Wind Turbines: A Major New Noise Report

Just a quick post about a new peer reviewed study, published in a leading academic journal on the effects of wind turbine noise on nearby residents. It has been written by three leading academics. (including Dr Chris Hanning - arguably the worlds leading expert in sleep deprivation)

The study (quicklink) is Here

Full Citation:

Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health [serial online] 2012 [cited 2012 Nov 11];14:237-43. 
Available from: http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2012/14/60/237/102961

Basically this study reinforces the the now well founded opinion that wind turbines should be no
nearer than 2Km to residential dwellings.

Needless to say, this report will be vigorously ignored and then denied by the money hungry wind turbine cartel and by their brown nosed apologist fashion loving followers. No doubt we will also hear the hysterical slurs and accusations against the researchers in due course. As has happened before.

Do you seriously think there is a difference between the wind cartel and the tobacco industry? Dream on. If there is one, it is as thick as a cigarette paper.

But at least there are signs that these greedy corporate monsters, who are imposing immense misery on an untold number of communities across our country are now meeting some resistance.

Wiltshire County Council has set a minimum setback distance of 2Km (3Km for large turbines).
(See Here). Good for them. Standing up for your community is exactly what local democracy should be all about. Wiltshire County councillors deserve out applause.

But most of all we should salute Dr Chris Hanning and his colleagues for having the courage to publish.

The opinions and scientific findings of Dr Chris Hanning, Dr Mike Nissenbaum and  Dr Jeff  Aramini should cause anyone with the slightest moral conscience to pause in of building these useless monsters anywhere near residential dwellings.

Will that happen?

Don't hold your breath.

Fiddling Wind Turbine Images

I had to smile when I read a comment from a local windy on one of my posts accusing the local action group (DART) of inflating turbine image size on one of their flyers. ( Comment 5 on this post )

Here is part of what the windy's comment:
[quote]
I've seen the leaflets that DART circulated, with an image of turbines we estimated were 4 times bigger than the proposed ones. Who wouldn't be horrified by that and sign a petition?
[unquote]

Yes. I agree. But actually, I would bet that what the windy really meant was 4 times bigger than the propaganda images produced by their beloved developer .

As reported in ( This Article ), a prominent Scottish architect along with Stirling University has been conducting research into how various wind farm developers have been cleverly fiddling images to make their wind farms appear less intrusive.

Take these two example images taken from the same location (see the above article) that show the deception. Notice both images are the same width and you can see all of both images.

The top image uses a wide angle lens to give a panoramic view that is well outside the real  field of view of an observer. This is then presented as an image at close range, so then all of the panorama is seen by the observer. The consequence is that the turbines (and buildings for that matter) are reduced and appear much less consequential than in reality. The bottom image shows the view more realistically with a field of view similar to that of a real observer.

There are rules governing these photo montages, but there are loopholes. These loopholes are ruthlessly exploited by the carpet baggers, leading to results similar to that achieved in the top image.

Now, when I look at the example images above, to me, it looks like the bogus pro-wind like propaganda image presents the turbines at about a quarter size of the more realistic bottom photograph.

I don't know if the DART flyer actually did present the turbines a four times larger than the Infinergy images. I didn't see it. But if they did it looks like DART probably got it about right.

So maybe, in the future, perhaps my windie commentator should do as they suggested and "be horrified and sign the petition".

You know it makes sense.

Love & Kisses
Billothewisp

Peer Reviewed Papers on Turbine Noise

A short while ago Billothewisp was tipped off that a considerable number of scientific papers relating to the harmful effects of wind turbines were going through peer review.

Now the August edition The Bulletin of Science, technology and Society (BSTS)  has published no less than nine peer reviewed papers on wind turbines, noise and health consequences.

This though is only the start.

Unfortunately unless you are a university department or (example) an NHS trust, a mere plebian (like Billothewisp) has to fork out the best part of £500.00 to subscribe to the BSTS, or at least pay $25.00 per paper. Ouch!

Luckily, the National Wind Watch Site Here has published the abstracts

I expect that after initial publication these papers may well become more accessible, so  a google search may well find them. Alternatively, if you have what is known as an "Athens" account (i.e. you work for the NHS or an academic institution) you should be able to get at them on-line now.

These particular papers are:

Professor John P Harrison, Dept Physics, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada,
Paper: Wind Turbine Noise

Dr Bob Thorne Phd. Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd, Enoggera, Queensland, Australia
Paper: The Problems With “Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment

Dr. Arline L. Bronzaft Phd.GrowNYC, New York, New York, USA
Paper: The Noise From Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s Well-Being

Dr. Alec N. Salt Phd, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Dr. James A. Kaltenbach Phd, Lerner Research Institute/Head and Neck Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Paper: Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans

Dr. Carl V. Phillips Phd, Populi Health Institute, Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA
Paper: Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents

Dr Robert Y. McMurtry MD FRCSC FACS, St. Joseph’s Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada
Paper: Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects in the Environs of Industrial Wind Turbines: Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis

Carmen M. E. Krogh BScPharm, Killaloe, Ontario, Canada
Paper: Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice?

Carmen M.E. Krogh BScPharm, Killaloe, Ontario, Canada
Lorrie Gillis, Flesherton, Ontario, Canada
Professor Nicholas Kouwen, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Dr. Jeff Aramini Phd, Intelligent Health Solutions, Fergus, Ontario, Canada
Paper: WindVOiCe, a Self-Reporting Survey: Adverse Health Effects, Industrial Wind Turbines, and the Need for Vigilance Monitoring

Dr Martin Shain Phd, University of Toronto, Caledon, Ontario, Canada
Paper: Public Health Ethics, Legitimacy, and the Challenges of Industrial Wind Turbines: The Case of Ontario, Canada

That, my grubby little Englanders, is the tip of a very dirty iceberg that is about to hit the fan (or windmill - so to speak)

You have to ask: How long does this have to continue before somebody actually does something other than sit on their hands hoping it all goes away?

Billothewisp may well oppose wind turbines simply because they are bloody useless. But before that he vehemently opposes building the things anywhere near peoples homes.

There must be a set-back of at least 1.5 Km instituted NOW.

Anything else is criminal negligence.