Friday, August 02, 2013
Windmills Thousands of Times More Dangerous Than Nuclear
Delingpole recently covered the issue of the low frequency sound which windmills create:
"the industry has known for at least 25 years about the potentially damaging impact on human health of the impulsive infrasound (inaudible intermittent noise) produced by wind turbines. Yet instead of dealing with the problem it has, on the most generous interpretation, swept the issue under the carpet – or worse, been involved in a concerted cover-up operation.
A research paper prepared in November 1987 for the US Department of Energy demonstrated that the "annoyance" caused by wind turbine noise to nearby residents is "real not imaginary." It further showed that, far from becoming inured to the disturbance people become increasingly sensitive to it over time.
This contradicts claims frequently made by wind industry spokesmen that there is no evidence for so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome (the various health issues ranging from insomnia and anxiety to palpitations and nausea reported by residents living within a mile or more of wind turbines).
....the 1987 report, based on earlier research by NASA and several universities, tells a .
It found that the disturbance is often worse when indoors than when outside (a sensation which will be familiar to anyone who has heard a helicopter hovering above their house)....
Last month the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published a report by the Institute of Acoustics examining whether ETSU-R-97 was still adequate to the task. Remarkably, instead of stiffening regulations, it made them more lax, not only continuing to ignore the Low Frequency Noise and infrasound issue, but actually giving wind farms leeway to make more noise at night and to be built even closer to dwellings.....
“We’re often hearing these weird and wacky reports on the effects of wind. It seems anyone can stand up and say anything, which we find somewhat worrying because it gives a false impression. We don’t accept the suggestion that there are any health impacts caused by wind turbine noise, though we welcome any new research into the issue," a spokesman for Renewable UK told me.
However this is contradicted by the author of the original reports Neil Kelley. Kelley has told Graham Lloyd – the environment editor from The Australian who (uncharacteristically for an environment editor puts truth before green ideology) broke the story – that research has shown that it is still possible for modern wind turbines to create "community annoyance."....
US acoustics expert, Rick James – who thinks it somewhat unlikely that the wind industry is unaware of the problem:
I can't."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is clearly right on this indeed more than right as a comparison with the nuclear radiation "no lower threshold" shows.
This is from one of these papers mentioned:
If, in examination of a small group you find real people suffering from heart palpitations and swooning you are talking about something which over time and a large population is undoubtedly going to result in death on a significant scale. Certainly a scale thousands of time worse than passive smoking, which was "discovered" only by a statistical variability in a population of many millions which was well within the limits of statistical error.
Almost all the government funded scare stories we see (salt/weight/passive smoking/mobile phones/watching TV/margarine/butter/salmon/GM etc etc) are of that nature (or for mobile phones and GM less than that in that there is no claim of statistical evidence they are harmful, or as our state broadcaster says "the jury is out" as to whether they are harmful). Windmill low frequency noise is clearly a genuine proven threat to health and killer - these others are at best, speculative.
This goes further for another scare I have discussed before. The linear no threshold (LNT) theory that nuclear radiation, no matter how low the level, even when it is under 2% of natural background radiation is dangerous. There is no evidence for LNT whatsoever - even supporters of the theory (technical actually a hypothesis at best) or scare story acknowledge this. Indeed there is a large amount of data proving the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that such radiation is beneficial to health.
With the disparity in evidence we can say with certainty that windmills are, at the very least, thousands of times more dangerous to outsiders than nuclear plants. For those working on them the fact that Britain has had 4 industrial deaths from windmills in 5 years whereas the entire world has seen 2 nuclear deaths (Japan but not Fukushima) in 20 years. Nuclear provides about 15% of world electricity and windmills under 1%.
Which in turn means that any honest broadcaster or newspaper must have spent thousands of times more promoting scare stories about windmills than nuclear plants.
Or any which is 1/1,000th part (0.1%) honest must have spent an equal amount on each.
Anybody able to name any MSM broadcaster or journalist that is not at least 99.99% corrupt?
"the industry has known for at least 25 years about the potentially damaging impact on human health of the impulsive infrasound (inaudible intermittent noise) produced by wind turbines. Yet instead of dealing with the problem it has, on the most generous interpretation, swept the issue under the carpet – or worse, been involved in a concerted cover-up operation.
A research paper prepared in November 1987 for the US Department of Energy demonstrated that the "annoyance" caused by wind turbine noise to nearby residents is "real not imaginary." It further showed that, far from becoming inured to the disturbance people become increasingly sensitive to it over time.
This contradicts claims frequently made by wind industry spokesmen that there is no evidence for so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome (the various health issues ranging from insomnia and anxiety to palpitations and nausea reported by residents living within a mile or more of wind turbines).
....the 1987 report, based on earlier research by NASA and several universities, tells a .
It found that the disturbance is often worse when indoors than when outside (a sensation which will be familiar to anyone who has heard a helicopter hovering above their house)....
Last month the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published a report by the Institute of Acoustics examining whether ETSU-R-97 was still adequate to the task. Remarkably, instead of stiffening regulations, it made them more lax, not only continuing to ignore the Low Frequency Noise and infrasound issue, but actually giving wind farms leeway to make more noise at night and to be built even closer to dwellings.....
“We’re often hearing these weird and wacky reports on the effects of wind. It seems anyone can stand up and say anything, which we find somewhat worrying because it gives a false impression. We don’t accept the suggestion that there are any health impacts caused by wind turbine noise, though we welcome any new research into the issue," a spokesman for Renewable UK told me.
However this is contradicted by the author of the original reports Neil Kelley. Kelley has told Graham Lloyd – the environment editor from The Australian who (uncharacteristically for an environment editor puts truth before green ideology) broke the story – that research has shown that it is still possible for modern wind turbines to create "community annoyance."....
US acoustics expert, Rick James – who thinks it somewhat unlikely that the wind industry is unaware of the problem:
The “Kelly paper” is just one of many studies and reports published in the period from 1980 to 1990 by acousticians and other researchers working under grants from the US Dept. of Energy (DOE), NASA, and other agencies and foundations. All of these papers are still available on web sites open to the public.... few acousticians in that period would have discounted the premise that for some people these types of sounds posed serious issues.Can anyone imagine a potential scandal of this magnitude in the fossil fuel industry going uninvestigated by the green lobby – and hitting the front pages of all the newspapers?
I can't."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is clearly right on this indeed more than right as a comparison with the nuclear radiation "no lower threshold" shows.
This is from one of these papers mentioned:
The low frequency sensitivity syndrome includes: feelings or irritation/unease/stress/undue fatigue; headache; nausea; vomiting; heart palpitations; disorientation; swooning/prostration.
If, in examination of a small group you find real people suffering from heart palpitations and swooning you are talking about something which over time and a large population is undoubtedly going to result in death on a significant scale. Certainly a scale thousands of time worse than passive smoking, which was "discovered" only by a statistical variability in a population of many millions which was well within the limits of statistical error.
Almost all the government funded scare stories we see (salt/weight/passive smoking/mobile phones/watching TV/margarine/butter/salmon/GM etc etc) are of that nature (or for mobile phones and GM less than that in that there is no claim of statistical evidence they are harmful, or as our state broadcaster says "the jury is out" as to whether they are harmful). Windmill low frequency noise is clearly a genuine proven threat to health and killer - these others are at best, speculative.
This goes further for another scare I have discussed before. The linear no threshold (LNT) theory that nuclear radiation, no matter how low the level, even when it is under 2% of natural background radiation is dangerous. There is no evidence for LNT whatsoever - even supporters of the theory (technical actually a hypothesis at best) or scare story acknowledge this. Indeed there is a large amount of data proving the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that such radiation is beneficial to health.
With the disparity in evidence we can say with certainty that windmills are, at the very least, thousands of times more dangerous to outsiders than nuclear plants. For those working on them the fact that Britain has had 4 industrial deaths from windmills in 5 years whereas the entire world has seen 2 nuclear deaths (Japan but not Fukushima) in 20 years. Nuclear provides about 15% of world electricity and windmills under 1%.
Which in turn means that any honest broadcaster or newspaper must have spent thousands of times more promoting scare stories about windmills than nuclear plants.
Or any which is 1/1,000th part (0.1%) honest must have spent an equal amount on each.
Anybody able to name any MSM broadcaster or journalist that is not at least 99.99% corrupt?
Labels: eco-fascism, Fear, Hormesis, nuclear
