For the full story on low-frequency and infrasound, please see this material:http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/humans-evolved-with-infrasound-is-there-any-truth-to-health-concerns-about-it/

The Hanning piece in BMJ was a guest editorial, not a peer-reviewed article. Once again, no methodology, data or replicability.

Pedersen has done significant peer-reviewed research on wind energy and noise annoyance. Her studies included the key major study that showed strong correlation between annoyance and two factors: visibility of the wind farm and lack of revenue from the wind farm. Basically people who could see it and weren’t getting money from it were annoyed by the noise. I find it amusing that the Society for Wind Vigilance doesn’t see fit to include all of Pedersen’s work in its list, just the one it can cherry pick the right conclusions from.

Shepherd’s work is equally frail.

Care to try again?

The Tribunal has found that the Appellants have not met the legal test set out in section
145.2.1(2)(a) of the EPA and the appeals must, therefore, be dismissed. The Director’s
decision on the REA is, therefore, confirmed pursuant to section 145.2.1(5). While there are
certainly legitimate concerns and uncertainties about the effects of wind turbines on human
health, the Tribunal cannot conclude that engaging in the Kent Breeze Project as approved will
cause serious harm to human health according to the evidence tendered in this Hearing. The
Tribunal notes that the research in this area is at quite an early stage and that our collective
understanding of the impacts of wind turbines on human health will likely progress as further
research and analysis is undertaken.

While the Appellants were not successful in their appeals, the Tribunal notes that their
involvement and that of the Respondents, has served to advance the state of the debate about
wind turbines and human health. This case has successfully shown that the debate should not
be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence
presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to
residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree. The question that should be asked
is: What protections, such as permissible noise levels or setback distances, are appropriate to
protect human health? In Ontario, recent regulations have provided guidance in that regard. In
cases such as this, where the Appellants have not sought to demonstrate any type of unique
harm associated with the design of this Project and have not attempted to demonstrate the
sensitivity of a particular receptor, it was essentially up to the Appellants to prove that the
Ontario standards are wrong in the context of the specific Project under appeal (leaving aside
the related question about possible non-compliance with the standards). Just because the
Appellants have not succeeded in their appeals, that is no excuse to close the book on further
research. On the contrary, further research should help resolve some of the significant
questions that the Appellants have raised.

What if there was 85% of the electricity generated by non-emitting sources? No coal generation. And the addition of Wind Turbines required that additional, otherwise unneeded emitting generation be built as well. And by making it mandatory that Wind generation be “first to the grid”, other non-emitting, cheaper had to be reduced, spilled, or steamed off. Would that be worth it? Is that a benefit?
What if in additional to the above scenario, Wind projects were allowed to be built in bird sanctuaries, and that projects were planning to put nearly 900 turbines directly in the path of the major migratory fly-way? Would that be worth it? Is that still a benefit?

What if other projects were going to put a half dozen 600ft turbines directly in the flight path of a regional airport, thereby requiring the approach and safety protocols to be changed. And thereby decreasing the efficiency of that airport? Would that be worth it?
What if, say, 100-200 families had to leave their homes, without compensation of any kind, for whatever the health reason because they simply couldn’t tolerate living INSIDE a power plant? Would that be worth it?

In Ontario, today, the last scenario is the reality. No placebo effect. Just the reality. The Wind Industry/Ontario Liberal Government partnership is completely out of control. If you are an Ontario taxpayer, you are paying tax money for no benefit to your province.