False-Flag Wind NIMBY Catapaults Propaganda
Four British newspapers are quoting a self-published author who claims supposed wind turbine health problems in a piece that could be pretty much summed up as:
Wind Turbines Give You Spots!
The Independent, The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Belfast Telegraph are printing the same piece (unverified by any third parties) by a New York pediatrician who has set herself up as an “expert” on wind with her own vanity press. Nina Pierpont thinks “Wind Turbine Syndrome” can cause abnormal heart beats, sleep disturbance, headaches, tinnitus, nausea, visual blurring, panic attacks migraines, sleep deprivation, and general irritability.
And it is fine that a pediatrician, like anyone else, has an opinion, but that doesn’t make this science. Pierpont is claiming that her book is peer-reviewed (by other pediatricians, I assume?) which is not true. Other pediatricians (who are doctors for children) have not “peer-reviewed” her work.
More relevantly; acousticians (who actually do study the aural efffects of things like wind turbines) have not “peer-reviewed” her work.
How could they? Can a mathematician or a weatherman “peer” review a climate scientist’s work? Of course not. They are not peers. Same thing with acousticians versus childrens doctors.
A “peer”, by definition, works in the same field of study.
- » See also: NREL Releases Open-Source Live Solar Mapping Project
- » Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.
As Grist notes, this is clearly a vanity press self publishing effort:
Her “publisher” has a four-person editorial board consisting of herself, her husband Calvin Luther Martin, and two other members. Pierpont’s husband is also the book’s editor. Her book can only be ordered from her website. The “publisher” website is a page on Pierpont’s own site.
Valid peer-review is, by nature, independent. While authors are encouraged (and sometimes required) to suggest possible peer reviewers, the final selection of reviewers in valid refereeing is never made by people closely related to the author, or hired by the author. Pierpont being on the editorial board of a company that she claims oversaw a peer review process is itself a scandal.
Dr. Pierpont told the newspapers that there was “no doubt” about the existence of Wind Turbine Syndrome, based on her interviews with just 38 people in 10 families living near wind turbines ranging in size from 1.5MW to 3MW, and that was good enough for the newspapers. Local councils are increasingly refusing permission to build wind farms.
The British Wind Energy Association points out that her study was based on an unscientific sample (too few people and not a verified study) and that it runs counter to wide ranging research finding that wind turbines do not pose health risks
Germany and Denmark have far more deployed wind energy than Britain. “In Germany, they have deployed 15,000 turbines in the past 20 years, and yet there has been no detectable increase in any of these health symptoms identified as being caused by turbines,” says the BWEA. The Borough of Westminster had 300,000 complaints about noise last year - but only 4 about wind farms.
If the pediatrician’s background wasn’t enough to tip off mainstream journalists; a cursory glance at the website would have revealed this poorly concealed deception regarding peer review.
But in an age where fossil-fuel lobbyists use identity theft to falsify the views of legitimate constituencies, and a government conceals the science on climate change, and science itself must take a backseat to the opinions of the rabble, hey; who’s checking? We don’t need no stinking Fourth Estate.
Via Grist
Early Mass Hysteria by Goya
Looks like she wants to be the expert in the new stupid syndrome of the week!
There are very many ‘good’, peer reviewed studies that turn out to be wrong after further work. Pierpoint jumped the gun and started off being lousy.
I can remember the news flashes over the past 50 years where something was found to be bad for you only to hear years later that maybe it is not so bad after all or even that it is now considered good.
Good of you to point out this garbage Susan!
I have been following this woman’s nonsense for three years now. I live in Allegany NY, and locals keep referring to her as a wind energy expert or ’scientist’. Basically, she invented the ’syndrome’ first, then just keeps repeating it’s existence as if that makes it true. She has testified at hearings, written articles, been interviewed by the press and referred to on NIMBY blogs as ‘a world renowned scientist, or ’scientists’. She has referred to a report that backs her up and when I checked it out, it was something she wrote on her site! The ‘report’ made such scientific claims as (paraphrasing) wind turbines don’t work because wind has no mass’ ! and ‘no one complains about living next to a nuclear plant’…She has also used the names of real acoustic researchers besides her fake allies in the EU ( who quote her as the expert…circular referrencing)to bolster her claims,who have asked her to stop. She should be given as much credence as the people who sell foot pads that suck ‘toxins’ out of your body. She is a sham, a self aggrandizing fool and unfortunately, there are people who will quote her without doing any research themselves. I could go on with more instances of this nonsense. Using her as an expert is like getting your heart operation from the cleaning lady. People like her stand in the way of real progress only in that others give her power. If a homeless person told you he had the secret of cold fusion, you would probably ignore him. Ignore her, do the math, do the homework and debunk her whenever you can.
How frustrating! But as for:
“She should be given as much credence as the people who sell foot pads that suck ‘toxins’ out of your body.”
I hope not! Was across from them at a green home show once (don’t ask…) and they had far and away the most popular booth!
Finally figured it out!
She is confusing herself with a wind turbine. I am sure she personally could cause any or all of the ailments listed just by talking.
Heh. That’s it!
i wouldn’t be surprised if she was sponsored by some oil company. maybe she is trying to create hype so that people will go to her site and she can make money on advertisements. otherwise, she is just stupid.
I went to her site and had a hard time slogging through the weird logic. She tries to redefine ‘peer review’saying it’s what is done when you write a book and someone cheks to see if it’s ready-so I guess her husband is her peer. As I understand it, peer review is part of the scientific process, where others in your field check to see if your ideas, conclusions, experiments are reproducible or even valid. I guess to her, peer review means it’s been spell-checked! Also, she has ‘reviews’ by doctor friends who tout her scholarship or say she’s written an important book. What a mess!
Great piece. I am still wondering if there actually is such a book. Has anyone read it?
If only this level of skepticism about peer review and circular referencing were applied to wind industry claims as well.
to rucio
this is not skepticism about peer review. What I’m saying is this woman is making unfounded claims that others are taking as scientific fact. Peer review is an established scientific process which she glibly dismisses and tries to redefine to suit her needs. the wind industry is scrutinized to a much higher degree than most others- by universtity labs, DOE, Electricity providers, AND it takes years of wind and wildlife studies just to get the final OK to build. She is a pediatrician NOT a valid authority, but others in the NIMBY world think she is.