind STT didn’t bother to check his facts.

      One of those would be: is Dr. Daly referring to the same study? It turns out she isn’t. The only study in with her former journal for review was a simple analysis of massive over-self-referencing by the VAD crew in Portugal (their papers are the source of some 74% of all references they receive on their papers). This is an interesting little tidbit, and is, as Dr. Daly says, equivocal as to the existence or non-existence of VAD. It’s merely an interesting indication and a fun little piece of research. For a research scientist like Professor Chapman, it’s a palate cleanser between major courses of a meal.

      Dr. Daly has never received or reviewed for publication the study Valewod is referencing. That one is with a major international journal undergoing peer review. It’s a main course and is being treated very seriously by a very serious international peer review process.

      Simple facts and simple fact checking. They escape anti-wind campaigners so often, slipping through their fingers like dandelion fluff floating in the breeze through benign and effective wind farms.

      Not that they care about getting their facts right. I’m pretty sure that Valewood will happily continue to post this nonsense after being provided with the truth.

      • Valewood

        You know what Mike? Unlike a lot of people on this debate, I want the truth to come out. If STT mislead everyone about this article, I intend to call them out on it. I won’t take part in lies and deceit, which I can’t say about many people on this issue.

        There is harm being done and if the anti-wind side came out with the type of study that Chapman did, you would tear it to shreds for the pathetic way in which it was done. We both know it.

        I’ll be checking into your claims about Dr. Daly.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Barnard/604449062 Mike Barnard

          Valewood, have a look at this, with quotes from Prof Chapman.

          http://etwasluft.blogspot.sg

          As I was asked to review Prof Chapman’s paper before eScholarship publication and provided my detailed feedback then, I can safely say that I believe it’s rock solid. Similarly, Fiona Crichton kindly gave me a copy of her paper before formal publication, not for review, but for my knowledge.

          I went deep on Prof Chapman’s material before you saw it. It was better than the crap the anti-wind folks peddle before the minor suggestions the group of reviewers came up with. I know he’s looked at Gulden’s dissenting material as well, not that Gulden really deserves it. Now it’s in international and formal peer review for a major journal.

          Given that my critique of Nissenbaum’s Noise and Health piece is one of two published in the most recent Noise and Health, perhaps you should reconsider your allegiances, if you really are on the side of truth.

          Here are those references in the event that you missed them:

          http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2013;volume=15;issue=63;spage=150;epage=152;aulast=Barnard

          http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741%3Byear%3D2013%3Bvolume%3D15%3Bissue%3D63%3Bspage%3D148%3Bepage%3D150%3Baulast%3DOllson

          • rucio

            Chapman, Barnard, Joshi — none of them a physician or acoustical engineer. And evidence of their claims invariably consists mostly of blog posts by each other. The “truth” certainly won’t be found in that web of self-affirmation.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Barnard/604449062 Mike Barnard

            Let’s see.

            Prof Chapman has massive numbers of peer-reviewed publications in journals world-wide, is respected globally and is a much awarded academic for his work in combatting tobacco and gun violence. Most recently — that I’m aware of — he’s been made an Honorary Fellow of the Faculty of Public Health of the Royal Collage of Physicians (UK).

            Ketan Joshi continues to analyse deep data sets to find interesting correlations:
            http://etwasluft.blogspot.sg/2013/04/the-fictitious-uprising-listed.html
            http://etwasluft.blogspot.sg/2013/04/the-fictitious-uprising-english.html
            http://etwasluft.blogspot.sg/2013/03/the-disease-with-perfect-english.html
            http://etwasluft.blogspot.sg/2013/01/wind-farms-and-fire-risk.html

            I admit freely that I’m a mere scribbler and reader of good research compared to the two of them. That’s why my blog references just under 200 separate peer reviewed and professional grid management and wildlife studies. Knowing my limitations, I like to reference deeply credible, independent researchers and organizations.

            I like to reference the best. That’s why I reference Chapman and Joshi (and Leventhall and Crichton and Lawrence and Pedersen and and and and…)

          • rucio

            Leventhall (acoustician; 2003 [pre–wind industry contracts]): “Table 5 shows very adverse effects from low frequency noise levels which are close to the threshold and which do not exceed A-weighted limits. … Infrasound exposure is ubiquitous in modern life … and as an emission from many artificial sources … including wind turbines. … There is no doubt that some humans exposed to infrasound experience abnormal ear, CNS, and resonance induced symptoms that are real and stressful.”

            Eja Pedersen (physician; 2004): “A statistically significant dose-response relationship was found, showing higher proportion of people reporting perception and annoyance than expected from the present dose-response relationships for transportation noise. The unexpected high proportion of annoyance could be due to visual interference, influencing noise annoyance, as well as the presence of intrusive sound characteristics.”

            Eja Pedersen (2007): “The odds of perceiving wind turbine noise increased with increasing SPL (odds ratio [OR] 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25 to 1.40). The odds of being annoyed by wind turbine noise also increased with increasing SPLs (OR 1.1; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25).”

            Christian Sejer Pedersen (acoustician; 2012): “Previous studies have shown that the noise has more low-frequency content, when wind turbines get larger, and with todays’ megawatt turbines the low-frequency noise may cause annoyance for the neighbours. Therefore, low-frequency noise has been included in the noise regulations on wind turbines in Denmark. … The new Danish regulations are based on calculations of the indoor noise at the neighbours, but unfortunately, the calculation underestimates the level that would be measured, thus the regulation does not adequately prevent potential annoyance and sleep disturbance effects from future wind turbines in Denmark.”

            The work by psychologists Crichton and Lawrence has nothing to do with real-world experience of large-scale wind turbines.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Barnard/604449062 Mike Barnard

          So, are you going to STT and telling them that they are spreading lies or at the very least disinformation? Are you coming back here and admitting that you leapt to the conclusion that a virulently anti-wind site was correct and posted it’s a-factual propaganda as truth?

          I’m waiting Valewood.

          • Valewood

            I did send them an email with a copy of your response and asked them for clarification. Waiting for their reply.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Barnard/604449062 Mike Barnard

            Tick, tick, tick.

            Did you by any chance notice that STT dropped that article from their site without comment or retraction?

            This is just one of the ways that STT is ethically and morally bankrupt. Zero fact-checked opinion pieces presented as huge factual gotchas followed by skulking retreat without owning up to their intellectual, ethical and moral failures. Typical of STT and typical of the worst elements of anti-wind campaigners.

            There are good discussions to be had about wind energy. How much is the right mix in a specific location? What’s the appropriate strategic amount in a grid? Does a specific site put endangered species at risk? How should municipal, provincial and federal governments ensure the appropriate mix of representation? What mechanisms are the best to bring about the necessary transformation of our energy grid at the best full-picture costs? Should a local municipality have the right to with one hand accept funding for new amenities from wind energy companies and then with the other declare themselves an unwilling host to wind turbines, as Kincardine just did?

            But STT and a large number of other anti-wind campaigners aren’t interested in having reasonable conversations about reliable, effective and safe wind energy. They are just interested in demonizing it and anyone who exposes the reality that they don’t have reality on their side.

            You have a choice, Valewood, whatever gender, age or background is behind that pseudonym. You can be part of reasonable conversations, or you can continue to spread unreasonable disinformation.

            As Chapman’s and Crichton’s research clearly shows that spreading disinformation about wind energy makes people sick, I know what choice I would make if I were you.

          • Valewood

            Well, I’m assuming that it was in response to my very pointed question about the vaidity of the article.

            I’m disappointed that they never replied directly to my email, but I’m glad they took it down if it was incorrect.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Barnard/604449062 Mike Barnard

            As STT’s failure of journalistic ethics was pointed out by many in many forums both directly and broadcasted, I don’t think you should assume your particular email had much to do with it.

            But stopping Ms Griffin — who has also referenced this particular STT lie – and others from spreading it is something you can do. Get on the backchannel to your Ontario anti-wind clique and tell them that their new fave go to site for anti-wind vitriol smells like 3 day old fish.

            Speaking of STT, it’s looking a lot it’s an AstroTurf site set up by the fossil fuel guys in Oz. The author is now known, although he posts his craven idiocy anonymously and has anonymized his URL adequately. Expect the exposé and crushing humiliation before too long. I would re-read Sandy Keane’s expose of the ties of the Waubra Foundation to fossil fuel for a preview.

          • http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/ Mike Barnard

            I wouldn’t expect that it was specifically due to your email. They were castigated directly and in public forums for their horrifically bad and arguably actionable defamation.

            What you could do is let all of your co-religionists in Ontario know that this is a dead horse and to stop flogging it. Ms. Griffins has presented it gloatingly twice that I’ve stumbled across, and I’m sure others are doing the same.

            Of course, most of your group’s concerns — property values, health, infrasound, bird extinction — are dead horses, and that hasn’t stopped you from flogging them. This is just one more example.

          • http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/ Mike Barnard

            Well, Valewood? Have you corrected your Ontario co-religionists on this point?

          • http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/ Mike Barnard

            Valewood, more evidence to shatter your belief that anti-wind sites are beacons of truth.

            Here is the published study in the peer-reviewed journal:

            How the factoid of wind turbines causing ‘vibroacoustic disease’ came to be ‘irrefutably demonstrated’,

            Simon Chapman, Alexis St George, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Volume 37, Issue 3, pages 244–249, June 2013, DOI: 10.1111/1753-6405.12066, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1753-6405.12066/abstract

            And here is the original eScholarship publication:http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/8362

            Note the pattern, common to good research these days. EScholarship publication first, peer review second. To ensure you are unable to dance around the point, here’s the eScholarship citation for the study you thought was being debunked:

            Spatio-temporal differences in the history of health and noise complaints about Australian wind farms: evidence for the psychogenic, “communicated disease” hypothesis. , Simon Chapman, Alexis St. George, Karen Waller, Vince Cakic, http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/8977?mode=full&submit_simple=Show+full+item+record

            That’s the one that is winding it’s way through peer-review in a major international journal at present.

            And of course, Prof Chapman just received recognition of his past and ongoing excellent work in public health in the form of being named an Officer of the Order of Australia, a major recognition in that country. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-10/prominent-australians-recognised-with-queens-birthday-honours/4739608

            I’m still waiting for your acknowledgment that you are telling your Ontario co-religionists to STFU. And a quick scan of your Disqus comments, a click away via your pseudonym, indicates that you are still spreading disinformation broadly. Your willful ignorance and spreading of same appears to know no bounds.

  • Spencerforhire

    Population of Wolfe Island 1400. Number of turbines on the ISLAND 86. Number beds in Hotel Dieu Hospital – 264 . Number of beds at Kingston General Hospital 538. Number of beds at Providence Continuing Care 448.

    If what the NIMBYs say is correct then Kingston’s hospitals would be full of Islanders and there would 150 more riding ambulances to other hospitals.

    Since 2009 nobody has been admitted to any Kingston Hospital for Wind Turbine Syndrome. Adverse or not.

    And even during Sandy the farm has never been shut down completely because of high winds.

    The planning and negotiations for the Farm started in 1995 and was up and running before the Green Energy act.

    NIMBYs just make Manure up!

  • http://janiceperson.com/ Janice Person

    I heard an ad on the radio yesterday about night shift disorder…. my dad worked the nightshift for quite a few years when I was growing up and he understandably would have trouble adjusting to the 8 to 5 schedule when his time on the night shift was over. But to call it a syndrome and suggest medicine is the answer…. well, he never did that. Everything has to be some sort of disorder, syndrome, etc.

  • Savana Solar

    Yes some these facts are true but some where is not.

    but thanks for this review. we should considerate up on these facts.

    From: http://www.savanasolar.com/wind-turbines-1.html

  • cody

    stop lying about wind turbines, HOW CAN SOUND CAUSE EYE AND TAIL LOSS IN COWS, REDUCTION OF WOOL QUALITY AND WALL STARING? WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING!

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collide-a-Scape

Collide-a-Scape is a wide-ranging blog forum that explores issues at the nexus of science, culture and society.

About Keith Kloor

Keith Kloor is a NYC-based journalist, and an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University. His work has appeared in Slate, Science, Discover, and the Washington Post magazine, among other outlets. From 2000 to 2008, he was a senior editor at Audubon Magazine. In 2008-2009, he was a Fellow at the University of Colorado’s Center for Environmental Journalism, in Boulder, where he studied how a changing environment (including climate change) influenced prehistoric societies in the U.S. Southwest. He covers a wide range of topics, from conservation biology and biotechnology to urban planning and archaeology.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »