iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Massachusetts Wind Turbine Health Study Debated At Hearing

AP    
First Posted: 02/15/2012 8:29 am Updated: 02/15/2012 9:43 am

BOSTON (AP) — Neil Anderson says the headaches, dizziness and palpitations began shortly after Wind One, a 400-foot high wind turbine, began operating about a quarter mile from his Falmouth home. So did sleep disruptions, ringing in his ears and elevated blood pressure.

Anderson was among a number of Massachusetts residents who on Tuesday disputed a recent report from a state-appointed panel of experts that reviewed existing scientific evidence and found no serious health risks associated with living near wind turbines.

"Despite the conclusions of this expert health panel, wind turbines that are close to residences make people sick," Anderson told the Statehouse hearing, adding that nearly all of his symptoms disappeared when the town-owned, 1.6 megawatt turbine was temporarily shut down in November amid complaints.

Environmentalists, industry officials and other wind energy advocates were equally strong in their praise of the panel's report, telling state officials who called the meeting that the findings were a resounding endorsement of wind as a safe and clean alternative to other types of energy.

"When we say no to wind in Massachusetts we are saying yes to a bunch of dirty energy sources like coal, like gas, like nuclear power" that bring health risks far greater those posed by wind power, said Emily Rochon, a Northeastern University law student who attended the meeting with other members of the group Wind Action Committee.

The report, commissioned by state environmental and public health officials and released in January, said there was no evidence noise or low-frequency vibrations from turbines trigger health problems like those described by Anderson and other neighbors, effects sometimes collectively referred to as "wind turbine syndrome."

The report did raise the possibility that sound generated by turbines could be annoying to nearby residents or cause sleep disruptions, and recommended that Massachusetts adopt noise limit guidelines similar to those in some European countries.

State officials stressed Tuesday that they had not yet formally accepted the panel's findings nor reached any conclusions about where new wind turbines should be constructed in Massachusetts. Gov. Deval Patrick has made wind energy a key tenet of his strategy to move the state away from carbon-emitting power plants.

Critics have questioned both the methods and motivations of the panel, chastising it for relying on a review of data from previous studies done around the world rather than visiting the sites and conducting interviews with state residents who have complained of wind turbine syndrome.

Eleanor Tillinghast, a Mount Washington resident and member of the statewide coalition Windwise Massachusetts, accused the panel of "passing off junk science as real science."

The group has called for a moratorium on the construction of new land-based wind turbines until all potential health risks are addressed. Projects have been proposed for several other communities in the state, including Fairhaven, Lenox and Plymouth.

Critics have also suggested that at least two members of the state-appointed panel had previous ties to the wind energy industry, a claim strongly denied by the panelists and the state officials who appointed them.

Some wind energy advocates, while acknowledging that they did not live in the shadow of a turbine, said the whooshing sound of turbine blades was not annoying but actually soothing — akin to ocean waves or a babbling brook.

But Falmouth resident Kathryn Elder dismissed any notion that health concerns were more perception rather than reality.

"It's not my perception, it's not my opinion, and it certainly isn't annoyance that wakes me up repeatedly at night, or has caused myself and members of my family to have extreme anxiety and other physical issues in response to living close to the turbine," said Elder, who urged the state to adopt "hard and fast regulations" that would require turbines to be kept a safe distance from residential areas and set strict noise limits.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Filed by Joanna Zelman  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 344
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
06:01 PM on 02/19/2012
This is a real problem. I like wind power, but it should be offshore and far from humans birds and bats.

How long would you survive this: "The presence of the tone resulted in a significant number (22%) of respondents reporting anxiety, uneasiness, extreme sorrow, nervous feelings of revulsion or fear, chills down the spine and feelings of pressure on the chest.[30][31]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound#Human_reactions_to_infrasound

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1265028759369
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077192/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/infrasound-linked-spooky-effects/#.T0F8_Ycge90

http://users.iafrica.com/s/sa/salbu/apollo/apollo2.html. Last accessed on September 6, 2001.
A low-frequency noise of ~7 Hz occurring in several office rooms produced symptoms in
individuals typical of sick building syndrome
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPdf/Infrasound.pdf

Maybe far out in the middle of nowhere, but only if we take infra sound complaints seriously, and come up with a national infra sound standard.

BTW, some power plants make these sounds too.
09:22 PM on 02/19/2012
Genders, you're going overboard on the infrasound.

Significant infrasound creeps people out and can cause health issues. Wind turbines contribute insignificant amounts of infrasound to the environment. Look at the references already provided.

I'm not sure what your point is related to wind energy, but it's stretched to irrelevance.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
11:43 PM on 02/19/2012
And that is about par.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:44 AM on 02/20/2012
Sorry, we are both for green energy and against nukes, and fossils and I fanned you. So remember that.

Respectfully...

Why are you so ready to make the same mistakes we made with nukes and coal?

Infra sound isn't even measured in people's homes around wind turbines, is it.

I listed a test, where the infra sound was below the threshold of hearing and yet had those effects.

I don't like wind on shore. It is a hazard to small airplanes and parachutists, thousands of them are not that attractive, it kills bats and probably the same number of birds are a building the sweep of the rotors, which is not a lot yet. The blades have come off and with more of them someone will get killed. And the sound, particularly infra sound.

Because of these concerns, the siting of wind turbines will be very limited on land, but virtually unlimited near offshore. Europe does offshore wind for about the same as on land 7 cents or so, the USA lacks the infrastructure, to the projections have been doubled, which is wrong long term. Most of our population is near the coats anyway.

I really think we should focus on offshore wind. Sure there may be a few good spots left on land, that's ok.

I am very sensitive to noise in in my home, it would destroy my life if I was constantly annoyed by a wind turbine, and yes I have heard them.
charles77
Just the Facts Please
12:50 AM on 02/18/2012
"When we say no to wind in Massachusetts we are saying yes to a bunch of dirty energy sources like coal, like gas, like nuclear power"

LOL!

Nuclear a dirty energy?

Rantings of the uneducated.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
06:05 PM on 02/19/2012
400k deaths http://www.llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukushimariskcalc.htm Chernobyl Forum, which estimated 4,000 excess cancer deaths. The UCS analysis, released earlier this week, also estimates there will be some 50,000 excess cancers due to the accident.

http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf 64M deaths including military, before japan.

Nuclear power DEADLY DIRTY.

Or do you want to double down on ZERO deaths from nuclear power?
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
11:50 PM on 02/19/2012
As far as I am aware, the mortality numbers that matter are:

Zero in the US from radiation among civilians from nuclear power;

Zero Japanese from radiation in the wake of Fukushima per IAEA;

and something less than 4,000 from Chernobyl at present time per WHO.

That compares quite well to any fossil source of energy and as discussed also to renewable sources like wind and solar.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
12:40 AM on 02/20/2012
Unfortunately, you are quoting a law student, so lack of education (at least in the traditional sense) is not the problem.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
02:36 PM on 02/17/2012
Whatever the results of this study, there is a fundamental mismatch that is not typically addressed in reporting. That mismatch hinges on the question "What is running when wind is not?"

The numbers I have seen on deaths per TWh for wind and nuclear indicate that wind itself is roughly three times as deadly per TWh as is nuclear power:

Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Of course, this analysis is not system-wide. No backup is required for nuclear more than 90% of the time, and since wind must be backed up by natural gas more than 50% of the time (usually more like 70%) in many places due to its low capacity factor, it's fair to average in wind's death rate and NG's death rate. This yields a number that shows that wind+NG systems are about 50 times as deadly as nuclear systems (vs 100x for NG alone).

So the correct numbers on wind vs nuclear range from 3-50x more deaths for wind. I'd call that significant.
05:06 PM on 02/17/2012
Well, the total deaths associated with wind are in the 150 range. Having analyzed the list of deaths, they include construction and maintenance accidents (not counted in the nuclear numbers used), suicides using the wind turbine as a tree, small planes hitting guy wires near wind turbine and farmers falling off of the small wind turbines that they have providing a subset of their energy. In other words, every death report that mentioned wind turbines in any way was used in the analysis. No one has ever been killed by a wind turbine operating normally, failing or throwing ice. No one has ever even been injured by a wind turbine in one of these ways. So, the deaths attributed to wind turbines are pretty bogus and massively inflated by mis-reading the numbers.

The studies on nuclear fatalities assert a much higher accuracy than they have.

As is pointed out here, at best, nuclear and wind are on par in terms of deaths per TWH, with both being very low, especially compared to coal.

http://www.quora.com/How-does-nuclear-energy-compare-to-other-sources-of-energy-in-deaths-per-kWh

Analysis indicates that this i
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
02:24 PM on 02/18/2012
Your post got chopped.

The point with the fatality numbers is:

1) Wind has fatalities, just as solar does (and in particular, any DIY energy type). At present, since the industry is still tiny as compared to most other energy types (except solar), it's not really possible to know whether deaths:twh will go up or go down. We don't have a lot of data at present.

2) 'Backup' and other methods need to be included as part of wind's toll to see what the system as a whole will do, just as 'peaking' should be included for a nuclear baseload system with another tech providing peaking.

The objective must be low CO2 coupled with low mortality. Pairing wind with coal (for example) should be avoided.

Nuclear, as discussed, does not need backup. It needs peaking support. The typical backup for wind is NG. Peaking support can be provided from many different techs, but given current tech it seems likely to be NG also.

3) The estimates for all power types are provided by the same set of EU studies on the topic of mortality in energy industries, which is available through the link I posted above.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
05:28 PM on 02/18/2012
Also, I am faving you for this, though we seem to disagree. You have shown that you are interested in constructing rational arguments using reasonable support. That's a breath of fresh air in this place for your side of the argument: a rational and supported argument. Thank you.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:17 AM on 02/18/2012
The nuke numbers don't include the 65M cancers deaths probably don't even include the miners.
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf 64M deaths before japan.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
02:25 PM on 02/18/2012
Fundamentally unserious, as usual.
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
03:47 PM on 02/18/2012
I'm still waiting for you to prove that you didn't just make up that figure. You said you calculated it based on LNT. Remember my question? WHAT DOSE, in sieverts ,was the world's 6 billion exposed to that would result in your 65M figure?

Your link, which is a piece of nonsense by Busby and Yablokov (surprise!) is completely irrelevant to your claim. I'm not concerned about the effects of radiation, I'm concerned about the DOSE. Come on, Genders. Back it up or keep quiet.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
09:02 AM on 02/17/2012
There are also people who think "chemtrails" are making them sick...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
09:15 AM on 02/17/2012
why do you say that they aren't the first to complain about these things. They shouldn't build them so close to homes and neighborhoods. or buy the home owners out and make them move some where else.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
03:33 PM on 02/17/2012
What I'm saying is that people look for scapegoats when they get sick, and when they settle on a cause, everything becomes confirmation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
05:06 PM on 02/16/2012
These things are horrible .
I have heard the ones out near Edwards AFB in CA and you could hear the whooshing for miles. Then there is the bird and bat killing issue, plus they are an eyesore.
10:55 AM on 02/17/2012
Birds and bats are dirty so the more eradicated the less co2 emmissions.
03:37 PM on 02/16/2012
Windmills have been installed close to residents in many areas in Europe and have been in operation for years. Should be plenty of past studies of impacts on local residents. Anyone bother to check over there for reports on public health problems. Their results should be much more accurate than a few months of one windmill in Mass.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
05:14 PM on 02/16/2012
Are these the exact same type as the older ones in Europe?
07:39 PM on 02/19/2012
Hi Yeti

No the they are not the same. The older models are about 300 feet tall, the new ones generally start at 500 feet high. In an effort to reach higher efficiencies the industry has built taller units with longer blades to gain access to upper wind shears, which account for the persistent thumping noise on some nights as the blades move through the different thermal-clines. Additionally the distances from residents in Europe are typically no closer than 1 to 2 kilometres , contrary to distances imposed in some North American jurisdictions that permit placement within 350 metres of homes and schools.

Further more there is major opposition to Industrial Wind Turbines in Europe as can be witnessed here www.europesillwind.org
05:09 AM on 02/17/2012
Yes, the independent studies into wind health by medical officers and public health agencies in North America (Ontario, Massachusetts, etc) as well as the AWEA/CANWEA sponsored study do reference European health and noise studies. Full references can be found in this Quora entry on the subject of wind health.

http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/What-might-cause-people-who-live-near-wind-turbines-to-get-sick

In summary, the best scientific evidence indicates that some people living near wind turbine farms are getting stress-related illnesses due to annoyance, but the epidemiological linkage to the wind turbines specifically is shaky at best.
10:56 AM on 02/17/2012
Theyre just deniers paid by the oil lobby
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
02:20 PM on 02/17/2012
Good summary. It's possible, but the epidemiology is shaky.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elgeezr
03:17 PM on 02/16/2012
If you favor wind power then you must be anti-bird.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
09:04 AM on 02/17/2012
Aren't you precious?

Cats and windows combine to over one billion bird deaths annually. Turbines are a few thousand.

Songbirds hatch about four billion offspring every year.

Give it a rest.
10:58 AM on 02/17/2012
Did you count them?
So like humans , there are too many Lets eradicate them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elgeezr
11:36 AM on 02/17/2012
Thanx for suggesting a rest, but I've already had my nap. The pics I saw on the Discovery Channel suggest your facts are wrong. And it's not only songbirds.
11:59 AM on 02/16/2012
And in the end, we still need nuclear and fossil power, since the wind does not always blow. If a means becomes available to store excess wind power, we will need 3-4 times the required capacity for simultaneous use and storage. This is a VERY expensive proposition.
05:11 AM on 02/17/2012
Another favourite argument that is false. Denmark is currently generating 20% of its energy and selling excess energy to neighboring states without appreciable storage. 24 hour spot energy markets, grid interconnectedness, and grid monitoring provide excellent resiliency and robustness without the need for significant storage.

In reality, the vast majority of power storage built in North America was built for nuclear plants that can't be turned off at night.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
02:22 PM on 02/17/2012
The evidence I have seen is that the Danes are paying so much for wind and importing so much from their grid partners that in the end what they are really doing is subsidizing Swedish hydro and nuclear.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:21 AM on 02/18/2012
Back it up with waste bio char electricity and bio fuels running in existing turbines and generators.
duh. There is no storage problem.
11:55 AM on 02/16/2012
Why would the residents complain if it was not real? Are they in the pocket of "big oil".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
05:15 PM on 02/16/2012
yeah each one is getting big was of cash from the koch brothers
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
09:05 AM on 02/17/2012
No, but they could easily be blaming turbines for things they're not responsible for. People do that.

A lot.
photo
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
11:26 AM on 02/16/2012
I am thinking of building a small scale updraft tower with a garden greenhouse
under it and also putting a garbage incinerator in it. Al the heat generated from
solar heating effect and any other heat from whatever other heat source I can add to it
can run a turbine in the updraft tower chimney effect. Even a good place to vent
the cookout grill. Just left unatended the fan ought to never stop spinning.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
05:16 PM on 02/16/2012
where do you live that you can incinerate garbage?
photo
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
08:18 PM on 02/16/2012
A few miles from here they incinerate bodies at a creametorium.
Coal ash billows out if a power plant stack a mile from here.
Do not bother me with technecalities.
photo
sillylittleme
humble cosmos shaker
08:24 PM on 02/16/2012
Interesting, I've only seen a house with an updraft tower but have never seen how it works.
photo
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
08:54 PM on 02/16/2012
Hot air rises. During the day when the sun is shining heat is collected
and stored through a black collored large area at the bottom while it is
also working from the sunlight. The heat stores in the ground mass
beaneath is released at night because the air is cooler outside still allowing
a difference in temperature to aid in the updraft.
Placing a turbine inside the base of the tower utilizes the updraft.
Also the taller the tower the more powerful the updraft.
photo
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
11:05 AM on 02/16/2012
The notion of holding down and keeping back research investment causes
these things to be built that are proven to be detrimental after the fact.
We cannot afford to slumber along one thang at a time in search of the right
answers.
Having to fight special interests at the same time is why nothing is getting done
to resolve these pressing issues.
The notion of keeping government out of the business of doing this is just nuts.
This is more important than the Military or NASA has ever been for our future
and our national defense. We need to get our priorities in order.
11:07 AM on 02/17/2012
The government is TOTAL special interest
Whether its oil or clean energy or climate change
They dont care about you
Never will
Vote every incumbent out
Every election.
photo
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
04:33 PM on 02/17/2012
The special interest priority needs to be clean, affordable
energy to the detriment of all others. Government and the
people need to embrace that fact with every asset they have.
Small scale home energy production and Large scale
need to be implimented now.
We are selling the good ol' boys in their garages and on
the farms way too short. Their immagination can bowl over
anyone elses in the world. Give them the tools and see what
happens. That has always been the case.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
02:09 AM on 02/16/2012
Wind should be offshore or very far from people, bird and bat migration paths. While offshore construction costs more, the wind is usually much better compensating for the extra costs.

Take the breaks worth 100 times green breaks away from nukes and fossil and corn ethanol and put them into offshore wind, rooftop solar, efficiency and wasted bio char bio fuels and electricity.

There is little doubt that loud low frequency noise is very detrimental to health mental state.
just search effect of low frequency noise, it all depends on the frequencies the individual and loudness.

Not as bad as all the cancer from nukes and fossil, but put then offshore and away from civilization.
NoahScape
Knowledge is good - Emil Faber
07:13 AM on 02/16/2012
Dominion Power estimates off-shore wind production costs of $0.28/KWh, much higher than other sources. No wonder nobody's jumping to build offshore wind farms.

Oh, and there are no subsidies for corn ethanol any more.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:18 PM on 02/16/2012
http://offshorewindwire.com/2011/05/11/roundup-va-utility-waits-for-price-drop/
First off, Dominion Power said 19 cents but was misquoted by AP. And that's end cost to customers, not cost to produce. And it is only in the first year, going down after that, as nukes would without their huge construction loan guarantees.

It's not the levelized costs.

Europe is producing offshore wind for 7cents.
Current estimates based partly on European experience since 1991, indicate offshore wind energy costs of under 6 cents per kWh. http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/Offshore-Wind/Offshore-Wind-Energy.html

USA high cost estimate include having to build infrastructure to support it. That's a one time cost. http://www.vcerc.org/VCERC_Final_Report_Offshore_Wind_Studies_Full_Report_new.pdf

glad corn ethanol subsidies have ended, but not the breaks.

Corn ethanol is supported by a Congressional mandate requiring refiners to blend up to 15 billion gallons a year.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
05:20 PM on 02/16/2012
Corn ethanol is a boondoggle anyway, using food to make fuel isn't a bright idea.
Now if you want to drink it, sure but burn it naw.
Using sugar cane might have made more sense.
brw1970
Repeal the 16th Amendment!
12:04 PM on 02/16/2012
CapeWind has been in a decade long battle to build a windfarm off the coast of Massachusetts. People like the late Sen Kenedy (Dem.) were major voices against the project. This would be built 5 miles off shore.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:18 PM on 02/16/2012
So what?
11:13 AM on 02/17/2012
I live in Mass
I will derive no benefit from the farm
My electricity will double in cost to pay for the nonsense.
Stop the Cr@#
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
11:07 PM on 02/15/2012
"When we say no to wind in Massachusetts we are saying yes to a bunch of dirty energy sources like coal, like gas, like nuclear power" that bring health risks far greater those posed by wind power, said Emily Rochon, a Northeastern University law student who attended the meeting with other members of the group Wind Action Committee."

Well, that sums it up! Study results designed to agree with political will. No health effects from wind because it is more desirable. Is there no end to their deceptions?!

Truth is, only nuclear power can safely and reliably replace fossil fuels today. Nuclear power plants don't generate low frequency noise that can drive people nuts from a lack of sleep.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
05:21 PM on 02/16/2012
natural gas isn't dirty .
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
06:25 PM on 02/16/2012
It is a large source of radioactive radon gas and its radioactive daughter products. NG wellheads and plumbing become radioactive after relatively short periods of time.
photo
WI Patriot
Defending the Constitution.
11:17 PM on 02/16/2012
You have never been to Iraq or Kuwait obviously
07:11 PM on 02/16/2012
actually on health risks wind power kills far more folks per kwh than nukes which kill none.
05:20 AM on 02/17/2012
That's vastly overstating what case there is for this claim. No one has been killed by an operating wind turbine. Of the hundred-odd deaths tangentially related to wind turbines in the past 30 years, there are construction mishaps (which also occur in nuclear power plant construction), people committing suicide using a wind turbine as the tree and pilots flying into guy wires for structures near wind turbines. About half of the deaths in the study are for small scale wind turbines providing some power to farms, not industrial wind turbines.

The best analysis is that wind turbines are on par with nuclear power for fatalities per TWH, which is to say, approaching zero in both cases.

http://www.quora.com/How-does-nuclear-energy-compare-to-other-sources-of-energy-in-deaths-per-kWh
photo
Son of Liberty 1765
Exposing Government Lies.
10:36 PM on 02/15/2012
"The report, commissioned by state environmental and public health officials and released in January, said there was no evidence noise or low-frequency vibrations from turbines trigger health problems like those described by Anderson and other neighbors"

Uhhh, the evidence is the symptoms described by Anderson and other neighbors. THis is typical Massachusetts corruption. If the pols want something, it doesn't matter who has a problem with it. if they don't want it, they march the same people out in front of the cameras and scientists and parade thier symptoms as "evidence". I am so ashamed of my state. It is a sorry place full of hypocrites and the people that vote for them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
09:10 AM on 02/17/2012
Give me a break. People have reported similar evidence that the old lady next door is casting curses on them. Sick people look for scapegoats.

When scientists use people's symptoms as evidence, it's AFTER they've proved that the symptoms can be attributed to the cause in question.
photo
cable1977
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance
02:11 PM on 02/17/2012
"Uhhh, the evidence is the symptoms described by Anderson and other neighbors. "

No, it isn't. First rule of scientific investigation is correlation does not equal causation. Feel free to critique to report's methodology and conclusions, but simply saying that because the residents claim that the wind turbine is causing their problems doesn't make it true.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
09:26 PM on 02/15/2012
Curious. We've had reports that high-tension wires, smart meters, and cell phones cause various cancers and otherwise make us sick. Most of which is nonsense. Now, could someone please explain to me how the presence of a wind turbine could make one sick. What are the physical and biological mechanisms involved?
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
09:45 PM on 02/15/2012
Essentially, noise. This noise (it is argued) leads to stress responses due to (among other things) disturbed sleep cycle.

I make no endorsement of the idea, but here is an outline, from a MD/PHD who gave testimony about this:

http://www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elgeezr
04:28 PM on 02/16/2012
Perhaps you are unaware Silverwolf of the U.S. military's experiments with sound. They've used it as an inducement for prisoners who wont talk.
05:01 PM on 02/16/2012
If it were a noise issue millions of people within ear-shot of a highway would be suffering. There is no evidence that turbines cause any ailments. There are thousands of turbines all over the world that are placed close to residences and residential areas. I highly doubt that this one person/few people are somehow extra susceptible to harm from turbines when tens of thousands of others are fine.