Chapman’s “17 Reviews” gave me a chance to look again at the Pedersen, Pedersen and van den Berg studies, along with looking for the first time at the Shepherd study. Until recently these were the only peer-reviewed journal-published studies that looked at the health effects of wind turbines. More recently the Nissenbaum study was finally published and thus becomes the 5th such study. I figured I was on a roll so might as well make it complete. Continue reading The Nissenbaum Study
There are only a handful of wind energy projects in Maine, but just those few have been so badly placed that it is remarkable how much anger they have generated. The Forest Ecology Network works to “protect the native forest environment of Maine” and publishes The Maine Woods newspaper. The January 2012 issue is “devoted to the industrial wind power in Maine” and contains 32 pages of some of the angriest writing I’ve ever come across. It starts with an introduction by Jonathon Carter, the executive director, that chronicles his realization that wind energy is a scam and pulls no punches. Here’s an excerpt:
This issue of The Maine Woods is focused on exposing the lies and propaganda of the industrial wind developers. First Wind, Independence Wind, Iberdrola, Trans-Canada, and Patriots Renewable etc. have all exploited the fear of climate change in order to pocket billions of citizens’ tax dollars. These folks don’t care about climate change. They are not ecological thinkers. They do, however, represent the epitome of the corporate greed that has engulfed this country and the western world. These mountain slayers and profiteers are scam artists. With
their money and bribes, they have bought public policy by buying politicians and gained access to the treasury through outright grants, loan guarantees, and production tax credits.
Ouch. And completely true. As this scam and the damage it causes grows the resulting anger grows, and this introduction conveys that very well.
The introduction is followed by 13 essays on a variety of topics related to wind energy and all of them are well-written, suitable for a general audience. If you want a fairly quick summary of the issues from an opponents’ viewpoint this issue is well worth your time. Highly recommended.
This is my fourth posting on the health report authored by Dr. Dora Mills of the Maine CDC, which found there were no health issues caused by wind turbines. The previous three (shorter critique part 1, longer critique part 2 and DEP emission numbers) concerned themselves with the content of the Mills report. In this posting I am concentrating on the circumstances surrounding the report’s creation.
In June 2009 Dr. Dora Mills released a health study, which (of course) I critiqued. Along with not being able to find any negative health issues with wind turbines she also mentioned their positive health benefits due to reduced emissions. Her numbers came from Maine’s Department of Environment Protection, but I couldn’t find how the DEP came up with them. Just recently I came across a series of emails that were obtained via the FOAA in Maine, and in there was my answer! My main concern with her health study is her inability to find any health effects from wind turbines so the emissions numbers are a sideshow. I ordinarily wouldn’t bother with a separate posting on them, except the DEP’s method was so dishonest I felt I had to.
As promised in my part 1, I’ve read through the longer noise and health report from Maine’s chief of public health, Dr. Mills. After going through the short release I was prepared for a pretty poor report, but it exceeded even my rock-bottom expectations. Of the five critiques I’ve done so far, hers is the worst. My critique runs twelve pages, about twice the size of her report. It gets pretty tedious in places, I’m afraid, but I wanted to fully document just how poor this report was.
From my conclusion:
I hope I’ve accurately conveyed just how weak the foundation of Mills’ dismissal of the health effects of wind turbines was. Not only did she not go into the field to interview any victims or doctors, she didn’t even bother trying to find any studies that went into the field and interviewed any victims or doctors. How in the world someone can not even look for something and then in good conscience declare they didn’t find it? This study will end up causing harm to Maine’s citizens as it will allow developers to continue placing projects too close to people’s homes. It appears that Dr. Mills values her job over her professional obligations, and that is shameful, simply shameful.
Health studies purporting to show there’s no adverse health effects from wind turbines are everywhere these days, it seems. To date I have posted detailed critiques of four of them: Chatham (Colby), AWEA/CanWEA (Colby et al), Ontario CMOH (King) and Australia’s NHMRC. They vary in quality a great deal, from merely bad to just outrageous. But they all have two things in common: (1) none of them has ever wandered into the field to interview either victims or their doctors, and (2) they were all sponsored by someone with either an interest in wind energy or who was publicly committed to it. It is as though the wind industry has come up with a health-effects-denying template that on the face of it is defensible, and that template will get used and reused until it is no longer so.
Maine’s Report was authored by Dr. Dora Mills, who is the head of Maine’s public health service. Keep in mind that her boss, Governor Baldacci, is a serious supporter of wind energy. She claims [backup link] to have researched “several dozen papers and other sources of information” and has concluded “I do not find evidence to support a moratorium on wind turbine projects.”
The wind project at Vinalhaven, Maine has been in the news periodically since the project went live in 2009. Unfortunately, its been for all the wrong reasons, mostly involving too much noise from the three turbines. The affected neighbors have their own web site, and have paid for their own noise study. In what should come as no surprise the noise levels are much above the Maine limits, and much above what was modeled.
Vinalhaven is an island off the coast of Maine. In an effort to lower the cost of their electricity and take advantage of the coastal winds they installed three wind turbines. Unlike most projects, this was community-based, where the community took a vote to approve it. Which they did, overwhelmingly. Unfortunately there were, to the readers of this site, predictable noise problems, which I first mentioned in my noise complaint posting. I promised to post any new news, and recently there was some [backup link]. It should come as no surprise that there has been no resolution. Continue reading Vinalhaven is Back in the News
This posting was originally on my amherstislandwindinfo.com site and I finally copied it over to here.