Could Wind Turbines Be Toxic To The Ear?

[nadinbrzezinski]

The U.S. is embracing wind energy, with wind turbines making up half of the new electricity added to the power grid last year. But a smattering of people who live near the turbines say they're a nuisance — and making them ill.

Dr. Nina Pierpont, a Johns Hopkins-trained pediatrician and biologist in upstate New York, has been collecting their anecdotes for years. She coined the term wind turbine syndrome to encompass the symptoms of headaches, dizziness, tinnitus, ear pain, and difficulty sleeping that people in several states and countries have complained of — largely on the Internet. And she says she's convinced the culprit is the low frequency noise, called infrasound, from the turbines and how it's disturbing the delicate vestibular system of the inner ear.

The claims of the existence of wind turbine syndrome have been met with heavy skepticism from a host of experts in energy and public health since few studies aside from one self-published report from Pierpont have shown any link between the turbines and health. The World Health Organization, which classifies diseases, does not recognize wind turbine syndrome, nor does any other medical institution. And otolaryngologists, who are experts on ear health, have remained largely silent on the issue.

Until now.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/03/27/175468025/could-wind-turbines-be-toxic-to-the-ear

Link to the abstract

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8853239

As I wrote earlier, this is just emerging.

I keep a skeptical view, but we are starting to see the leading edge of research, peer reviewed and all.

There is more, see NPR has a different style sheet.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Not a problem.

Certainly not more than EMF radiation from cellphones and towers and concentrated power transmission and distribution lines, or greenhouse gases from use of fossil fuel extraction and burning.

Wind has a lot of corporate opponents. They don't need help.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Wind also has a lot of corporate allies

Including British Petroleum and Shell. Sorry, while I keep my skepticism, that does not mean I am completely in denial that this could happen.

I want more, lots more research.

And we all should want it.

I am sorry if I can't close my eyes and pretend things are not happening since they are inconvenient. Mind you...there are other possible causes to what we are starting to see...I want research...the more the better, and high quality to boot.

(That includes newer emerging technology...that also uses wind and has no blades. They are making claims on those that are intriguing, including efficiency ratios that beat current deployed gear).

[CJCRANE]

2. That seems like a talking point.

"Toxic to the ear" doesn't collocate correctly, that seems more like a metaphor designed to conflate wind power with polluting industries.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Infrasound is a form of pollution

And the link to the Journal of Audiology was part of the story. It's really early in this.

[jpak]

77. Wrong - infrasound (< 20 hz) cannot stimulate the inner hair cells of the cochlea

That is why you cannot hear it.

The vast majority of outer hair cells of the cochlea are not sensory - they shorten in response to incoming acoustic energy to "tune" the cochlea to different frequencies of sound.

Infrasound does not stimulate the stereocilia or kinocilia of the maculae or the ampullae of the vestibular system.

Infrasound acoustic energies from wind turbines are less than 40 dB a short distance from operating wind turbines (normal conversation acoustic energies are ~60 dB).

It is a non-problem.

yup

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. Yup, that is why we have a report in audiology

That needs to be reproduced, check et al, in other words...we need to do science.

[winter is coming]

163. That would be the metastudy you linked to that concluded we don't know one way or the other?

I think I'd rather fund research constructed to actually reach some sort of conclusion.

on edit: I'm not against metastudies, but there's no need to reproduce this one.

[jpak]

177. Here's some science

http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/turbine_impact_study.pdf

<snip>

There is no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a "Wind Turbine Syndrome."

<more>

[nadinbrzezinski]

180. What part of I want a few studies to confirm or debunk are you afraid off?

Science must be scary.

Look. No form of energy is 100% problem free. Recognizing this does not mean one is against clean energy. Even if recognizing this violates the 100% faith based efforts here. Some (nuclear, coal) have a lot more issues than others...but none is 100% pure as a baby's button.

So far we have one that says one thing in a medical journal, and one done by a dept. of Public Health that says otherwise. I want science. Capice? Is that hard to understand?

I will hold off to make any conclusion until we got lots more, since you know what? Anecdotes are rising to statistics by now.

[jpak]

207. The statistics are these - 280,000 MW of global wind turbine capacity

0 dead bodies.

Yup

[nadinbrzezinski]

183. From your PDF

There is limited evidence from epidemiologic studies suggesting an association between noise from wind turbines and sleep disruption. In other words, it is possible that noise from some wind turbines can cause sleep disruption.

And the word limited is all over.

They need more research.

Bolded the area since sleep disruption is up there

[jpak]

206. Gee - do people live under the flight paths of major airports?

Do they live near railroads?

Do they live near factories that vent steam?

Yes - and they habituate to those disruptions.

Is turbine noise different - or more sinister - than other types of industrial noise?

Nope.

All this nonsense about evil wind turbine noise was invented by people who think wind turbines are "ugly".

It has no basis in human physiology.

It's kookery.

Yup

[nadinbrzezinski]

212. I got your number

Yup

You are afraid of research

Yup

[Hugin]

174. It's a bit disingenuous claiming the frequency response of a wind turbine is measured at the hub.

Yes, there, they spin at around 20Hz.

However, and it's a big however, the blade tips of most large wind turbines (and that's where the noise is generated just like in a helicopter) is moving at an average of 180 mph in a typical wind strong enough to turn the blades at a speed capable of power generation.

[Politicalboi]

3. I hope they can solve this, if there is a problem

We need an alternative energy source, and wind is good. I wonder if different blades might solve this. GE has come up with fabric blades.

http://www.treehugger.com/wind-technology/ges-fabric-wind-turbine-blades.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. There are turbines without blades under development

They use the Bernoulli principle.

[treestar]

94. That seems the most hopeful development

At least to resolve the problems of old and breaking blades.

They might have infrasound, though. But that's another thing technology can tackle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. I found another to last night

Types of systems that is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022861548

In my mind we need to do research on whether this is causing problems or not, and work on these other systems to replace these things if we find the issues are real.

That is the responsible thing to do. But sacred cows and all that. From talking to local San Diego residents...people don't care where power comes from. They just want it. I get the feeling it's almost the same thing here.

[leveymg]

119. If you don't use an impeller (turbine wheel) how do you drive the generator?

I think what you're talking about are wind turbines encased in bodies that funnel the air current through a series of geared turbine wheels - much like a jet engine (a ram jet). You'd need a hell of a big inlet, or a hurricane force wind, to make such a thing practical. Also, it would blow backwards at the outlet with equal force, a la Bernoulli principle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. No, here for the other two designs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022861548

[leveymg]

124. Very clever - and it just might work!

Thanks for that! But there is a moving part - charged liquid molecules. Also, doesn't one need external power (at least initially) to charge the particle?

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. You need it with current blade technology

The motor is at the bottom of the tower.

What I like about this is that theoretically, we will truly know when it reaches large size, it should also reduce bird deaths by order of magnitude and the problems humans have near these.

It can also, possibly, go in cities.

My favorite, it can be part of a distributive network with roof top solar.

[leveymg]

144. No it doesn't. A DC generator needs no "starter" current.

The mechanical movement of the armature produces its own charge differential.

However, an AC system is more efficient, so that's why they make them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. They do have a motor at the bottom of each tower

It is to get them moving

[leveymg]

169. That's not what I mean.

The Dutch molecular charge system you described involves charged liquid droplets that get pushed along tubes by air pressure creating voltage (a charge differential). That system would seem to require electricity to impart an initial charge to either the droplets and/or to tube.

On the other hand, a simple generator (dynamo) doesn't need electricity to establish the charge - the physical force that spins the armature provides that energy.

A simple Direct Current (DC) windmill does not need an electric motor to get it moving - a brisk wind should do that. More modern and efficient windmills produce AC current, and they may need a bump start to get up to operating speed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

175. They do, due to the size of the units.

They also have oil in them...200-1000 gallons of it.

For the record, before we started any work on this I believed this was green energy with no issues.

It has some issues. Funny how not closing eyes to them means I hate clean energy somehow, according to some here. Chuckles.

The issues have to be looked at, for mitigation if nothing else, and these new blade less units have to grow from experimental size to larger size. Some how I don't expect Siemens to invest in them, by the way.

The other thing is, if these work they can be sited in an urban environment close to place of use. This leads to less loss over transmission lines. (One reason for the higher price of wind energy). You want a wild one? Look at a map. Energy produced in Mexicalli, further than Ocotillo, is being fed to San Diego...El Centro, sure it's close...San Diego...loss in that line is epic.

This is one of those things that makes you go...what?

Wind is part of the basket, but like all energy it has some warts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

165. Any comment on their claimed maximum of 100W from 100 square metres?

If you stick something 100 square metres up, just to get 100W, then you are going to get bird deaths - just like we get them from windows.

[leveymg]

173. Most birds will see a 10X10 panel depending upon lighting conditions.

I've notices that most bird strikes are in the early morning on the darkened side of the house away from the sun or on very low visibility days, such as when it has snowed and the window reflects the snow. But, it doesn't seem to happen much at night. I'm sure someone can figure out a simple way to help birds see such an energy collector.

[daleo]

6. Wind power is Toxic to the ears of oil company executives

Hearing about renewable energy gives them headaches.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Giving BP and Shell are invested in renewables

Here

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021524&contentId=7040020

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/02/shell-busts-a-move-builds-drop-in-biofuels-pilot-plant-in-texas


http://www.shell.us/future-energy/wind/projects.html

[CJCRANE]

9. That's just hedging their bets.

It would be irresponsible to their shareholders if they didn't have a foothold in a competing industry that could overtake them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. They are the largest investors

More than just hedging their bets.

This is well beyond hedging bets.

[CJCRANE]

14. Do you have a link for that?

I found this on wikipedia about the main manufacturers:

"As of 2010, Vestas (from Denmark) is the world's top wind turbine manufacturer in terms of percentage of market volume, and Sinovel (from China) is in second place. Together Vestas and Sinovel delivered 10,228 MW of capacity in 2010, and their market share was 25.9 percent. GE Energy (USA) was in third place, closely followed by another Chinese supplier, Goldwind. German Enercon ranks fifth in the world, and is followed by Indian-based Suzlon at number six."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_industry#References

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Well, what do you know, BP s backing away from wind in the US

http://247wallst.com/2013/04/03/bp-seeks-buyer-for-u-s-wind-energy-operations/

By the way China does lead the world in Solar

[DevonRex]

57. Giving? Giving BP and Shell what?

WTF?

[Rex]

231. At this point, there is no telling what will be posted next.

When you are a Perfect Being, keeping up with the 1000's of tiny inconsistencies can be bothersome and for others to do.

[DevonRex]

234. I guess complete sentences are just SO yesterday

for ace reporters. Wait. Something isn't right here. What is it when windmills aren't windmills but really dangerous giants that must be fought for the safety of all mankind? Except that they really are just windmills and tilting at them is just plain silly...

No, don't tell me. It'll come to me.

[Rex]

237. You talking about Don Coyote?

Brother of the famous (and totally real) Wile E. Coyote?

Little known fact, I once wrote and article for the Blusterd Eel about W.E.C was once a test subject for an alt form of flight. Clearly he is anti-plane and a hero to zillions, since we all know that TRILLIONS of people get cancer from flying on airlines, he clearly was a pioneer in the field of propellerless flight. Wait...they don't use propellers anymore?

Typical first world bushwazii (it is a REAL word stop saying that) propaganda.

Oh and if you argue with just ONE IOTA of that I will put you on 'super ignore' for the rest of the ages! How CAN you be for propellerless flight!? What company paid you off! ACME!? WHO WAS IT!?!

[FarCenter]

84. US wind power capacity is about 60,000 MWatts of which Shell is 550 MW and BP is 2600 MW

Note that they are not sole owners of that capacity and have partners.

Shell and BP are in it for the image marketing benefits, not as a strategic business. 550 MW is half a power plant.

[daleo]

235. Smart oil companies would invest in renewables

But it isn't easy to monopolize wind and solar, so these technologies are inherently difficult to integrate into their business models. Oil companies are in somewhat the same quandary as big book publishers; a transformative set of technologies and distribution systems is cutting into the basic fundamentals of their business practices and models. They will be eroded over time, the question is how long will it take?

[nadinbrzezinski]

238. What you said also applies to utilities

As well.

[daleo]

239. It's true

Solar panels, connected to really efficient battery technology, could seriously transform everything about the production and distribution of electricity. A 15000 dollar Tesla could overturn much of the demand for fossil fuels in the space of a decade or less. A lot of change is coming, and it will be bitterly resisted by the people who profit by the current arrangements.

[GiaGiovanni]

11. This is interesting

Have you interviewed victims of these turbines?

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Actually yes

We have people who live around two projects who will regale you with it

[GiaGiovanni]

222. How bad are these symptoms?

I always thought these wind turbines were fairly benign, but this sounds like they aren't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

229. Bad enough

Why we need the research.

Windfall is a good documentary. To me it raises to we need to do research to find out if these are for real.

[catnhatnh]

12. YOU keep a skeptical view?

This is at least the third anti-wind post you've made today. I was most amused at your concern that a 100' blade weighing over 1000lbs might strike a home over a mile away.I'm not into physics but would love to see the calculation of a wind speed that could cause that. But let me snip from your link.

"We think infrasound causes problems in the inner ear and we think wind turbines produce infrasound, but we can't stand up and put our hands on our hearts and say 'Wind turbines cause wind turbine syndrome,'" says Farboud. "The symptoms are just too vague. More research needs to be done."

In a study published in March on the University of Sydney's website, Chapman reports that only five of the 49 wind farms in Australia have ever drawn complaints, and that all five had been targets of anti-wind activism.

In a study published in March on the University of Sydney's website, Chapman reports that only five of the 49 wind farms in Australia have ever drawn complaints, and that all five had been targets of anti-wind activism.

"I'm quite prepared to believe that there are many people who sincerely are experiencing symptoms," says Chapman. But he believes that those symptoms have a psychological rather than a physical basis

And THAT is from one of your "supporting" links. I THINK you have hit a nocebo effect-see my link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/beware-the-nocebo-effect.html?_r=1&

[CJCRANE]

16. I wonder

if there is an anti-windpower PR industry?

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. No there is not

On the other hand AWEA, industry organization, discourages research into distributive forms of wind generation

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. Of course there's an anti-wind power PR industry - it's talked about in your own link

He also points out that, although wind turbines have been operating in Australia since 1993, over 80 percent of complaints arose after 2009, when anti-wind groups first began emphasizing the potential health hazards of wind turbines. (Chapman is planning on submitting his study for peer-review.)

Don't you read this stuff before posting it? Do you think we don't bother to read what you post either, so that you can mischaracterise it?

[Rex]

232. Beyond sad now.

I've been reading the links and laughing all day at the obvious contradictions by the OP and the links the OP posts.

[winter is coming]

233. I've been having flashbacks to a guy named Robert McElwaine.

http://www.popmartian.com/mcelwaine/

He was a fixture of Usenet, many years ago, and repeatedly posted the most bizarre bullshit ever. One of his favorite screeds was something about free energy. Someone else did a pee-your-pants-funny MST3K treatment of it that had to do with an "experiment" where you put a saucer of spam on top of the fridge and leave it for weeks. Oh, how I wish I could find that again.

[catnhatnh]

23. SOMEONE posted against it three times today...

can you guess who?

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. I am so against it

That I want research, deep pockets in fact, into this oil industry derived piece of technology

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/3/bladeless-wind-turbine-ewicon

Oh wait, it's a wind turbine with no moving parts....

Oops.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. And how much power can that produce?

"If this ideal system would be scaled to obtain 100 watts of electrical energy, an area
of 100 square meters would be required."

http://repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:81221f03-9d46-4c7c-a5b0-b859a26f7d04/A_Winters_EWICON.pdf

We can't look forward to that being the solution to anything in the forseeable future.

[MNBrewer]

70. Sounds like a waste of good water

[catnhatnh]

25. OH-and I never said there was a "anti-windpower industry"

so you can stop putting words in my mouth. Your fantasies are your own.

[CJCRANE]

27. It was a rhetorical question

that I thought linked in with your post.

Probably anti-wind power "lobby" would be a better way to put it.

If there is such a lobby, then this OP could be an example of it.

[catnhatnh]

30. Could Nadine be an anti-science woo-freak flack?

See-that there's a rhetorical. But Okay i get it. But I took quotes right from her link and the last thing they do is support her thesis. Sorry if I jumped you...

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Nice personal attack

That is what passes for discussion these days on DU.

You have yet to address this piece of woo, err engineering

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/3/bladeless-wind-turbine-ewicon

No, I am not in their pay either

[catnhatnh]

37. I was merely copying your title posting style

to explain how rhetorical is done.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Well then

Let me introduce you to another Derrick, err wind generation system, look ma, no blades.

http://www.treehugger.com/wind-technology/new-bladeless-wind-turbine-claimed-be-twice-efficient-conventional-designs.html

But you are correct, I am all against wind generation...you got me...in fact, all against any green technology whatsoever...double got me.

And all for woo as well... Triple got me

on steroids.

[catnhatnh]

42. See here...ain't no one objecting to advancing designs...

we just refuse to believe the current ones are worse than both fracking and herpes simplex five.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. And I am all for actual science

To find out if some of the claims made by real people have any like real merit. This peer review in the Jpurnal of Audiology is science, peer reviewed and all. I want others to try to confirm or debunk it, like you know science works. This is where that skepticism comes.

Some claims are actually well documented, see bird deaths. This s to the point that a certain number of raptor deaths are allowed in the permitting process under SEQUA and other regulations at both state and federal level.

As to the cancer clusters, they are very new...there are two working theories as to what causes it locally, with a possible third...one sounds like real possible, the other do not. Regardless, again that pesky skepticism, I want the science done. and no, it has none to do with radioactive wind, look fifty miles north of where I live for that, not 75 miles East.

For wanting that science I have been attacked, piled on and called names. Let's just say...you don't think fracking is that great? Neither do I, but we have some science to back some of it. Sadly, worst case this, would not be the first time the road to hell was paved with good intentions. And as to fracking...quakes is not that conclusive...yet.

What is very real is that the wind Industry really has been fighting this research. Either for more efficient designs, or anything else.

And you know what is special? You guys say I am repeating oil industry talking points...no dear, this is what real living human beings have been experiencing...like for real...but you guys are repeating AWEA's talking points. And I mean it...the best part is that I doubt you realize it. This is the same trade group that is trying to stop any research. FYI, the article in the Journal of Audiology...is the first one. (And I will repeat this, I want it to be repeated and tested, and double tested and all that...that is the way science works)

Regardless, every time we come across this story...or cover the local scene, the pile on is on, why? Sacred cows... Period.

[catnhatnh]

58. You posted about acoustic "syndromes" ...

...and then link to a speculative piece from which I posted excerpts which refute your original (rhetorical) question. Now as a last ditch defense you bring up bird deaths addressed nowhere else in the thread and cancer clusters not at a wind power site but rather near a manufacturer.

There is NOTHING to confirm or debunk as you well know no confirmed claims of damage are made. I just really don't even get what your argument is. Earlier I asked and you ignored the question-could a shed blade have reached the homes you admitted were a mile away? I just don't see any harm, just ill-informed morons claiming noise disturbs them. And as a guy who has lived in an urban area and near airports and factories I can tell you it is both true and irrelevant. You can dislike it-and i do-but you are not suffering a "syndrome" you are merely annoyed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. The piece links to an actual medical journal

I guess they are speculating.

And I got to conclude, folks ave no idea what that jounal is, or how science works...or SEQUA.

God night. From now on I will assume science is not the strong point of DU.

Have a good day, night, whatever.

It's nice to know medical journals ARE woo

[catnhatnh]

62. Pardon my French but Horsecock.

I posted exact quotes FROM your link and THEY refute your "rhetorical" premise. God night and whatever to you-you FUCKING LOSE.

Disclaimer:In ACTUAL French I am sure correctly it should be something about "chevaliers" and anatomical parts but Surprise-I don't care.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. I will use my French bullshit

You are against any science being done here. We get it.

It's a sacred cow. Let's not do that because shit we might, and the operative word here is might, find something you or I don't like.

Well, I prefer, unlike most of you, to find out. I don't live in la-la land..

[Kali]

59. yeah, that's it

For wanting that science I have been attacked, piled on and called names.

And you know what is special? You guys say I am repeating oil industry talking points...no dear, this is what real living human beings have been experiencing...like for real...but you guys are repeating AWEA's talking points. And I mean it...the best part is that I doubt you realize it.

Regardless, every time we come across this story...or cover the local scene, the pile on is on, why? Sacred cows... Period.

[MNBrewer]

73. The Journal of Audiology article

said that the ear can be influenced by infrasound.
But remained agnostic whether or not that wind turbines cause any problem. They said more work needs to be done.

And regardless, cancer clusters are out of the question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. The strange thing about that is that their patent application clearly does have blades

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/112718308#post5 & http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002832642#post32

"The invention consists of a system for converting wind energy (SCEE) into mechanical and then electrical energy. This system (SCEE) is not subject to the theoretical Betz limit (59%). The system (SCEE) has a wheel (F) equipped with a series of blades arranged all around it. The wheel (F) turns in a pivoting connection about a fixed axle (L)...."

And yet they publish photos of a different system with no blades. I am sceptical.

Here's the prototype in action - complete with noise, and, I'd expect, infrasound, since it's wobbling at a couple of times per second:

http://www.saphonenergy.com/site/en/how-does-it-work.59.html

[winter is coming]

111. Unless they've applied for more than one, the patent application is more likely to be accurate. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

155. I think they may have dropped the blades as unnecessary

Looking at this page of the 'evolution': http://www.saphonenergy.com/site/en/evolution-pace.60.html

The purpose of the blades seemed to be to move the point around which the dish pivots (which means the pistons get compressed and expanded in turn). Either they found that the pivot point could continue to rotate around the dish without a specific force from the blades, or they now do it from something driven by the generated electricity, perhaps. Whether they've applied for more patents, I have no idea.

I wish they'd stop claiming it's 'like a sail', though. It really isn't - it depends on a reciprocal 'wobble' that is completely different from a sail.

[MNBrewer]

191. Looks like an aluminum pie plate flapping in the breeze

Wonder how THAT can be quiet.

[muriel_volestrangler]

198. Agreed - I think it would be very noisy

but the manufacturers aren't claiming it's quiet, as far as I can see. They claim it can, at least in theory, extract more energy (I suppose because it presents a larger surface area than the fans which only take up part of a circle).

I think Nadin lacthed onto it because 'bladeless', and the blades are what her homeowners' association is moaning about at the moment, and it wouldn't do to upset the readers by confronting their prejudices.

[MNBrewer]

199. They also claim that their energy is storable, while that from turbines isn't.

why would that be? It makes no sense.

[winter is coming]

201. I would think that if one type is capable of storing energy, other types could be adapted. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

203. They *might* be saying that they could use the hydraulic pressure

to store energy without conversion into electricity first. Whether that would be better than battery storage, I'd have no idea.

[MNBrewer]

204. They are purposefully vague, I think.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Well, I guess finding out these things are not as green as I

Thought once....

But hey if you thing going from a 100% believer to maybe we need to take a second look into distributed systems, and blade less systems. If that makes me your enemy so be it

Oh and I mean enemy with the full meaning of the word.

[catnhatnh]

32. No Nadine. Never an enemy.

This time I just think you are wrong.However I find your "full meaning" to be uncalled for.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. So you like this latest oil, I mean wind turbine design

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/3/bladeless-wind-turbine-ewicon

This is what truly needs a lot of money.

I think people are closing their minds and not realizing you are repeating talking points from the industry, that does not want these new (more efficient and safer) designs.

But yes, since I am not in awe any longer at these, I must be the enemy.

[Rex]

209. This is how she really is.

Kinda the attitude you expect from a freeper, but there you have it. You don't agree, you are an enemy and no debate is allowed.

[winter is coming]

218. You just hate research.

[Rex]

219. Not so! I tied myself to a propeller today to demonstrate how far it would fling

me when the rope broke! NOT EVEN a mile!

[winter is coming]

220. Damn, now you'll have to visit the oncologist. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

236. The center of mass blade would have to going 175 mph.

The blade would have to separate while at a 45 degree angle in its arc to travel one mile. I have no idea what kind of wind speed would be needed to get the center of mass of the blade up to 175mph, but I think it would take a lot of wind.

I am a bit sleepy so my math may be off.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Well, the Foehn is an Alpine wind that is reputed to cause...

sickness from its low frequency vibrations, but they've been researching that for over a hundred years with no conclusions. Been hearing other accounts of windmill sickness, including a lawsuit around here to take some down.

Alas, if it's found that this windmill sickness is a form of mass hysteria, the fight is on-- nobody will believe it's anything but a coverup. But, if it's found to be real, there will be an attempted coverup.

Just can't win.

[thelordofhell]

15. No

[Control-Z]

20. I'd much rather have my ears damaged

by wind turbines than have my planet annihilated by greenhouse gases from fossil fuels.

If there is a problem, others will find a better design. At least they won't be drilling up the planet and killing it with the precious resources they claim from it. It will be about technology. Not about owning earth's resources. Unless they find a way to claim the wind.

Seriously. This concern sounds like one of the oil industry's. I'll take my chances.

Three? Really? Three?

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. There are better designs in the pipeline

We should not close our minds to better designs, that will lead to better efficiencies and less or no damage.

[Control-Z]

29. Yeah. Like I've closed my mind?

"If there is a problem, others will find a better design." That's what I said.

Please stop, nadin. You're on your third jag today - rubbing people the wrong way with this wind turbine, sky is falling, ear drums are bursting, it's causing cancer, stuff. It makes you sound like you're trolling for the oil companies. Seriously.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Yup, that is why Shell is paying me to find THIS, which I mentioned during the day

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/3/bladeless-wind-turbine-ewicon

I love that oil based...oops wind turbine. Hey, I guess it's a shell design, it's Dutch researchers.

By the way, the oil companies are invested in wind.

[uppityperson]

35. 4. eom

[Control-Z]

48. Seriously? 4? eom

[Kali]

52. hell, one has been self-kicked 4 or 5 times

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Case posting in favor of oil derr...I mean blade less

Wind turbines is against the industry...somehow.

Actually if you ask AWEA they will agree

Yiu be the judge

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022861548

[Apophis]

21. How much are the oil companies paying you to post this crap here?

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. So NPR is in the pocket of big oil?

Who knew? Is the Journal of Audiology in that as well?

Look, we all want the same, green energy...do you have a problem with wanting actual green safe energy to boot?

The kind of wind energy...AWEA does not want to discuss?

I guess you do. So how much the AWEA pay you to stamp down discussion of this? Or is tat Siemens?

[madinmaryland]

39. It is a blog, nadin. mim

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. I missed the NPR logo.

Oy

[madinmaryland]

43. Do you really think that wind turbines are "bad news"

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. I really think we need to look at claims made by

Residents near these plants in a systematic, scientific, repeatable manner.

I really think we need to find out what is causing the cancer clusters in a scientific manner, as a matter of public health.

I really think we need to find how to greatly reduce raptor deaths, in a scientific manner.

We have enough claims, and the last one is well known, where we need to apply science to the problem in a systematic manner, following the tools of biomedical research and public health.

Read 47 for a far fuller response.

Oh and we need to invest a lot into these blade less systems since they may very well hold the key to solving what might be real issues...but might can't be proven without actual real research.

[Whisp]

72. bladeless, not blade less. n/t

[MADem]

28. Right wing bullshit.

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/06/wind-turbine-noise-no-biggie-for-germans-why/

If wind turbines were as “bad” for you as windbaggers in the US would like you to believe, there should be a lot of body bags piling up in places like Germany, Denmark, and, well, Iowa – places that have large penetration by wind generated electricity. Or at least, one would think, there’d be an increased incidence in the headaches-to leukemia-to-herpes complex of symptoms that the looney right has identified as part of “wind turbine syndrome”. But of course, there is not.

Why?

The answer of course, is, that Germany does not have the highly funded, focused and professional anti-wind disinformation machine that has been launched here in the US.

We know who they are, we have their memos and strategy....

[Kali]

36. great paragraph in that

So, next time you see or hear about one of these “grassroots” groups “concerned” about the effects of wind energy, remember that the template for this “movement” was created in right wing think tanks fueled by the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel friendly funders. A small, elite group of right wing operatives control the message and the strategy, while many if not most of the of those who are active locally may well be simply paranoid-and-misinformed-but-otherwise innocent tea party loons who are so far down the chain, they don’t even know who is writing their script.

(bolding mine)

[MADem]

46. +1,000 -- it's a paranoid scare tactic with a "think of the CHILDREN" line of horseshit, to boot!

[Control-Z]

49. Kali!

[Kali]

50. there is about 8 miles of track snaked through this place

but hardly ever any wrecks. hard to look away

[Control-Z]

61. Oh crap!

My keyboard!! I was drinking wine!

Now you're really in trouble.

[Canuckistanian]

130. +1

Whenever I hear these supposed "harmful effects" of wind turbines, I think, "Then where are the massive protests in places like Denmark or Germany or Scotland protesting against unexplained injuries or deaths?"

The answer is simple. There AREN'T any.

[MADem]

138. The only thing that wind turbines "harm" is the bottom line of the corporate pigs in charge of

oil and gas concerns.

[olddots]

38. NO !

N.T.

[politicat]

44. Given those symptoms and the timing...

headaches, dizziness, tinnitus, ear pain, and difficulty sleeping

Which sounds remarkably similar to earbud damage. Earbuds were relatively rare before the iPod.

Wind power growth and portable music device market penetration track pretty well together.

That needs to be controlled for.

[winter is coming]

45. Also, headsets for cell phones. Some people seem to always wear a bluetooth device. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Yup, but we can't very well do that

Without actual research.

I want this study repeated, and then repeated some more, and confirmed or debunked.

I want real science...damn it



And it will take a few years, we might even go back and forth.

[winter is coming]

168. "I want this study repeated, and then repeated some more, and confirmed or debunked."

You don't even understand what you linked to in the OP. This study that you wanted repeated, again and again, is a metastudy. It's not original research, but a survey of extant literature. Searching the same literature multiple times will only give a different result if you used suboptimal search techniques the first time, or if years pass between metastudies.

Design: This review is based on a search for articles published within the last 10 years, conducted using the PubMed database and Google Scholar search engine, which included in their title or abstract the terms ‘wind turbine’, ‘infrasound’ or ‘low frequency noise’.

What we need is not another metastudy, but original work, perhaps informed by the findings of this study, that might provide a definitive answer.

[Electric Monk]

55. Quick! Everybody panic!!

/blogs/

[longship]

56. My mother told me not to stick anything in my ear smaller than my elbow.

Wind turbines are out of the question. Only a fool wouldn't listen to their mother and stick one of those monsters in their ear. No wonder their hearing is going.

[Hugin]

63. Can anyone provide a link to any study done showing the safety of these turbines?

I've read the article above and now I'd like a counter point.

An actual study?

Has anyone looked into it?

[Hugin]

65. Why Wind Turbines Can Mean Death For Bats - Science Daily.

"Aug. 26, 2008 — Power-generating wind turbines have long been recognized as a potentially life-threatening hazard for birds. But at most wind facilities, bats actually die in much greater numbers. Now, researchers reporting in Current Biology, a Cell Press journal, on August 26th think they know why.

Ninety percent of the bats they examined after death showed signs of internal hemorrhaging consistent with trauma from the sudden drop in air pressure (a condition known as barotrauma) at turbine blades. Only about half of the bats showed any evidence of direct contact with the blades.

"Because bats can detect objects with echolocation, they seldom collide with man-made structures," said Erin Baerwald of the University of Calgary in Canada. "An atmospheric-pressure drop at wind-turbine blades is an undetectable—and potentially unforeseeable—hazard for bats, thus partially explaining the large number of bat fatalities at these specific structures.

"Given that bats are more susceptible to barotrauma than birds, and that bat fatalities at wind turbines far outnumber bird fatalities at most sites, wildlife fatalities at wind turbines are now a bat issue, not a bird issue."

The only thing I can find... More here. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825132107.htm

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, I'm no scientist or anything special. But, I do know one of the fundamental differences between bats (and all mammals) and birds is in the structure of the inner ears of mammals. In fact, it's one of the defining differences.

So, unless given compelling evidence to the contrary, I'd have to assume that the pressure effects by large blades moving through the air could cause an inner ear disturbance in any mammal.

[treestar]

100. Holy Barotrauma, Batman! nt

[loyalsister]

64. If we had approached petroleum production and carbon emissions with some skepticism

and health concerns in mind, we might not be in such dire straits. Healthy skepticism is what enables us to work out the kinks. Better to know more now than to have the entire industry fall apart due to lawsuits.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Exactly.

Buy it was another century when that started. We know now oil is not good for you, I am talking crude...people used to bathe in the stuff

[loyalsister]

186. lessons learned

Oil was a miraculous substance. It solved many problems and created long distance and independent travel. It has also taught us a lot about how we should think hard about chemicals and their potential negative effects on the environment.

People who attend a lot of concerts have lost hearing. Since that has happened it's common for roadies and others who work with them to wear ear plugs. Maybe learning something here would just reveal options for prevention without necessarily eliminating possibilities.
It may be that with this info houses would be built sound proof and people will wear earplugs sometimes. No hysteria or knee jerk defensiveness necessary.

[Democracyinkind]

66. the meltdown continues.

claims:

1. wind turbines cause cancer

2. blades will be thrown for miles

3. wind turbines cause funny ear disease.

Even if all of this were true - which it is most definitely not - the way you present it would ensure that nobody would believe you for the simple reason of your immature, condescending tone and your apparent lack of a clear understanding what science is and does. All you have (mis)presented as evidence for your silly claims have turned out to be fallacious arguments from authority ( wherein even the authorities do not even agree with you, as posters who studied your links have now repeatedly demonstrated.

Even if there are health effects from ultrasound, I'm not sure that "toxic" is the right word.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Let's take your reading comprehension to task

1. Wind turbines cause cancer.

Reading comp issues. I said we have cancer cluster. I also wrote there are three theories, hypothesis at play here, none of which involve wind perse. For the record, two make no sense to me, one does. Let me repeat this... The only radiation laden wind is fifty miles north, they even had a leak of it, why the station is right now idle, not 75 miles East. So you have an issue with public health researchers asking why we have a cancer cluster? For the record, while not wind related...it will be related to the development. And it's not the only cancer cluster. So you have a problem with actual science being done? I guess you do

2.- blades will be thrown for miles.

Given we never said that, you did, you really need to carefully read what read. Try a couple times. Less than a mile does not equal miles in my world, but it obviously does in yours.

3.- Wind turbines cause funny ear disease.

That claim is being made by an MD in a peer reviewed medical journal. Like all claims I want that one taken through the rigor of the scientific method. I want studies, with controls and everything. You know science...what you would have zero issues with if this was not a sacred cow.

But I am so against them, you got my number, that I want money pumped into blade less wind technology. These derricks will solve, assuming we actually have an actual issue with the bladed systems, a lot of the issues and are safer for wild life.

Next you will repeat the AWEA talking point that these things are safe for raptors, why they have take permits issued during the permitting process.

[muriel_volestrangler]

184. You haven't shown us any evidence of that 'cancer cluster'

you've just asserted it. So it looks irrelevant to the rest of us.

You didn't say "less than a mile" - "fly upwards to a mile". And we've debunked that anyway.

"Wind turbines cause funny ear disease. That claim is being made by an MD in a peer reviewed medical journal"

But you haven't linked to that either. You linked to an article in a journal that says some people claim they suffer headaches. And the authors say it's too vague to know, so far.

You're showing us a new side of yourself, Nadin. You are going all-in with the right wing anti-wind bullshit. You are pretending that you're OK with some types - by pointing, at random, to the experimental electrostatic version that produces practically no power, and is thus impractical; and to the bladeless one - which will suffer just as much with noise and infrasound problems, since it's a wobbling dish on a mast, not that different from a rotating fan on a mast. You appear to be wanting to get in with the right wing home-owners in your area, by spreading their misinformation. There are a great many people on this site who would put you on ignore, but it's important that we fight the bullshit you're spreading.

[MNBrewer]

69. Ocatillo fits a pattern, for sure

"Other researchers are much more skeptical, including Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney. Chapman believes that wind turbine syndrome, which has been an especially contentious issue in Australia recently, is "probably an example of community panic."

Chapman says that the current concern over wind turbines fits a historic pattern of people distrusting any kind of new technology, ranging from televisions to cell phones to wi-fi.

In a study published in March on the University of Sydney's website, Chapman reports that only five of the 49 wind farms in Australia have ever drawn complaints, and that all five had been targets of anti-wind activism."

[Ikonoklast]

88. People were once certain that traveling inside a train doing sixty miles an hour would flatten them.

New technology gives people frightened by change the vapors.

Same old, same old.

[Honeycombe8]

74. Stephen Colbert explains wind turbine syndrome & says Obama will kill us all:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420904/november-07-2012/wind-power-s-health-hazards

<embed style="display:block" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:colbertnation.com:420904" width="288" height="247" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowFullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000"></embed>

[jpak]

75. What a bunch of Flat Earth Crap

yup

[Laelth]

76. Easy answer. YES. Wind power blows.

If wind power were a viable and reliable source of energy, we'd still have sailing ships in our military arsenal. We don't, and there's a good reason for that.

-Laelth

[jpak]

79. Global wind power capacity will grow to 300,000 MW this year

http://inhabitat.com/global-wind-power-production-to-break-300000-mw-this-year-could-top-425000-mw-by-2015/

No one is buying what you are selling...

yup

[Laelth]

81. Smile. I am quite aware of your opinion on this subject.

Let me state, unequivocally, that I have no financial interest in any form of energy. I speak from my own research into the matter and from my desire to create good pubic policy.

It is you who is selling something. And what you're selling, imo, is bad public policy (though it may enrich you and your allies).

-Laelth

[jpak]

82. I "sell" something you can't handle

((((((reality)))))))

yup

[Canuckistanian]

134. Forget it

This DUER has been anti-wind for YEARS. And he comes armed with a shitload of BS anti-wind propaganda links, some of which rival Alex Jones.

[muriel_volestrangler]

185. That's an idiotic answer

The problem with sails on ships is that they want to travel in any direction at any time, and sails don't help that. But wind turbines don't have that problem - they can rotate. They don't have to face in a direction of travel.

[Laelth]

192. Yes, and the problem with wind power is that when the wind isn't blowing ...

... you've got no power. Wind power is not a viable solution to our energy problems any more than wind power is a good way to move ships around.

-Laelth

[muriel_volestrangler]

195. What's your opinion on solar power?

What types of power generation are you in favour of?

It's relatively rare for wind to die completely, in most areas. And it has the big advantage, for most areas, of being there in decent quantities in winter, when more lighting and heating is needed. It's a good source of power, in combination with relatively modest amounts of storage, and should be part of any future generation mix.

[burnodo]

78. Only makes sense if I damaged myself

Sleeping near a box fan on and off for, oh, 40 years.

[maddezmom]

80. So now you are back to infrasound.

Last edited Sat May 18, 2013, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Guess the roundup thing didn't pan out for you.

[FarCenter]

83. Community panic induced by anti-wind activism -- From the NPR article

Other researchers are much more skeptical, including Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney. Chapman believes that wind turbine syndrome, which has been an especially contentious issue in Australia recently, is "probably an example of community panic."

Chapman says that the current concern over wind turbines fits a historic pattern of people distrusting any kind of new technology, ranging from televisions to cell phones to wi-fi.

In a study published in March on the University of Sydney's website, Chapman reports that only five of the 49 wind farms in Australia have ever drawn complaints, and that all five had been targets of anti-wind activism.

He also points out that, although wind turbines have been operating in Australia since 1993, over 80 percent of complaints arose after 2009, when anti-wind groups first began emphasizing the potential health hazards of wind turbines. (Chapman is planning on submitting his study for peer-review.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. What we are not imagining is the cancer cluster

Which, I've read the hypothesis, are not related to wind perse. Two make zero sense to me, one does...and if it turns out to be that, it would explain other clusters as well...and they need to be fined. Mind you, it's got nothing to do with wind

But they need to be fined...since these are tribal, state and federal lands by all three. But first science, which people seem to be allergic if it involves a sacred cow

[winter is coming]

172. No cancer cluster has been confirmed. At this point, it's people thinking,

"Damn! Sure seems to be a lot of cancer around here." Maybe there is a cluster. Maybe there isn't. And it's interesting that you keep bringing up the cancer cluster when talking about wind turbines, yet claim that the cancer isn't related; it's just some of the residents who fear it is. A classic "some people say" technique.

[pintobean]

85. My fan made me impotent.

Who do I sue?

[SidDithers]

98. You're not supposed to stick your willy in it...

Sid

[pintobean]

99. I read the whole owners manual

Including all the warnings - nowhere did it say that.

[winter is coming]

112. I suppose you used it to trim your hedges, too.

[Brother Buzz]

113. Damn Skippy, that's DUzy worthy!

[winter is coming]

116. I'd say it *is* DUzy-worthy...

then again, it's not my willy.

[Brickbat]

143. If you do, it could fly up to a mile.

Warn the neighbors.

[Omaha Steve]

86. Gallagher would say....

Only let deaf people live near them. He used that about deaf people and airports. I don't mean to insult anyone with hearing problems.

[Ikonoklast]

87. FLASHING BLADES OF DEATH MADE ME NAUSEOUS AND DIZZY.

Just like this thread.


Woooooooo!!!

[SidDithers]

96. I got Morgellons from a wind turbine...

It's twoo! It's twoo!!

Sid

[maddezmom]

101. MediaMatters: NPR Gives Wind Power Hypochondriacs A Platform

NPR gave undue credence to wind power opponents who claim turbines are "making them ill" with a variety of symptoms. But there is no demonstrated link between wind turbines and health impacts, and studies suggest that psychological factors are behind these symptoms.

In a post titled, "Could Wind Turbines Be Toxic To The Ear?" NPR gave pediatrician Nina Pierpont a platform to promote "wind turbine syndrome," a term she coined. Although NPR noted that her claims "have been met with heavy skepticism from a host of experts in energy and public health," it nonetheless suggested that a recent scientific review supported her "self-published report."

Pierpont's report consisted of telephone interviews with 23 people who responded to an ad asking for people who claimed to experience "wind turbine syndrome," and their anecdotes about 15 family members.

The Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario, Canada stated in a report that "no conclusions on the health impact of wind turbines can be drawn from Pierpont's work due to methodological limitations including small sample size, lack of exposure data, lack of controls and selection bias." Pierpont claimed that her paper was peer-reviewed, but it was actually evaluated by people she selected, including her husband, an anti-wind activist who compares his struggle to the civil rights movement:
More at the link
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/04/npr-gives-wind-power-hypochondriacs-a-platform/193472

[redqueen]

108. "including her husband,an anti-wind activist who compares his struggle to the civil rights movement"

Thanks for this link. Nice to see some actual logic and science, as compared with the drivel in the OP.

A 2011 literature review published in the peer-reviewed Environmental Health Journal noted that infrasound is "ubiquitous" in our society and is produced by natural sources, including ocean waves:

Infrasound is not unique to wind turbines but is ubiquitous in the environment due to natural and man-made sources, meaning that people living near wind turbines were exposed to infrasound prior to turbine operation. For example, Berglund and Hassmen [35] reported that infrasound (a component of low frequency sound) is emitted from road vehicles, aircraft, industrial machinery, artillery and mining explosions, air movement machinery including wind turbines, compressors, and air-conditioning units, and Leventhall [5] reported that infrasound comes from natural sources like meteors, volcanic eruptions and ocean waves. Indeed, many mammals communicate using infrasound [36]. Given the low sound pressure levels of infrasound emitted from wind turbines and the ubiquitous nature of these sounds, the hypothesis that infrasound is a causative agent in health effects does not appear to be supported.

In other words, there is no evidence for a causal link between wind turbines and the reported health effects. On the other hand, there is significant evidence that these are symptoms could be a result of the "nocebo effect," a phenomenon whereby people experience negative health effects from the mere suggestion that something could be harmful:

[HappyMe]

136. It's good science and research to

have your husband and friends review the paper.

There are some birds tweeting in the tree outside my window and a couple of cars passed by. Someone needs to be held responsible for that.

Since fracking where I live is a real threat, I'm all for wind turbines. I have heard that flammable tap water isn't very tasty.

[winter is coming]

153. Well, if my husband refuses to review my papers, we won't be perpetuating science any time soon.

[maddezmom]

139. I am sure I am on ignore so the OP won't see how flawed the study is she is

Calling hard science.

[GoneOffShore]

110. When someone wakes up they're going to smack you.

You're not supposed to post studies that show woo to be woo.

That's naughty.

[SidDithers]

115. Check out the history of anti-wind power articles posted in the East County fishwrap...

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/search/node/wind%20turbine

The OP and her "paper" are pushing an agenda.

Sid

[maddezmom]

122. Yes, it is obvious to those of us paying attention.

But now the new meme is it is a "sacred cow" and were are all on the side of big oil.

[JimDandy]

123. Telephone interviews and self-selected peer reviewers...

If that is what passes for science, I need to stop listening to NPR. More like junk science and that's being kind.

[redqueen]

154. NPR proved themselves to be willing to push a corporate agenda against public interest before Iraq.

Before that, probably... but that was when I noticed they have a big business agenda, and no problem pushing it.

That's not to say they don't put out good stuff. Just that that's not all they do.

[Canuckistanian]

176. Excellent article!

I'm very familiar with this Nina Pierpont and her "Wind Turbine Syndrome" theory. It's so tenuous that even Wikipedia has removed it's entry on it for sheer lack of evidence.

But here's a RationalWiki entry on it:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wind_Turbine_Syndrome

Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS) is an alleged condition suffered by people living close to wind turbines. It was invented by Dr. Nina Pierpont in 2009 as propaganda against what a handful of anti-wind energy advocates refer to as "Big Wind."[1] It has little, if any, evidence supporting it, and its main proponents are people who don't want tall metal structures visible from their house.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

202. Nice catch.

Wait...she's a pediatrician??? Oy.

[backscatter712]

102. If this was the case, you'd think that everyone would be suffering.

It's not just wind turbines that produce infrasound.

Cars & trucks are a big source, as are aircraft, rock concerts, trains, earthquakes, etc. etc. etc.

You'd think we'd have a large scale epidemic!

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. That is why I want science perpetrated here

And want this single study, which just raises a question, conclussions does not make, put through scientific rigor.

I want it repeated and done a few times, with controls.

But...this is the first time we have anything in a medical journal.


By the way, you might not be aware of this, but hearing issues are at higher levels in cities...

I have concluded that peope really do not want science when it touches sacred cows. So send me a list of other DU sacred cows, the best hamburgers and all that.

[Ptah]

107. Perpertrate is not something science does.

Definition of PERPETRATE
1
: to bring about or carry out (as a crime or deception) : commit
2
: to produce, perform, or execute (something likened to a crime) <perpetrate a pun>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. I guess creative use of the language is not in your dictionary

Given the reaction, it would be a crime if science is done here, with experimental design and everything

[Codeine]

118. I thought your specialty was creative use of measurements, not language. nt

[Ptah]

121. That's not creative use of the language,

That's not creative use of the language,
it is a dimwitted attempt to fluff with big words.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. I love the personal attack

I want more, I want more!!!!

[Ptah]

128. I didn't say you are dimwitted.

I said you made a dimwitted attempt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. Sorry...if you don't like it

Please more

[Ptah]

131. Welcome to my ignore list.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. Consider it mutual

[winter is coming]

137. "Creative use of the language" is well-suited to works of fiction.

I would expect journalists to strive for language that is clear and descriptive, not terms that make people dive for a dictionary while wondering, "Can you really use that word that way?"

[LiberalAndProud]

205. This study has *nothing* to do with scientific rigor.

This is self-published idle speculation. Junk science is not science, no matter how much you believe in the truth of the underlying hypothesis. There is no there there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

213. But I want science

You want to ignore it

Yup

[LiberalAndProud]

214. Excuse me?

Why do you think you know what I want? Ig me, please.

[nadinbrzezinski]

215. No I won't. I want actual epidemiology done here.

Is that a problem? I know that is evil.

Yup

[LiberalAndProud]

216. In the late 70s and early 80s, it was common "knowledge" that power lines cause cancer.

Yes. It's true. You can find any number of "studies" online to prove it. And then there is the actual science. This theory has every bit as much plausibility. If someone wants to fund your research, that's fine with me. I have other priorities.

[patrice]

104. It's the big blades that do that, right? Other designs don't produce those vibrations. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Yes, they are suspected of doing that

And blade less designs are in pipeline. The problem, from an industry stand point is that those are early in the design...

[WinkyDink]

106. YES. AND to the rest of the body.

[Generic Other]

114. In the world of risk assessment as practiced by me

Slightly elevated risk of childhood cancers if living near power lines.

11 times more likely to get cancer if you live near a nuclear power plant (British study. We haven't bothered to look).
Double the rate of childhood leukemia (according to the French).

Elevated risk from exposure to toxic chemicals from oil spill clean-up.

Serious health risks from contamination of groundwater to higher rates of heart and lung diseases due to fracking.

Physical and environmental dangers of coal well-established.

Tinnitus from living downwind of a wind turbine.

One of these things is not like the others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. And in the world I inhabit

Granted not like the rest of DU n

I want this single study put through scientific rigor. The rest you listed started with a single published article.

But that is the reality I live in, even if it goes after a sacred cow.

For the record, I am sure next you will tell me that these things don't kill birds either.

[Generic Other]

140. Maybe the bladeless technology will solve the problem?

So far in my area, the wind turbines are located in remote areas. We are 5th in the nation. I haven't heard anyone complaining. Of course, if you live between a wind farm and Hanford, it's like living between heaven and hell. Puts a whole different spin to the idea of being a downwinder.

I will remain skeptical about the study for now. If it is a valid health issue, I would advocate for placing the wind turbines in remote areas.

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. The problem is that

Some of these remote locations are getting heavily impacted, as in rural communities. Our fear locally is that this is in areas that have a high fire danger, and these things do catch on fire...and complicate fire fighting.

The Tejon Pass has almost nothing, the ones on the way to Palm Springs have nothing around them either. Both have lots of wind.

But some do.

What I fear is that like all energy technologies (granted Nuclear and Coal take the cake on this) they have a dark side. We should be able to look at them and do this risk analysis. Some folks live in the fantasy that wind is somehow pure and with no issues and mentioning any of them...somehow I am getting paid by BP. (I wonder when that fantasy check is coming in)

And one of the real dark side for wind actually involves raptor and other bird deaths. The other, will be an emerging scandal, is the over promise of energy production to get farms on marginal places, due to Federal money. Watch this space, lawsuits will be coming on that.

As to this single report in The Journal of Audiology, a single report does not a conclusion make...what it should do...is lead to more research.

But somehow I am in the pocket of big oil.

[Generic Other]

156. "in the pocket of big oil"

Egads, who would want to be there?

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. I know.

Those photos they use Hershey chocolate. Same for blood in black and whites. Some of the things one learns.



It sucks though. It makes having an adult discussion almost impossible. People are so scared, rightfully, of climate change that any suggestion that the remedies to it also have risks...

Granted, less, but the risks, if possible, need to be mitigated. But first we need to learn the true extent of them. What I have heard from residents around these facilities...in science is called annecdote. I need hard science to confirm or not what they are experiencing.

I need a few experiments.

See my sig, since it applies here.

[Generic Other]

159. Here's Trump's reason for hating them

Sorry, I am being silly now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. That has to be photoshop

[Generic Other]

162. In my world it is as it should have happened

even if it didn't!

[SidDithers]

125. BLADLESS TURBINE MAKERS CLAIM TURBINES COULD PRODUCE MORE POWER WITH LESS PROBLEMS

Last edited Sat May 18, 2013, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/13250


Yes, that's the actual headline, copied directly from the East County Magazine.

Bladless.

Less problems.


Doesn't this online "news" source have a fucking editor?

Sid

[maddezmom]

132. Pathetic!

And it has been up on the site for 2 days w/o a correction.

[Codeine]

133. That article is completely fucking insane.

It cites "professors" without any reference to their institutions or areas of expertise, because the the "journalistic" work in the story consists entirely of copying and pasting from the SheerWind website.

[backscatter712]

142. Is that related to bladderless?

I didn't think wind turbines had bladders.

[pintobean]

150. It would give new meaning

to the term "pissing in the wind" if they did.

[HappyMe]

152. DUzy!

[Generic Other]

164. Should you DUZY a comment when the OP has the poster/s on ignore?

That seems unethical. Just another way of counting coup.

[HappyMe]

166. I have no idea who anybody

has on ignore. Nor do I care.

I thought that the comment was funny, that's all. The OP has a lot of people on ignore, I'm not keeping track.

[Generic Other]

170. Some of us are aware that when we respond to her posts

others are responding behind her back. Not exactly a funny situation if you ask me. Maybe not the best way to restart the Duzy column by enabling this pettiness.

[HappyMe]

171. So what is it you want from me?

Like I said, I don't know who the OP has on ignore, and I don't care.

[Generic Other]

178. Well now you know

Nadin has to keep tormentors on ignore in order to interact on DU without being baited constantly. But they are free to snark behind her back. Big joke. Duzy material there.

[HappyMe]

197. Into every life, a little rain must fall.

[winter is coming]

179. It's not "behind her back" if she chose to turn her back.

The ignore function is one-way. If it weren't, we'd likely have DUers putting people on ignore to silence them.

[pintobean]

182. The only way anyone can post behind someone's back

is if that someone turns their back. Why on earth should anyone adjust their behavior for someone who considers so many members here "non persons"? She has me on ignore? I don't care. It's her problem, not mine. If you want to see pettiness, pay attention to how and why she adds people to her massive iggy list.

My comment wasn't even about the OP or any of her posts.

[SidDithers]

188. DUzy!...nt

Sid

[MineralMan]

190. Oddly enough, most are not responding to that poster at all.

They are responding to other DUers or to the ideas presented in the original post. "Behind her back" is a false concept. Anything posted on DU is posted for the public to see and to comment on. That's what DU is for. If a poster chooses to ignore the posts of some, that's a conscious choice on the part of that poster. It imposes nothing on anyone else. The thread remains public and is open to commentary. That the original poster cannot see some of the comments is the poster's choice.

Personally, as someone who is often disagreed with, I can't understand ignoring posters. I want to know what everyone says. I want to see all comments to anything I post. If I ignored people, I'd be posting blind. Those who do not wish to read my posts can put me on ignore. Some have. I disregard those DUers, since they never interact with me.

One thing that is common, though, is for posters who have a long ignore list to log off and return to DU so they can see the posts of those who they are supposedly ignoring. When that happens, it's often obvious, when the poster with many ignores comments on what one of the ignored posters has written. That's a pretty common occurrence, actually, and is always amusing.

[Brickbat]

146. Wow.

[MineralMan]

181. Then there is this from the same article:

The SheerWind website also contains testimonials form several professors who worked on the turbine design.

I guess their budget doesn't have room for copy editors or proofreaders at all. Such is tossable journalism today.

[muriel_volestrangler]

193. Well, we know it can't mean "bladeless", because that design has blades

The unit is about 50% shorter than traditional wind towers and uses a ground-based turbine with blades that are 84% smaller.

http://sheerwind.com/technology/how-does-it-work

Isn't the standard of reporting on East County Magazine just marvellous?

But I must admit, it does appear to be bladderless.

[winter is coming]

196. "it does appear to be bladderless"

Thanks, but I'd rather not examine it that closely.

Hmph. We don't seem to have a smiley that means "Not want!"

[muriel_volestrangler]

200. You can try

or - as close as you can get, I think.

[dballance]

210. I Wondered Not Only about the Spelling but the Engineering Theory. How do you have a turbine w/ no..

How do you have a turbine without moving parts? You don't. By definition, a turbine has to have mechanical motion to turn and turn a generator (According to Webster's a turbine is : a rotary engine actuated by the reaction or impulse or both of a current of fluid (as water, steam, or air) subject to pressure and usually made with a series of curved vanes on a central rotating spindle). Generally, that motion is induced by a liquid/air/steam directed onto blades. It may not have to have blades though. Nickola Tesla designed one without blades http://www.howstuffworks.com/tesla-turbine.htm

As for the "bladeless turbine" in the EWICON, it's not a turbine at all. I'm not sure what the proper scientific term for it is though. I guess their PR/marketing people felt "bladeless turbine" would be a more relatable term for most people than whatever the real scientific term is.

As for no moving parts. That's also not true - not even of the EWICON. Strictly speaking, the particles in their device are moving parts. But to point that out would be nit-picking. Instead, I'll just link to the Wired article which has a nice video in which there is a quite a distinction made. The narrator of the video clearly states that their device has "no large moving parts." http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/3/bladeless-wind-turbine-ewicon From the article, "The whole system comprises of a battery, inverter, HVDC source, pump and charging system." I have been trying to find information on what this "pump" component in the system is/does but that is not detailed. I am making the brash assumption that it has something to do with this statement "Each tube features several electrodes and nozzles which release positively-charge water into the air, through a process that's been dubbed 'electrospraying'". It leads me to believe the spraying is forced by a pump and not just some naturally occurring force.

I'm just a simple IT guy and the terminology bothered me enough to research this stuff based on the little bit of engineering knowledge I have. It must be making some mechanical engineer's heads explode when they read these things.

[Rex]

223. Is it really a news outlet? Anyone here ever actually read it before today?

Looks like a homespun website to me. What the hell are bladless turbines? Never heard of those...

[winter is coming]

224. It's a typo. They're actually vlad-less, a vast improvement over the turbines that use vampires.

The old kind could transform itself into a bat and fly up to a mile.

[Rex]

225. HA! This is all comedic gold I tells ya!

Glad to hear we've finally ended vampire abuse by the alt-energy field. I probably don't want to know how it operated.

[winter is coming]

227. Well, it didn't work out so well in Gilroy.

http://gilroygarlicfestival.com/

[SidDithers]

240. Kick...

Since the actual editor has been posting in these threads, maybe she can get the spelling and grammatical errors in this headline fixed.

Sid

[Progressive dog]

145. What in the world do you have against wind turbines

or for quacks, charlatans, and their ignorant followers? This is extreme silliness, it has nothing to do with science, and deserves ridicule.
Infrasound is sound that you can feel but is below hearing range. In other words it is the major component of the "sound" of a car on a rough road. Just about any mechanical process generates some of these "sounds". Slow moving air turbines, like in air conditioners, will generate these "sounds." We probably should ban them first, since there are many more of them than wind turbines. It is kind of surprising that the complaints are all about wind turbines, isn't it?
Probably from that large subset of internet users who live somewhere in caves.

[Codeine]

151. Nadin and her joke of a "newspaper" have an obvious anti-windpower agenda.

East County Magazine is replete with stories about "wind turbine syndrome" and ultra-hyped scare stories about the dangers of wind turbines starting fires or losing blades. She's even hyping nonsense about "cancer clusters" related to wind power.

[winter is coming]

157. Why? Cui bono? n/t

[SidDithers]

187. Meta question. Can an online-only news outlet still be called a fishwrap?...

Sid

[winter is coming]

189. (Swedish fish)wrap? n/t

[bike man]

221. And, are the volunteer contributors (of articles) paid, or is it just a way to see their

names on a screen?

[sgtbenobo]

211. East County Magazine is funded by Wells Fargo

Their parent entity is the Heartland Coalition which is a nasty little group of "Green for Dollars" folks located in The Duchy of San Diego. Oil is over. These are the mafia that are making ready to jump into the next economy. Their mission is to prepare the field. Don't worry little brother. Just go back to sleep.

[maddezmom]

217. Interesting, if true I wonder if Nadin has any comments.

[Rex]

226. Well you know how certain reporters like to put 100's of people on their ignore list.

So I would bet on a NO.

[99Forever]

147. You know what actually is toxic?

Last edited Sat May 18, 2013, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Radioactive waste and massive leaks in to our precious envoronment. Excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. Pollution of our ground water. Global climate change CAUSED by the continued abuse of fossil fuels for energy needs, on multiple levels.

"Noise pollution" from wind turbines?

Not so much.

Fail.

[MNBrewer]

194. +1

[Rex]

228. It was a FAIL 5 threads ago, but some people have no shame gene.

nt.

[MineralMan]

161. Toxic? How could that be?

Check your definitions.

[bike man]

167. No, the turbines themselves are not toxic, but 'some say' the low frequency sound generated

when they are running is.

Idle = no sound, no alleged toxicity.

[Rex]

208. HAHAHAHA!!!

You've lost all credibility now, I love it!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

230. wind power makes noise

hydro power can cause flooding

solar power causes sun burn and cancer

i guess nothing is ok... and we should live in the dark.

sP