This is part 3 of my series on Chapman’s 17 health reviews.  In this part I’ll take a closer look at the main underlying studies that his reviews use to establish their points.

Part 1                         Part 2

Chapman’s most recently-published review (Massachusetts) correctly lists just 4 peer-reviewed journal-published studies (actual studies, as opposed to a review) on wind turbines and health (a fifth, Nissembaum, was published later).  Yep, just 4.  They are:

1. Pedersen 2004
2. Pedersen 2007
3. van den Berg 2008 (or Pedersen 2009, same study)
4. Shepherd 2011

Of the 17 reviews most of them at least refer to either 3 or 4 of these studies (depending on when the review was written) and a number of the 17 reviews use these studies as their central resource.  If anyone is going to write about wind turbines and health it is almost inevitable that these studies get referenced.  In short, they are central to the industry’s claims that wind turbines are not a health concern.  Given their importance part 3 of this series will take a closer look at them. Continue reading 17 Health Studies (3 of 3) →

In part 1 of this series I introduced the reviews and listed them along with links.  In this part I will delve a little deeper into the reviews, ending with a paragraph summarizing each one.

Part 1                     Part 3

As a summary, here is a clickable chart of the 17 reviews and how I “rated” them on several criteria: Continue reading 17 Health Studies (2 of 3) →