New Study Says Wind Turbines are Bad For The Health

[waldo]

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/01/05/19203361.html

oh please! Not the sensible environmentalist industry shill, Patrick Moore! Say it ain't so.

[bush_cheney2004]

oh please! Not the sensible environmentalist industry shill, Patrick Moore! Say it ain't so.

Well, at least that citation actually had some Canadian content !

[waldo]

Well, at least that citation actually had some Canadian content !

I trust no one will report your post as trolling

[cybercoma]

Waldo takes a lot of crap from posters here (dishes it out too), but he consistently backs his arguments up with research and evidence, rather than grandstanding on uninformed opinions. The contrast between what goes into his posts and his detractors' is pretty telling.

Edited June 3, 2013 by cybercoma

[GostHacked]

This means the costs (in terms of health effects on people close to the turbines) matters a lot.

But no risk living next to a nuclear power plant right?

That said, I suspect most of the effects are nocebo effects

(i.e. caused by people believing that there negative effects - there is no physical basis for the effects).

The problem here is how the blades cut through the air and the frequency of the sound combined with the air pressure it gives through the air. It's on the lower end of the audible spectrum and low vibrations can make people feel nauseated. Also can throw off balance since the air pressure also can affect your inner ear if the pressure is not consistent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound

Infrasound, sometimes referred to as low-frequency sound, is sound that is lower in frequency than 20 Hz (Hertz) or cycles per second, the "normal" limit of human hearing. Hearing becomes gradually less sensitive as frequency decreases, so for humans to perceive infrasound, the sound pressure must be sufficiently high. The ear is the primary organ for sensing infrasound, but at higher intensities it is possible to feel infrasound vibrations in various parts of the body.

The study of such sound waves is referred to sometimes as infrasonics, covering sounds beneath 20 Hz down to 0.001 Hz. This frequency range is utilized for monitoring earthquakes, charting rock and petroleum formations below the earth, and also in ballistocardiography and seismocardiography to study the mechanics of the heart. Infrasound is characterized by an ability to cover long distances and get around obstacles with little dissipation.

Edited June 3, 2013 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

I trust no one will report your post as trolling

They can report whatever they want....this thread reports a potential problem in a Canadian province, and any solution or other action(s) would be framed in that context and jurisdiction, not whatever the hell is going on in Texas or California or the EU. That's one of the problems with so many spirited wannabe references here....in many cases the supporting arguments simply don't apply.

[TimG]

he consistently backs his arguments up with research and evidence, rather than grandstanding on uninformed opinions.

Cutting and pasting stuff from a website when one has no understanding of the material is not that helpful. Being able to express an argument in one's own words demonstrates an understanding of the material which waldo does not have.

[TimG]

But no risk living next to a nuclear power plant right?

A single nuclear generates a lot of emission free base load power which tilts the cost benefit analysis strongly in favour of it.

It's on the lower end of the audible spectrum and low vibrations can make people feel nauseated.

Then it should be straight forward to set up tests that compare the levels of of this kid of source to the reported effects. My understanding is the study did a poor job of correlating the sound levels with claims of problems.

[GostHacked]

A single nuclear generates a lot of emission free base load power which tilts the cost benefit analysis strongly in favour of it.

No such thing as 'emission free'.

Then it should be straight forward to set up tests that compare the levels of of this kid of source to the reported effects. My understanding is the study did a poor job of correlating the sound levels with claims of problems.

You may not 'officially' find any correlation. But with my understanding of sound and how sound travels, this makes complete sense to me. If you understand how police/military use sonic weapons and infrasound technology, then you can understand this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2309505.stm

Human ears detect sounds in the frequency range of about 20 to 20,000 Hertz, or cycles per second. Anything below 20 Hz is defined as infrasound, which although not heard, is experienced in the form of pure vibrations.

We cannot hear it, but we can feel it. Many animals use that infrasonic range for communications. If anything one possible reason birds and bats are flying into these things is that these wind turbines are giving off signals that wildlife is misinterpreting.

You can affect people depending on the frequencies you are using.

[TimG]

You may not 'officially' find any correlation. But with my understanding of sound and how sound travels, this makes complete sense to me.

If there is a real effect then it can be measured in a real study with proper scientific controls. Until such a study appears it is nothing but idle speculation.

[GostHacked]

If there is a real effect then it can be measured in a real study with proper scientific controls. Until such a study appears it is nothing but idle speculation.

So idle that the military uses the technology for communications and as detection systems as well as weapon systems.

[TimG]

So idle that the military uses the technology for communications and as detection systems as well as weapon systems.

You need evidence that wind turbines generate sound with a similar frequency and intensity. Like I said, it should be easy to set up a study with the proper controls.

[waldo]

Cutting and pasting stuff from a website when one has no understanding of the material is not that helpful. Being able to express an argument in one's own words demonstrates an understanding of the material which waldo does not have.

in your opinion... which has no credibility. Of course, you continually drop claims turds, left and right, never bothering to actually substantiate anything. Lot's of that going around... apparently, some around here are woefully afraid to attach themselves to any cite/reference that can actually be challenged directly - go figure, hey TimG!

[waldo]

...this thread reports a potential problem in a Canadian province, and any solution or other action(s) would be framed in that context and jurisdiction, not whatever the hell is going on in Texas or California or the EU. That's one of the problems with so many spirited wannabe references here....in many cases the supporting arguments simply don't apply.

so what? The original OP isn't unique to any country... it's a universally claimed concern reflecting on, if it has any real validity, turbine placement relative to living location proximity. As the thread expanded into off-shoot discussion, Texas, Germany, Ontario, California... whatever... references were made. Only someone so anally retentive relative to a posturing patriotic induced ultra-sensitivity coupled with a self-confidence deficiency, like you, would perpetually natter on about what location references are cited/linked. But hey... go with your strengths!

and if you think something doesn't apply because a reference cite reflects on a particular location you take exception to, call it out... and be prepared to state why it doesn't apply - you know, something other than a/your predilection for trolling.

[TimG]

in your opinion... which has no credibility. Of course, you continually drop claimss, left and right, never bothering to actually substantiate anything. Lot's of that going around... apparently, some around here are woefully afraid to attach themselves to any cite/reference that can actually be challenged directly

If people ask for cites (other than you) I will usually provide. I don't see the point spending time dredging up links if no one cares enough to ask. That said, I learned long ago that providing cites to you is complete waste of time because if the cite says something you don't like you completely ignore it and engage in ad homs against the source (even when the source is the peer reviewed literature). If I argue in my own words I deny you the opportunity to hurl ad homs at the source and since you have no understanding of the issues being discussed (all you do is cut and paste) you are left flailing. Edited June 3, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

and if you think something doesn't apply because a reference cite reflects on a particular location you take exception to, call it out... and be prepared to state why it doesn't apply - you know, something other than a/your predilection for trolling.

I did call it out...in my usual pithy style....and don't need your permission to do so...never did. Everybody gets a voice here as long as forum rules are followed, even when you don't like it. Local, provincial, and federal regulation of "windmills" and "windmill farms" can vary greatly, so the typical amount of great google copy and pasting doesn't always apply. Ironically, some here would be first to scream "American style" <insert issue here>.

[Keepitsimple]

Can't say I'm disappointed to see old Waldo getting schooled on so many fronts, hey?

Edited June 3, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[GostHacked]

You need evidence that wind turbines generate sound with a similar frequency and intensity. Like I said, it should be easy to set up a study with the proper controls.

There have been studies. Some has shown yes, some have shown no.

Seems that if the infrasound was pushed out at 90db or greater, then yes indeed it can cause these types of symptoms. However they seemed to have measured it at about 85db and less. But I would argue in many cases, it would reach over 90dd, depending on wind speed and the RPM of the blades creating the infrasonic sound. The harder they work, the higher the pressure level would be.

Because that is how we measure sound through db, the force behind the sound to carry it over distance. You need more pressure to throw the sound over large distances.

All our technology works in a specific range , but in many cases these devices can and do work out of their spec range and emit things outside of determined safe zone.

[TimG]

There have been studies. Some has shown yes, some have shown no.

Which suggests the effect (if any) is too small to be measurable. Contrast this with studies on smoking which show a clear association with certain types of cancers.

Keep in mind that I am not dismissing your proposed mechanism - it does sound plausible. What we need are studies that are designed to test your hypothesis in real world situations.

Edited June 3, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

in your opinion... which has no credibility. Of course, you continually drop claims turds, left and right, never bothering to actually substantiate anything. Lot's of that going around... apparently, some around here are woefully afraid to attach themselves to any cite/reference that can actually be challenged directly - go figure, hey TimG!

which frankly goes against he forum rules and guidelines. You're required to substantiate your claims. This is woefully lacking on the opposition's side and being thinly cloaked under the false notion of making their "own" arguments.

[TimG]

which frankly goes against he forum rules and guidelines. You're required to substantiate your claims.

I provide more support for my claims than you do. I just don't do it by default because, as I mentioned above, what is the point if no one cares enough to ask?

Also, there is absolutely no point is providing sources to someone like waldo who responds with ad homs against the source instead of actually addressing the arguments made by the source.

Edited June 3, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

TimG, on 03 Jun 2013 - 2:09 PM, said:

Which suggests the effect (if any) is too small to be measurable. Contrast this with studies on smoking which show a clear association with certain types of cancers.

Remember when doctors actually recommended smoking? Seemed like a good thing at the time right? This was before we knew better. So things that are deemed safe now, could be deemed hazardous later on once the connection is made.

We've seen it on so many occasions where a product, application or system was deemed safe until problems were discovered.

[Bitsy]

Haven't read it yet, here's the link. Thet Liberal gov't cited studies (many fromthe wind industryl) which claimed no adverse health effects from wind turbines. But this report, is a controlled peer reviewed scientific study published in an issue of the periodical Noise and Health actually does link industrial wind turbine noise and vibration to serious health problems.

The study — “Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health” — assessed two wind farm communities in Maine .

http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2012;volume=14;issue=60;spage=237;epage=243;aulast=Nissenbaum

Another opinion on Nissenbaum's paper; it appears they broke no new ground with their research..

11/15/2012 Nissenbaum paper recycles claims on wind energy and health already found inadequate by courts and expert panel

Ottawa, Ontario, November 15, 2012 – Much of the information contained in the recently published paper, "Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health" by Michael A Nissenbaum, Jeffery J Aramini, and Christopher D Hanning (all directors/ scientific advisors for the Society for Wind Vigilance), was previously reviewed and considered by experts at the first Environmental Review Tribunal (Erikson v. MOE 2011) hearing on wind energy in Ontario and in the Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan case McKinnon v. Martin (Red Lily Legal Case in 2010).

This information was also reviewed by an expert panel on wind turbines and human health commissioned by The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MassDEP/MDPH, 2012), which concluded "attributing any of the observed associations to the wind turbines (either noise from them or the sight of them) is premature."

Both courts, as well as the Massachusetts independent expert panel, found no justification for halting wind energy development as a result of the information presented by Nissenbaum.

http://www.canwea.ca/media/release/release_e.php?newsId=165

[TimG]

Remember when doctors actually recommended smoking?

The only reference I can find to support this claim are adverts in the 50s where 9 or 10 doctors recommended brand X. Saying that if you want to kill yourself you will do more slowly with Brand X is not the same as recommending smoking. I also saw another reference to a nurses association that recommended smoking to pregnant women keep the birth weight down. As bizarre as it is it does not suggest that smoking is 'good for you'.

We've seen it on so many occasions where a product, application or system was deemed safe until problems were discovered.

And why is this an issue?

[waldo]

If people ask for cites (other than you) I will usually provide. I don't see the point spending time dredging up links if no one cares enough to ask. That said, I learned long ago that providing cites to you is complete waste of time because if the cite says something you don't like you completely ignore it and engage in ad homs against the source (even when the source is the peer reviewed literature). If I argue in my own words I deny you the opportunity to hurl ad homs at the source and since you have no understanding of the issues being discussed (all you do is cut and paste) you are left flailing.

ah yes, the patent pending 'TimG hurl the cut&paste' attempted slam! You don't give cites... because no one asks!!!!! Oh my. As I said, you're nothing but 'gun shy' about substantiating your nonsense claims, that have been repeatedly debunked time and again - it's simply too easy to shoot em' down... as I've done for eons now! As for arguing in, as you say, "your own words", your so-called own words are nothing but your parroting your favoured go-to "blog science" - blog science rules says TimG!