Science deniers in the wind industry

The human health consequences of manipulated measurements

Guest essay by Helen Schwiesow Parker, PhD, LCP

Like the tobacco industry before it, the wind industry has spent decades vehemently denying known harmful consequences associated with its product, while promoting its fraudulent feel-good image. Dismissing or denying the serious health impacts of industrial-scale wind turbines is wishful thinking, akin to insisting that tobacco is harmless because we enjoy it.

The problem with wind energy is not just its costly, subsidized, unreliable electricity; the need to back up every megawatt with redundant fossil-fuel power; or its impacts on wildlife and their habitats.

Infrasound (inaudible) and low-frequency (audible) noise (slowly vibrating sound waves collectively referred to as ILFN) produced by Industrial-scale Wind Turbines (IWTs) directly and predictably cause adverse human health effects. The sonic radiation tends to be amplified within structures, and sensitivity to the impact of the resonance increases with continuing exposure.

These facts have been known to the wind industry and the US government since the 1980s when it became a ‘hot topic,’ with numerous studies presented and published by acousticians working under grants from the Departments of Energy, Defense and NASA. The wind industry response?

Deny the science. Insist that “what you can’t hear can’t hurt you.” Claim that “neighbors will get used to it.” Measure only outside dwellings, and allow only noise measurements in the field that reflect the relative loudness perceived by the human ear, while drastically reducing sound-level readings in the lower frequencies that are known to cause problems.

From a distance, many view the massive turbines as majestic – as a clean, seemingly quiet and free source of endless energy. To untold thousands of families clustered within 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) or more of the pulsing machines, however, the IWTs bring strangely debilitating illness – increasingly incapacitating for some, yet scoffed at by wind proponents.

Common sense tells us that fifty-story-tall metal structures with blades as long as football fields moving at 180 mph at their tips would negatively impact quiet neighborhoods. But the extent and severity of the IWT’s effect on body, mind and spirit comes as a surprise to most people.

When I’m at home I’m usually sick with headaches, nausea, vertigo, tinnitus, anxiety, hopelessness, depression. My ears pop a lot and I hardly ever sleep…. Suicide looks to be my only relief. Land of the FREE Home of the BULLSHIT! … Million to one odds anybody contacts me back.”

The primary pathway of turbine assault on human health is no mystery. The Israeli army has used low-frequency sound pulses as high-tech crowd control for years. People are made nauseous and confused, with blurred vision, vertigo, headaches, tachycardia, heightened blood pressure, pain and ringing in the ears, difficulties with memory and concentration, anxiety, depression, irritability, and panic attacks.

This also describes the Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS), a constellation of symptoms first given a name by the brilliant young MD/PhD, Nina Pierpont. She followed her astute and compassionate observations of turbine neighbors around the world with epidemiological research, using a robust case-crossover statistical design: subjects experienced symptoms that varied with proximity to the turbines. When the same subjects were placed at a greater distance from the turbines, their symptoms abated; returning them to the scene brought the symptoms back.

Michigan State University noise engineers explain that “Inaudible components [ILFN] can induce resonant vibration in liquids, gases and solids … bodily tissues and cavities – potentially harmful to humans.” A subject in the groundbreaking Cooper study describes how the resonance shows up in a glass of water on her kitchen table, and in the toilet bowl, and how she feels it in her body.

Pierpont hypothesized that a significant pathway from ILFN to symptoms might include disruption to balance mechanisms located in the inner ear.

Dr. Alec Salt and colleagues, otolaryngologists at Washington University, later found that inaudible ILFN reaches the brain via inner ear Outer Hair Cell (OHC) displacement, leading indeed to unfamiliar and disturbing sensations paralleling WTS.

As turbine size trends upward, the sickening ILFN emissions worsen. There’s a lot of money riding on keeping the science under the radar of public awareness, and regulations to a minimum.

When Denmark’s EPA proposed tightening turbine noise regulations to protect turbine neighbors from increasing ILFN (May 2011), the Vestas CEO wrote the DEPA Minister, asserting: “It simply isn’t technically possible to curtail the ILFN output,” and “Increased distance requirements [setbacks from residences] cannot be met whilst maintaining a satisfactory business outcome for the investor.”’ DEPA folded, turning instead to looser standards that were “likely to be copied by other countries.”

Although alerted to the increased endangerment of turbine neighbors around the world, the press remained silent, and Big Wind’s central players ramped up their game plan undeterred.

In addition to the impact of ILFN radiation, turbine neighbors suffer from Turbine “Flicker” – a strobe-like effect caused by turbine blades alternately blocking and allowing sunlight to skim rhythmically and repeatedly across the land, or ricochet in bursts across interior walls and stairwells.

The direct impact extends to nearly a mile from the turbine – long after sunrise, and again long before sunset. It is mesmerizing, disorienting, and often brings on nausea, dizziness, lightheadedness, irritability, even panic, indoors or outside.

Repetitive sleep disturbance and stress-related symptoms are the most common health complaints of IWT neighbors. The audible sound constantly fluctuates, described as akin to low-flying jets or the rumble of helicopters, “freakish, screeching sound sludge.” It is unnatural. People say the noise gets into your head, and you can’t get it out.

Advising the Falmouth, MA Board of Health, Dr. William Hallstein wrote: “All varieties of illnesses are destabilized, secondary to inadequate sleep: diabetic blood sugars, cardiac rhythms, migraines, tissue healing. Psychiatric problems intensify … all in the ‘normal’ brain. Errors in judgment and accident rates increase.”

As with seasickness, not everyone is similarly affected. But for many, the experience becomes literally intolerable. Devastated families and individuals around the world, having lost their health, jobs or farms, return their keys to the bank, sell their homes at fire-sale prices, or simply pack up and flee. Some never recover their health.

(For more details on this human health travesty, see my three-part series on MasterResource.org)

The continuing expansion of Big Wind is a tale of money and power shunting aside integrity and compassion, abetted by a disinterested news media, leading to an un-informed public, further betrayed by “human rights advocates” loathe to break ranks from popular positions.

The myth that “saving the world” requires tolerating the costs of Big Wind could not be further from the truth. Responsible stewardship demands critical thinking, common sense and grade school science, not just following Big Wind’s Pied Piper and supposedly good intentions.

In fact, allowing wind into the energy mix squanders our non-renewable environment and taxpayer billions that are greatly needed elsewhere, wasting them on the most idiotic of engineering conceits.

Reliance on wind actually increases emissions and fossil fuel use overall, due to inefficiencies introduced into the system. Big Wind eliminates none of the need for conventional capacity, but rather consumes vast quantities of additional fuel and raw materials, while spewing emissions during the manufacture, transportation, construction and maintenance of the enormous redundant turbines and their uniquely demanding infrastructure.

The Wind Game is nothing but an obscenely costly, mostly useless energy redundancy scheme. It funnels unimaginable profits from our taxpayer and rate-payer pockets to its inner circle, while knowingly ignoring its victims’ desperate pleas for relief – and indeed ridiculing them and trying to bury all the growing evidence of harm to their health and wellbeing.

We’ve witnessed three decades of this callous, mercenary assault, this arrogant denial of what is known to be true, this untold suffering of thousands of innocent victims around the world. It’s time to bring in the human rights and social justice referees – and call “game over.”


Helen Schwiesow Parker, PhD, is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and a Past Clinical Supervisory Faculty member at the University of Virginia Medical School. Her career includes practical experience in the fields of autism, sensory perception, memory and learning, attention deficit and anxiety disorders, including panic disorder and PTSD.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

297 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John in L du B
March 8, 2017 1:25 pm

Isn’t Sulphur Hex also an ODS?

Janice Moore
Reply to  John in L du B
March 8, 2017 1:58 pm

Jeopardy!

Alex T: John, your turn.

John: “S and O” for $1,000.

Alex T: When thPPPSHHHHSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHffffffffffffwwwwttttGGZZZSSSSSSGGRRRRRRSSSSSHHHHHHHHHSSSSSPPPPPPPPPPXXXXXXXXXXXXXTTeeeeeeeeffffffffffff.

John: What are: Sulphur hexafluoride and open document spreadsheets.

Alex T: Yes!

Me to my husband (just pretending): OH, GREAT. That is just great. You HAD to run the Vitamix right THEN.

John! Help! What was the question?

( ?? http://file.org/extension/ods ?? )

#(:))

[The mods. “Alex, We’ll take “What is Janice on this evening? for $200.00 please. ” 8<) .mod]

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 4:36 pm

Someone put an egg in her kibble 😉

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 5:13 pm

Dear Max Photon,

Your quip was said with a wink, but, it still hurt (and so have some others’ here, year after year — just hoping you might help me understand the reactions of SOME of the men around here (not all, not all) …… ). If you have any respect for me at all (given that you could compare me with a dog, I doubt you have much), would you please (seriously — I’d like to hear your thoughts on this) tell me:

1. Why my sometimes forceful/blunt writing style, instead of evoking the image of a lovely, strong, woman, evokes the image of a tobacco-spitting old rancher lady?

2. Why my attempt at zany, silly, humor comes off, not as clever, witty, and fun, but as the “out there” ramblings of a drunk?

3. Why my writing evokes in your mind, not a playful, possibly quite normally attractive, woman, but a contemptible, low, image of a dog (not that I do not love dogs — I sure do!)?

I suppose, my even asking these questions reveals something unpleasant about myself. Sigh. Can’t be helped (except to just shut up, of course…. hm. Is that the point…..).

Hopefully,

Janice

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 6:04 pm

Aw, Janice, what an unfortunate shame. You have COMPLETELY misinterpreted my comment. I cannot speak to what others have said to you, but I will certainly share what MY intentions were.

In my world I have long used that expression as a term of endearment when someone — male or female — is being sprite and playful, as I found you to be here.

I always take time to read your posts, and invariably enjoy and appreciate them. I have nothing but respect for you, and seeing your name evokes warm feelings and a sense of camaraderie.

You have my sincerest apologies for the misunderstanding.

Sheri
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 6:22 pm

Janice: In part, it’s because you use your real name and people know you’re female. If you made the same comments as “Jerry”, the reaction would not be the same. There’s really nothing to be done about it—it’s just how human beings are made. As for your gruff nature, I love it! The image you used was great. I get much the same reaction and have just come to accept that this is how people are and deal with it (mostly by ignoring the tone or just blasting away if the situation calls for it). Besides, no matter how you phrase things, someone’s going to complain. 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 6:33 pm

Janice, again, I can’t speak to what the others wrote, but I will go out on a limb and share what my impressions were when I read those comments made by others.

I believe those comments too were said in a spirit of comfortable playfulness based on admiration and affection for you. I get the sense you are greatly misreading them. I think you are missing that one of greatest compliments men can give women is to treat them as one of the guys. (I understand that may seem bizarre to a woman, but trust me — it’s true … and I strongly suspect it is especially true in this instance.)

I think Sheri is missing this too. For example, I did not read it that the .mod was complaining; the .mod was simply having fun with you.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 7:02 pm

Dear Max Photon,

Thank you for your generous explanation. Yes, indeed, I completely misunderstood. There is no need to apologize, for you meant no harm, but, thank you. I accept your apology. No hard feelings.

And, thank you, for your kind words.

I enjoy your sharp mind’s sense of humor and fun graphics. Glad you are here.

Your too easily wounded these days WUWT ally,

Janice

*********************************

Dear Sheri,

THANK YOU for taking the time to cheer me up and to encourage me and to offer some very good advice, too. I think you are likely right. Something about a woman’s “strong” words ellicits a different, more eager to put down, reaction in many (not all, by any means) men than the same words uttered by a man.

Most of the time, I do just as you wisely advise, laugh it off, ignore it, or “blast” back, lolol. Something about “dog” just got to me this afternoon and it was the “straw” — only a straw. I’m back on track, now!

What is amusing (to me, for I know me) is, no one who knows me “in real life,” considers me “gruff.” I just write that way (sometimes)! Weird, huh? 🙂 And FUN!

And I’m going to keep right on doing it, too! Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

#(:))

See you around (I enjoy your many quips and insightful and valuable comments — I just don’t say anything many times, because I have already talked and talked on the thread where I see you).

Your WUWT friend,

Janice

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 7:11 pm

Thanks, Max Photon, for your trying to help me (at 6:33pm) understand the responses I get around here sometimes. I appreciate you taking the time. I believe you, and, yet….. Sheri has a good point. It is more than just being treated as “one of the guys” — that is wonderful and I am grateful for it. I, nevertheless, am treated differently than “the guys” are, at times…. and that’s just the way it is.

Well. We could discuss this for many moons, huh? I will keep what you said in mind and factor that in (until I forget it!!! lololo — seriously, I will try to remember, but, I just know myself: I fit TOO closely that old song about the woman who does this and does that “just like a woman,” but “breaks just like a little girl.” Sickening, but, true.

One of these years — I will grow up.

Meh. No I won’t! lolololololol

Again, thank you.

Janice

P.S. Don’t be afraid to keep on giving me bad time! Just be you.

TA
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 8:36 pm

Janice, don’t apolgize for anything.

“evoking the image of a lovely, strong, woman,”

“zany, silly, humor comes off, as clever, witty, and fun,”

“a playful, possibly quite normally attractive, woman,”

Janice, those are the impressions *I* get when I read your posts. Your posts are always interesting. Don’t let any naysayers get you down.

Ej
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 5:33 am

Janice, I must comment : )
short to the point : )

Max Photon, very wise person, obvious experiences speaks. When you have a man tell you what he wrote, that is one of the best compliments a woman can receive. Totally agree.

just my opinion ……… Max and Sheri very correct.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 6:42 am

TA: Thank you!

Ej: Thanks for the good advice. 🙂

March 8, 2017 1:34 pm

I think there are enough reasons to stop building wind turbines without relying on infrasound effects. Undispatchable power and bat and bird killing is enough. It would be poetic justice to apply the greens Precautionary Principle on infrasound effects, though, and make them prove a negative.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 8, 2017 1:48 pm

I agree, Mr. Halla. That was my first thought. Whether this paper is correct or not, there is MORE than enough damage (far outweighing any potential benefit demonstrated so far) to bats and birds and to the economy to AMPLY justify shutting down Big Wind (and solar, too).

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 1:53 pm

Thank you, Janice Moore. The infrasound studies seem a bit ambiguous.

gnomish
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 5:42 pm

there may be more reasonable arguments but not necessarily more persuasive ones.
numbers lack emotional appeal.
on the other hand, 342 boxes of tea floating in the bay trumps that pic of a sick babby

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 8, 2017 3:33 pm

Would you be as concerned over the mortality of birds and bats if it were another industry that caused the fatalities Tom ?

catweazle666
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 8, 2017 4:20 pm

Of course.

Unlike you, some of us are truly concerned about the real risks to the environment, and not taken in by some plant food scam to enrich the ilkes of Al Gore, Mrs. Nick Clegg, “Lord” Deben and “Sir” Reginald Sheffield, to name only a very few.

But no other industry has carte blanche to kill birds and bats – and it seems whales and dolphins too – in the industrial quantities that are slaughtered by windfarms.

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320716310485

But hey, what does the extinction of a few species of eagles, owls and bats matter when you’re a virtue-signalling Greeny, out to ‘Save the World™’, isn’t that right, Phillips?

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 8, 2017 4:29 pm

it is a cost-benefit analysis. As wind turbines do not provide effective grid power, almost any cost against them is decisive.

Sheri
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 8, 2017 6:24 pm

Tom: Agreed. If there was actual value to the turbines, the bird deaths might be more understandable.

jake
March 8, 2017 2:04 pm

Just for the record, wind power plants produced 0.67 % of prime energy in the U.S. in 2015 and 4.7 % of electric power. That power amounted to 22 GW which was 29 % of their nameplate rating. Others pointed out to the crippling cost of such electricity and its non-measurable impact on global climate.

Reply to  jake
March 8, 2017 2:10 pm

For a detailed disection of the cost issue, and how Obama’s EIA in DoE lied about it, see my previous guest post at Climate Etc. titled True Cost of Wind. CCGT ~ $56/MWh. Wind (based on ERCOT grid for backup at 10% penetration) ~$146/MWh. Almost 3x when honestly calculated.

Canman
Reply to  ristvan
March 9, 2017 8:10 am
Graeme
March 8, 2017 2:17 pm

When they start knocking these things down in 40 years, guess who will own the land with the views over the ocean and the hilltops, both prime real estate? Big Wind of course.

Griff
Reply to  Graeme
March 10, 2017 5:19 am

The same landowners as now.

Frank
March 8, 2017 2:38 pm

Helen Schwiesow Parker, PhD, is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and a Past Clinical Supervisory Faculty member at the University of Virginia Medical School. Her career includes practical experience in the fields of autism, sensory perception, memory and learning, attention deficit and anxiety disorders, including panic disorder and PTSD.

It’s too bad she no experience in audiology and provides no links or references to sources that do.

BoyfromTottenham
March 8, 2017 2:41 pm

Good article, but sadly no mention of the fact that almost every country’s EPA requires that wind turbine ‘noise levels’ be measured using a type of ‘sound level meter’ traditionally used to measure audible environmental noise. Unfortunately these instruments are designed to measure only AUDIBLE sound (i.e. above about 15-20 Hz), and therefore CANNOT and WILL not indicate the true level of the sub-audible sound that can cause the adverse health effects referred to above, understating it by orders of magnitude. Whether this choice of instrument by these authorities was due to ignorance or malice I cannot answer, but either way it ensured that verification of ultrasound levels from wind turbines (and thus successful claims of harm) was rendered nearly impossible for a decade or more.
P.S. My research indicates that the military in several countries have been studying the use of infrasound as a ‘non-lethal weapon’ since before WW2, lending strength to the argument that infrasound does cause adverse health effects on humans.

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
March 8, 2017 2:56 pm

The military does use acoustics as a short range weapon. But NOT infrasound. Google LRAD. 2.5kHz. Aimed at the human hearing sweet spot for maximum effect. Mounted on all the new US littoral combat ships.

March 8, 2017 3:20 pm

The real “deniers” are the wind and solar supporters. They simply deny the data, they deny the physics, and they deny the engineering, and simply believe in unicorns, fairies and free green energy.

March 8, 2017 3:21 pm

Someone please tell me this photo is photoshopped. This can’t be real…can it?
comment image

Janice Moore
Reply to  co2islife
March 8, 2017 5:19 pm

I have not authenticated that photo, co2islife, but, here is the webpage it appears on, in an article talking about a Philippine wind “farm.”

https://stopthesethings.com/2016/03/12/community-defenders-bomb-wind-farm-in-the-philippines/

It looks (disgustingly) real to me.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 6:36 pm

For what it’s worth, Wikipedia has a slightly cropped version of a similar view in the article on the wind farm. I marvel that anyone would build these so close to the surf line.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 7:07 pm

Ugh!!

TA
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 8, 2017 8:45 pm

I notice the beach is empty.

Sheri
Reply to  co2islife
March 8, 2017 6:24 pm

What makes you think it’s not real?

Reply to  Sheri
March 8, 2017 7:07 pm

How could someone ruin a beach like that?

Sheri
Reply to  Sheri
March 8, 2017 7:22 pm

For money. Lots and lots of money. Wind plant developers care nothing about the environment or the landscape. They care about MONEY.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sheri
March 8, 2017 7:41 pm

Google Bangui Bay Windmills to find all 20…right on the beach

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Sheri
March 9, 2017 11:04 am

Come on, Sheri, don’t be too hard on them. We all care about money. It puts our children in nice schools, provides us with big screen TVs, warm/cool homes, toys. And if they didn’t build those turbines there, a competing company would have. Best that the lowest bidder do it.

Sheri
Reply to  Sheri
March 9, 2017 4:25 pm

Kook: Yes, we all like money. There are honest ways to get money and dishonest ways. Wind is right up there at the top of the truly dishonest, damaging ways to get money.
Actually, another company would NOT have built it—it’s on land owned by Chevron that was part of a closed refinery operation (there was no refinery there, but Chevron owned the land). By your logic, I should rob a bank because if I don’t, someone else will.

Griff
Reply to  co2islife
March 9, 2017 12:40 am

Of course it is photoshopped… just look at base of first tower…

Reply to  Griff
March 9, 2017 6:14 am

That is what I was thinking. Also, how far down is the bedrock under a beach? Those thing need really solid foundations.

BoyfromTottenham
March 8, 2017 3:25 pm

Thanks Rud. I was referring to historical research that I am aware of, rather than current practise regarding non-lethal weapons. The documented attempts to use infrasound as a non-lethal weapon were apparently based on awareness in the mid 20th century that infrasound disrupts the workings of the middle and inner ear (hence the nausea, giddiness, etc.), so the denial by pro-wind turbine advocates that exposure to infrasound causes these effects would appear to be misplaced. regards,

Sommer
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
March 9, 2017 2:04 pm

Brilliant reality checking, Anthony.

Reply to  Sommer
March 9, 2017 6:28 pm

Yep, that settled that one. Unfortunately that image wasn’t photoshopped.

March 8, 2017 4:29 pm

“As with seasickness, not everyone is similarly affected. But for many, the experience becomes literally intolerable. Devastated families and individuals around the world, having lost their health, jobs or farms, return their keys to the bank, sell their homes at fire-sale prices, or simply pack up and flee. Some never recover their health.”

God that speaks to me. I got absolutely annihilated by chronic dog barking in San Francisco, and barely crawled out of the place alive. I swear I have PTSD from that #$%! nightmare. My heart breaks for families that get destroyed by wind turbines.

Joseph Solters
March 8, 2017 4:38 pm

It’s a proven scientific fact that elephants dance when exposed to ultrasound from wind turbines. Usually when elephants dance they instinctively turn to the right and Trumpet.. But when dancing to wind turbine ultrasound, they manage to always dance to the left with no Trumpet. Go figure.

March 8, 2017 4:40 pm

I seem to recall that awhile back some enviros were railing against the US Navy claiming that newer sonar was confusing whales and causing them to ground themselves (or something like that).
Why aren’t those same enviros railing against the sound these turbocrimes put out?

PS “Turbocrimes”. Poetic license. Wind does have a niche, as does solar, in small scale power generation.
Selling to the public such as a viable large scale, universal alternative to hydro or “fossil” or nuclear power that Government needs to enforce and subsidize to power “the Grid”?
That should be a crime.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 8, 2017 5:29 pm

Apparently, the Envirowackos got their way.

(https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/16/us-navy-banned-from-using-sonar-that-harms-dolphins-and-walruses )

*****************************
Ask them about effects of wind turbines on sea mammals — most likely response: crickets.

March 8, 2017 5:00 pm

Also science deniers in climate “science”

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2929159

Retired Kit P
March 8, 2017 7:35 pm

“Actually the second hand smoke “studies” were debunked long ago.”

MarkW is right.

Sheri
March 8, 2017 7:43 pm
Bryan A
Reply to  Sheri
March 8, 2017 10:22 pm

W O W…it’s worse than I thought…One house, one barn, presumably a well, and 9 turbines for power…must be charging Tesla Battery Backups

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Sheri
March 9, 2017 12:04 pm

OMG, how close are those things to the house and barn? Seems pretty dangerous to me.

Sheri
Reply to  Paul Penrose
March 9, 2017 1:04 pm

I believe the closeset home is 1/4 mile. The barn is maybe 1/2 a mile or so. There was a huge battle over how close the turbines are to homes. However, homeowners went to court too late and they were stuck with the decision.

markl
March 8, 2017 8:04 pm

Here in California we solved the noise problem by only allowing wind farms in areas that had no say or political juice to get it stopped. Birds? They poop on our shiny cars. But we are all for CAGW and think everyone else should do everything to support it.

Adam Romulus
March 8, 2017 8:37 pm

The worst thing is that windmill structures slow the wind: thereby, warming the earth.

Retired Kit P
March 8, 2017 8:53 pm

“I have had solar thermal hot water now for over three decades. It’s reliable, and less expensive than electric hot water.”

I find this hard to believe. First, a lot has changed in 30 years. The amount of hot water a home uses has been greatly reduced because of low flow shower nozzles and laundry detergents that do not need hot water. How water heaters are insulated much better too.

Second the mechanical life of solar hot water systems is 10 years.

Third is lawyers. When I lived in California, I designed and built my own systems in 1986 buying components at cost. When the nuke plant I worked at I considered such a business. There is significant liability risk.

When I look at those in the solar business, I think sc*m. There are situations where solar hot water could save money. Show me the your detailed economic analyses.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
March 9, 2017 1:28 am

Are you talking about domestic hot water systems? Mine has been unfailingly useful for some time, though an electrical sensor had to be replaced last year.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 9, 2017 7:57 am

Gareth, the study I read was a long time ago, at least 10 years.

After living in China, domestic had a different meaning. I saw many solar hot water systems on rural apartment buildings that I would estimate had 16 families. I saw no single family residences.

As an engineer, I look for specifics. When was it built, what were the materials of construction, what did it cost, what is the rate history, and how many people does it serve.

Catcracking
March 8, 2017 8:55 pm

I apologize if this has been presented elsewhere, but the URL below explains the special problem with low frequency noise that you may not be able to hear and it’s implications. While I am not a specialized noise engineer, I am aware that low frequency travels over large distance compared with higher frequencies and is difficult to attenuate. expensive mufflers are often installed on high stacks to attenuate low frequency noise in adjoining neighborhoods. During close inspections of some very very noisy equipment with double ear protection I experienced vibrations in my chest and noted that there were structural failures inside a furnace due to noise induced vibration of the furnace casing.
see URL below

https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-turbines-and-low-frequency-noise-implications-for-human-health/

Catcracking
March 8, 2017 9:02 pm

Wouldn’t offshore wind turbines also have impact on the creatures who live in the sea, especially mammals?

Retired Kit P
March 8, 2017 9:34 pm

There is an idiot who has a long list of reasons for not making electricity with a given technology.

“PhD, is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist”

“To untold thousands of families clustered within 2 kilometers (1.25 miles)”

Having worked in nuclear power I am used to it.

Here is the problem, you all want to use electricity and none of you have a clue about how to make it. Sorry, the internet does not give you a clue either.

Washington State and Oregon have wind farms near where I have lived. There does not seem to be any of the problems that would prevent us from using it.

March 9, 2017 3:48 am

Helen Schwiesow Parker,
You wrote.
“The continuing expansion of Big Wind is a tale of money and power shunting aside integrity and compassion, abetted by a disinterested news media, leading to an un-informed public, further betrayed by “human rights advocates” loathe to break ranks from popular positions”.

The Lame Stream News Media are anything but “disinterested”. They are supposed to be. They are, in the main, not even Uninterested. I posit that they are extremely interested, in promoting the Green goddess Gian Narrative. The disruption of Human lives by the “Renewable Wind bird Osterizers” doesn’t fit into the Narrative, so is ignored.
It is well known that infrasonic sound around 16 Hz. causes a sensation of terror in most individuals. It is one of the things that causes panic during large Earthquakes.

Buffwoof
March 9, 2017 4:05 am

I bet that if this was an article on health impacts of fracking or nuclear power, you’d simply disregard it as green propaganda.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  Buffwoof
March 9, 2017 8:00 am

Or coal plants.

Keith J
March 9, 2017 5:22 am

Turbine operations are synchronous when tied to mains so I can see constructive harmonics kicking amplitude in certain areas. From first hand experience with a defective sunroof spoiler, it takes only seconds at infrasonic freq to make me ill. I solved the sunroof issue by installing aircraft vortex generators on the leading edge of the spoiler. Later models of this vehicle employed a notched spoiler to the same effect. Nothing can be done on wind turbines to reduce noise other than a suitable quantity of high explosive in the right spot.

mairon62
March 9, 2017 7:39 am

I wonder what the service life is for a commercial wind turbine? Seeings as they can’t even generate enough money to pay for their maintenance, are we going to see defunct wind-farms with rusty towers, fried generators, and a blade or two missing: lovely. Has money been set aside for environmental restoration?

Griff
Reply to  mairon62
March 9, 2017 8:08 am

20 years, perhaps more for more recent designs. They are actively maintained and serviced.

Griff
Reply to  mairon62
March 9, 2017 8:09 am

and yes, turbines have a end of life plan. but note very many are upgraded to bigger models before end of life

Sommer
Reply to  mairon62
March 9, 2017 2:02 pm

The subject of ‘stranded debt’ is significant with these turbines.

Reply to  mairon62
March 9, 2017 2:42 pm

mairon62 March 9, 2017 at 7:39 am
I wonder what the service life is for a commercial wind turbine? Seeings as they can’t even generate enough money to pay for their maintenance, are we going to see defunct wind-farms with rusty towers, fried generators, and a blade or two missing: lovely. Has money been set aside for environmental restoration?

Perhaps those who profit from the promotion of these choppers look on them as Gillette looked at disposable razor blades? (a steady supply of green)
Disposable power generators!
“As long as the are taxpayers sold on the idea, we’ll grab our green while they feel good about being green while their green is “gone with the wind”!