I have always been a little surprised at the poor quality of the wind industry attempts to deny the health effects of their turbines. If there’s a bunch of people complaining about these effects, don’t you think any study would at a minimum go into the neighborhood and see what’s going on? Instead we get literature reviews from “experts” who Google away from their desks. In a previous life I was a part-time university professor, and depending on my mood, I might give a passing grade to a student paper of this quality. Their failings are so obvious, that I’ve wondered – for whom were these reports written? They can’t be written for anybody with either knowledge of the issues, nor for anyone who has bothered to think of the issues at all.
In a book I recently read, Doubt is Their Product, by David Michaels, I think I found my answer. He describes Daubert as the most important court decision you’ve never heard of, and after reading about it he may be right. In June 1993 the U.S. Supreme Court explained that henceforth scientific testimony would have to pass two tests: reliability and relevance. Before a trial even starts, either side can challenge the expert testimony of the other side, and it is up to the trial judge to allow the testimony or not. Can you see where this is going?