CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
news & analysis site
 in the world. Subscribe today!

Clean Power wind noise chart 11-2910z

Published on December 27th, 2012 | by Zachary Shahan


Wind Turbine Syndrome… Not!

December 27th, 2012 by  

Recently, a supposed “peer-reviewed” paper on the effects of living near wind turbines was released. As has been the case for many years, there are a few opponents of wind energy (mostly in or related to fossil fuel or nuclear industries), and they’ve been trying to make wind energy out to be some big, bad, scary energy option that it simply isn’t. The main focus has been on the sound that wind turbines create. This recent paper seems to be just another such attempt… and a badly performed one.

Before we get into this recent study, a few quick notes:

1) I intend to keep this page updated with any news I find regarding wind turbine noise studies. Bookmark the page for future reference if this is an important topic to you.

2) To date, there is no scientific evidence that anything such as “Wind Turbine Syndrome” actually exists (as those three articles to which I just linked will tell you). In other words, there’s no scientific evidence that wind turbine noise has any noticeable effect on human health.

3) Since most of you probably haven’t been near a wind turbine, take a look at this graphic below, which indicates how the sound of wind turbines compares to other, more familiar machines at various distances:

Evaluating “Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health”

“Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health” is the name of the study noted at the top of the page. The study was authored by Jeffery Aramini, Michael Nissenbaum, and Christopher Hanning.

Before getting into a longer evaluation of the study itself, BigCityLib makes some points about the authors that are probably worth a bit of consideration:

“Firstly, all three authors, Jeffery Aramini, Michael Nissenbaum and Christopher Hanning, are long-time anti-wind activists. Furthermore, the three reviewers mentioned in the paper are all paid anti-wind ‘experts’ who have a long history of directly testifying against wind energy in various court cases. One of them, Carl Phillips, lost his position at the University of Alberta several years ago for taking money from the tobacco industry.

Yikes, but there’s always room for redemption, right?

I also got this note from Chris Varrone of:

Sample size: 18, 20, 14, 27

Are they joking?

They found that in a sample of EIGHTEEN PEOPLE who lived close to the WTGs, there was evidence of sleep problems?… This is a laughable sample size. NO ONE would take such a study seriously.

Nielsen requires 1,800 households to do TV ratings weekly — and is roundly criticized for not using higher sample sizes….

Whatever this is, it is not science.

Also worthy of note before delving into the “science” is that “Aramini’s training is as a veterinarian; Michael Nissenbaum is a radiologist; and Christopher Hanning is an Anaesthetist.”


Now, to get into the study in more detail, here’s a lengthy response to the paper from Mike Barnard on Quora:

Summary:  Its reliability is very low.  This is a flawed and misleadingly titled study by long-time anti-wind lobbyists.

  • It mistakes correlation for causation, and overstates correlation
  • It downplays or ignores long-understood impacts of both bias and impacts of change in creating annoyance
  • There are significant unstated conflicts-of-interest, biases and allegiances to an anti-wind lobbyist group among the six authors and reviewers
  • One of the authors has been actively involved in creating anti-wind bias and annoyance in these sites for years
  • It should be considered against the 17 major world-wide reviews to date which have found no health impacts from wind generation.
  1. The study overstates causation and correlation, and understates the impact of bias of the studied groups.a.  Nissenbaum et al are overstating the strength of the correlation that their data shows. In contrast to the conclusions, figures 1 and 2 show a very weak dose-response, if there is one at all. The near horizontal ‘curve fits’ and large amount of data scatter are indications of the weak relationship between sleep quality and turbine distance. The authors seem to use a low p-value as support for the hypothesis that sleep disturbance is related to turbine distance. A better interpretation of the p-value related to a near horizontal line fit would be that it suggests a high probability of a weak dose response. Correlation coefficients are not given but should have been to indicate the quality of the curve fits. Intrinsik points out an additional failing of the report:

    Although there was a statistically significant difference between the mean PSQI scores in the near (7.8) and far group (6.0), it is important to remember that both of these average scores are greater than 5, which would qualify both groups as “poor sleepers”. When one examines the reported “% of PSQI score >5” no statistical difference between the near and far groups was found (p=0.0745).

    b. As the Intrinsik assessment points out:

    Given that the relationship between noise from wind turbines and health concerns is the fundamental premise of the study by Nissenbaum et al., it is surprising that the authors gave such little consideration to collection of actual sound data measurements at the study participant homes. The use of post-hoc sound data, visually obtained from figures in reports, is not scientifically defensible and should not have been used to draw conclusions about the findings of the questionnaires with distance from turbine locations. [16]

    c. Intrinsik also points out the misleading title of the study, another case of overstating conclusions available from the data:

    We also believe that the title of the paper “Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health” is not supported given the nature of the data presented. No evidence with respect to sound level (noise) and its effect on sleep and health has been presented in this paper  [16]

    Given that the authors themselves admit that they can’t construct a dose-response curve, their conclusion that wind farms affect sleep is surprising:

    In their paper Nissenbaum et al. state that noise emitted by IWTs can affect sleep. However, their results do not support this statement. In fact, the authors state that “The data on measured and estimated noise levels were not adequate to construct a dose-response curve…” and no statistical analyses were conducted to assess this supposed relationship. Therefore, we do not believe that Nissenbaum et al. (2012) show any statistical difference in overall “poor” sleep quality or sleepiness between the groups. [16]

    d.  The studied communities, via agitators such as Nissenbaum, have developed strong negative attitudes to wind farms.  As this study shows, this is a much better predictor of the effects Nissenbaum is claiming than any actual noise from wind farms. [4]

    Intrinsik goes further and asserts the conclusion that the authors, if unbiased, would have found from the data, that the study groups were annoyed by changes in their environment and self-reported health impacts arose from annoyance with the change:

    The authors pointed out that visual cue and attitude towards wind turbines“are known to affect the psychological response to environmental noise”.While this may be true, visual cue and attitude by themselves have been shown to be stronger drivers of psychological responses than a wind-turbine specific variable like sound itself (e.g., Pedersen 2004). Therefore, a conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that the self-reported health effects of people living near wind turbines can be likely attributable to physical manifestations from an annoyed state, rather than a wind-turbine specific factor like noise. Indeed, the weight of evidence in the wind turbine and human health literature points to a causal relationship between self-reported health effects and annoyance, which is to say annoyance brought on by the change in the local environment(i.e., a decrease in amenity) that wind turbines represent (Knopper and Ollson 2011). [16]

    e.  The authors’ treatment of bias is poor, stating without evidence that accounting for selection and reporting bias would make their conclusions stronger, not weaker.

    f.  The sample size is small as is the control group (many studies have small sample sizes; this makes this less authoritative, not worthless in and of itself.)

  2. The study group has undisclosed biases influenced by one of the authors.This is not Nissenbaum’s first study of the Mars Hill or the Vinalhaven wind farms.  He ran studies there in 2010 and 2011 as well, using a format pioneered by anti-wind folks in the UK and then by Nina Pierpont, creator of Wind Turbine Syndrome. [3], [9] The a-scientific studies are so poorly constructed that they are guaranteed to make people ascribe new symptoms to wind turbines, and to take completely ignored minor symptoms and turn them into major complaints. These studies have pre-loaded the biases of these study groups, making it difficult to accept the the conclusions of this better structured study.  The data this study is based upon is not new data, but data that was obtained several years ago that has been presented at the ICBEN conference in London (UK) over a year ago and has been presented as part of anti-wind farm submissions, which is not unusual, but the data and the conclusions Nissenbaum et al have been putting forward has been strongly criticized in the past. [10] For example, a 2012 Massachusetts expert panel had this to say about the conclusions:

    details of how homes were identified, how many homes/people were approached, and differences between those who did and did not participate are important to know. Without this, attributing any of the observed associations to the wind turbines (either noise from them or the sight of them) is premature. [16]

  3. The authors’ pre-existing bias is not disclosed or accounted for.Jeffery Aramini is the person most often interviewed in newspaper reports but the study is co-authored with Michael Nissenbaum and Christopher Hanning.

    a. Aramini has maintained a lower profile than Nissenbaum and Hanning, but is on the Advisory Group of an anti-wind lobbyist group, Wind Vigilance. [11]
    b. Nissenbaum is a long-time anti-wind activist and also a member of the Advisory Group of Wind Vigilance. [1]
    c. Hanning is a long-time anti-wind activist as well, who has been writing anti-wind papers that have not been able to get into even low-impact, peer-reviewed journals and is also on the Advisory Group of Wind Vigilance.[2] [12]

    Fronting with the lower profile Aramini in newspaper interviews appears to be a convenient way to disguise the deep and long-standing bias of the authors.

    The authorial bias can easily be detected by the inappropriate use of the emotionally laden “industrial wind turbine”, a term which was selected and focussed grouped by anti-wind lobbying organizations associated with the Koch Brothers.[14]  Neutral language includes “wind turbine” and “wind turbine generator”.

  4. The thanked reviewers have unstated biases and conflicts-of-interest as they are paid anti-wind experts who have a long history of directly testifying against wind energy.a. Carl Phillips is relatively new to this group, having been asked to leave his post at an Alberta university for taking tobacco industry money and remarkably finding that tobacco products were much less harmful than people thought.[6]  He has found a new source of funds in anti-wind lobbying.  As he says on his blog, Ep-Ology:

    I knew what answer I was going to present from the start. So when I wrote my COI [conflict of interest] statement, I did not hesitate to describe, matter-of-fact, that I do work as a testifying expert on behalf of communities fighting the siting of local wind turbines.

    b. Rand not only testifies, his firm gains revenue from measuring sound near wind farms for complainants and to assist litigation. [7]  Rand, in any event,
    c. James has been testifying for fee against wind farms since 2006.[8]

    Phillips and James are both members of the Advisory Group of Wind Vigilance as well.  The three thanked are bolstering their court room pitches, and cannot be considered credible unbiased assessors. If they are the only peer reviewers, this is grounds for retraction. As their conflicts and pre-existing biases are unstated, this too is grounds for serious concern.

  5. Noise and Health is a rarely referenced journal of low impact.The journal, Noise and Health has a very low impact index of 1.2, meaning that few researchers reference their studies; there can be a variety of reasons for this including poor quality or trivial papers. [5]  The journal may not have sought independent reviewers who would have pointed out the flaws in the article, but may have accepted the reviewers that came with the article as suggestions.  If the journal did not gain separate review, this is a reason for retraction in and of itself.
  6. Wind Vigilance, on whose Advisory Group five of six authors and reviewers sit, has been promoting wind health issues in the absence of peer-reviewed evidence and against 17 major studies’ findings for years. As Wind Vigilance is a central theme to this, it would be useful to understand their positions and the degree of evidence behind them:

    Based on a review of the evidence, the Society for Wind Vigilance is satisfied that there is a significant probability of adverse health effects for human subjects living within 2.0 km of land based industrial wind turbines. The Society for Wind Vigilance recognizes the urgent need for further human health research to finalize guidelines for siting and noise levels that will protect human health. In the interim the Society for Wind Vigilance recommends that land based industrial wind turbines be sited a minimum of 2 km from the property line of non participating residents. Distances greater than 2 km will typically be required for special terrain such as turbines on ridges and offshore turbines. [13]

    Bolding is mine to indicate statements which require elaboration:
    1. This statement was released April 2012, six months before the first peer-reviewed paper that found any issues with wind energy and health was published.  In the meantime, 17 major reviews by independent and credible organizations worldwide of thousands of pieces of peer-reviewed research found no issue with wind energy and human health.  On what grounds did Wind Vigilance make the assessment that all of the other studies and the vast majority of medical, engineering and acoustic professionals were wrong?  On what grounds did they decide on 2 kilometers?
    2. “Industrial wind turbines” is the preferred emotive phrasing of anti-wind lobbyists.  It is not neutral language in this discussion, just as “wind farms” is the preferred emotive language of pro-wind advocates (including me).  This language was created by lobbying organizations associated with the Koch Brothers and other astroturf funding undiversified fossil fuel organizations.[14]
    3. The reasoning behind greater setbacks on ridges and lakes is not explained, but given the weakness of the rest of their position, it can only be to ensure that wind turbines will never be seen or heard.  Obviously this is an extreme and foolish position.

    That five of six authors and reviewers of this paper are so tightly associated with an organization with such a strong and strident opposition to evidence-based siting guidelines and wind energy in general is indicative.  That they do not make clear their association, their long-standing bias and their conflicts-of-interest is also indicative.

  7. 17 major reviews have found no health impacts from wind energyThis single paper must be contrasted to the 17 (to-date) major reviews world-wide of hundreds or thousands of peer-reviewed articles related to wind energy, health and noise which have found no health impacts.  All studies agree that a small subset of people very close to wind farms find the noise annoying. [15]  The best consensus is that the vast majority of health complaints attributed to wind energy are the result of a psychogenic or communicated psychosomatic illness; people are making themselves sick when they are told that they will get sick. [15]

Full disclosure. This assessment was developed with the assistance of:

  • Dr. David Perry — Dr. Perry holds degrees in electrical engineering and neuroscience from The University of Melbourne and a PhD from the Bionics Institute examining how sound stimulation from a cochlear implant is represented in the brain. Dr. Perry is also on the Board of Directors of community-owned wind project Hepburn Wind in Australia.
  • Richard Mackie – Mr. Mackie is an Engineer with degrees from the University of Auckland and the Australian Graduate School of Management. He is Managing Director of Advanced Energy Consulting (Australia) which does work related to wind energy projects.
  • The Intrinsik professional assessment upon which some of the comments are based was funded by CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association).

[1] Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum – The Society for Wind Vigilance
[5] Journal and Academic Rankings
[6] Tobacco researcher leaves U of A
[7] Wind Turbines: Published Articles
[8] Mike Barnard’s answer to Wind Power: Is Dr. Nina Pierpoint’s “Wind Turbine Syndrome” a real medical syndrome caused by wind turbines?
[11] Jeff Aramini, DVM, MSC, PHD – The Society for Wind Vigilance
[12] Dr Chris Hanning – The Society for Wind Vigilance
[13] News – The Society for Wind Vigilance
[14] Turbine foes try to forge national opposition movement
[15] Wind Power: What might cause people who live near wind turbines to get sick?

Additional references:
[1] Additional background on the authors and the nature of the preceding studies performed by Mr. Nissenbaum here:  A Vet, A Radiologist, And An Anaesthetist Walk Into A Scientific Controversy…
[3] Nissenbaum paper recycles claims on wind energy and health already found inadequate by courts and expert panel
[4]BigCityLib Strikes Back – The Full Nissenbaum

Perhaps Stephen Colbert tackled the issue best:

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: , ,

About the Author

is tryin' to help society help itself (and other species) one letter at a time. He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of EV Obsession, Gas2, Solar Love, Planetsave, or Bikocity; or as president of Important Media. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, energy storage, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media:, .

  • Alec Sevins

    Even if wind turbine noise doesn’t affect lucky human residents, it surely affects animals who have no genetic adaptation to such large intrusive structures (nor do we). And don’t forget bird kills, e.g. bald eagles now. We readily admit that subwoofer racket and numerous other artificial noises can ruin the quality of life, so why would 400-foot spinning towers in formerly quiet landscapes have no ill effects?

    The visual blight is an even more serious problem. If someone entered a museum and painted a bunch of wind turbines on famous landscape paintings, they’d be charged as criminal vandals. Yet, when massive towers are laid down like industrial graffiti on real landscapes, they’re merely “green?”

    I see as much denial over wind turbines as there is with global warming. People need to admit that Man is a very intrusive species, constantly disrupting and destroying nature to expand its population at the expense of others. An energy source isn’t benign simply because it doesn’t burn fossil fuels.

  • Dileepa Dharmasiri

    yes we should totally think about the outcomes before building any turbine ,

  • Brian Anderson

    You didn’t have to state that you spend “most of your time” on the publications you write for; it’s obvious. Why not get out for a bit, go rent one of the plentiful residences vacated by those you direct your uninformed skepticism at? There are thousands of homes you could rent near those 5-story high wind turbines. Why not move in for a couple of months and write from there? Then you’d find that it’s isn’t the sound you can hear that drives people from their homes, amongst other factors, but the sound you can’t: infrasound.

    I can’t wait to read your accounts from any of the ground zeroes available. Drop me a line when you set up house. Failing to take this route renders you just another trumpeter of 2nd hand views and information.

    You can be a real journalist by following my advice or remain in the goldfish bowl as an armchair quarterback.

    Get into the game Zachary!

  • Heather

    Isn’t this laughable? So any comment agianst wind turbines by people who are “anti-turbine” are suspect and biased……. But any comment by people who are pro-turbine are always fair and balanced and impartial?
    This seems pretty classic liberal left thinking. If you oppose them, you do so because you have a bais agianst them and your not considered a valid source of information, but a bais for them makes you a reliable source of information.

    • ytreggah

      Heather, In Massachusetts commercial megawatt turbines of the 1.5 megawatt class and above have been placed as close as 900 feet to residential homes. People have been made sick .There is plenty of documentation. In Falmouth,Ma. mediation has been going on longer than the peace talks at Panmunjom in Korea in 1953

      • Zachary Shahan

        if there was “plenty of documentation,” our article would look a lot different. sorry, but if you’re going to make a big statement, back it up with some facts.

    • Zachary Shahan

      Heather: quite frankly, i don’t know what you’re talking about. we’re simply reporting on the science done around this topic. wind turbine hypochondria does not count as science.

    • Alec Sevins

      True, but I sure hope you’re not a mindless global warming denier. Critical thinking and objective reality is badly needed.

      The core problem is that Man is living outside the limits of nature and calling it “economic growth.” Everything’s about meeting the “growing needs” of a runaway human population and true balance with nature gets ignored.

  • savvyone

    My recommendation to you is that you spend a few months living near a wind turbine. After that, I’d like to hear what you have to report. It’s a living hell (sound, flicker effect and dead birds all over the place that have to be picked up). The proof is in the pudding.

    • Zachary Shahan

      i know plenty of people who do, and who don’t complain about it, but are actually happy to have the wind turbines! the article above is based on science. show us some half-decent science backing up your claims and we’ll post it. so far, there isn’t any.

      • Alec Sevins

        You must realize you’re essentially calling thousands of people liars, and the number of “liars” will grow as turbines creep into ever more rural areas. I call that green blindness and it’s just as annoying as right-wing denial of fossil fuel downsides. I can’t fathom how anyone claiming green credentials can witness massive destruction of natural viewsheds & soundscapes and just say “so be it, people need the electricity.”

        The sheer scale of wind turbines on the landscape is what disturbs me the most. That, plus huge solar plants like Ivanpah, show that renewable energy has poor energy density and a very large footprint. We should at least try to limit these devices to existing rooftops or land that’s already had commercial use. Too much rural acreage is being sacrificed to these towering machines with dubious benefits and output that will always be transient.

        • Zachary Shahan

          I’m not calling them liars. The research is pretty clear about that. It indicates that people get themselves worked up over the idea… rather than any actual physical matters.

          • Alec Sevins

            Again, that’s the same as calling them liars. You’re just repeating the same double-speak and industry propaganda. Soulless techie rationalizations for serious problems. Wind turbines function a lot like giant subwoofers but with a different sound texture and bass that’s much lower. If you’ve never experienced infrasound (esp. with pulsing) it’s hard to describe the nausea and feeling of displacement it can generate.

            It’s clear you don’t care about the landscape impacts either. Arguing with techie drones on a mission to spike the earth to death is a waste of time, but sooner or later you’ll come to see what’s really going on. If you had integrity you’d spend time with affected families instead of repeating the same glib pap.

        • Zachary Shahan
          • Alec Sevins

            You must be buying into the lie that wind turbines only affect the acreage where the towers meet the earth. The actual impact is the total spread of a given “farm,” which can occupy tens of thousands of acres and taints the entire landscape the same way ANWR drilling on “just 2,000 acres” would. Wind pushers are oddly silent on that defense of ANWR drilling because it’s the same ruse they use! And oil rigs can at least be removed at some point. I’m not for ANWR drilling, just against hypocritical tactics by quasi-environmentalists who’ve decided that landscapes are rubbish and dismiss objections as NIMBYism.

            Step back to Occam’s Razor and simply ask yourself WHY people get upset by these giant machines? Is it really a mystery to you that some of us prefer scenery that isn’t dominated by colossal man-made structures? Nothing else being built these days (not even fracking sites) affects so much rural and wild scenery with vertical presence and red lights, plus the noise and avian deaths.

          • Bob_Wallace

            There are now multiple scientific studies which prove you wrong. There are no health issues with wind farms.

            That’s not totally correct. There is one issue, anxiety created by people like you who spread misinformation and upset gullible people.

            You and your merry little band of mis-informers are the problem, Alec.

            You, and a few individuals like you, have convinced yourself that a problem exists and refuse to adjust your beliefs to fit the facts. This puts you in the same camp as those who believe that we are being visited by creatures from outer space and that the world is run by a group of gnomes living under a mountain somewhere.

            The word that applies, Alec, is delusional.

            And then you compound your problem by attempting to convince others that your delusions are real.

            Get outside your little anti-wind cult Alec. Talk to some rational people. Read the studies that have been done.

          • Bob_Wallace

            You don’t like to see wind turbines installed some places. Lots of people don’t.

            But most people are capable of understanding that we must deal with climate change and that means that we must replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.

            We’ll put wind turbines on a few ridges. In return we’ll quit blowing the tops off mountains, filling rivers with coal waste, and killing people with coal pollution.

            It’s about finding the best balance, Alec. You having to look at a wind turbine is a lot better than a child dying of asthma or an entire island country going underwater

            Don’t be selfish, Alec

  • ytreggah
    Massachusetts Renewable Energy Goals Fall Short
    Posted on December 22, 2012 at 5:44 am
    Massachusetts Renewable Energy Goals Fall Short
    Massachusetts wants commercial wind energy to play a role in its clean energy future. Governor Patrick has committed Massachusetts to a goal of installing 2,000 Megawatts of wind energy before 2020.
    Two reasons look to stop the renewable energy goal of land based commercial wind turbines. The residential property owners who live around them and the excessive operation and maintenance costs of the turbines. These two reasons alone must be deducted from the 2020 renewable energy goal.
    First, each time a new megawatt commercial wind turbine gets installed another local citizens’ group in that town quickly forms to curtail the operation of the turbines because of noise,shadow flicker,ice throw and real estate property devaluations.Groups of pro-wind residents living near wind turbines within weeks become anti- wind as soon as the 400 foot turbines start to spin. The operators of the turbines quickley find themselves in front of local boards and court.
    Second, performance of wind turbines in New England showing that the economic life expenses of onshore wind turbines is very short in some cases between 3 and 5 years, not the 20 years projected by the wind industry and government projections.
    The average load factor of wind turbines declines substantially as they get older, probably due to gear box failure. By as early as 5 years of age the contribution of an average New England wind turbine to meeting electricity demand has declined .
    Many of the gear box driven megawatt turbines installed after 2008 will need expensive gear box replacements every 3 to 5 years. This raises the question of is it rarely economic to operate a wind turbine for more than 6 to 10 years? After 10 years they must be replaced with a new turbine or keep replacing major components .
    Many investors, private owners and cities and towns expecting a return on their investment over 20 years will fall short of expectations. The gear box failures and the costs of a special crane to lift the gear boxes in and out contribute to the massive repair costs.

  • ytreggah
    The Wind Turbine Options Analysis Project met for three hours Dec. 18 to prepare its final report to the Falmouth Board of Selectmen, based on a seven-month evaluation by the Wind Turbine Options Analysis Process (WTOP).
    Area residents waited nearly three hours before they could offer any public comments and expressed grave concerns that the impact of the turbines on their lives is being overshadowed by the WTOP’s focus on legal and financial implications for the town, and editorial language used in the 36-page draft that is still under revision.
    The residents suggested a comprehensive health survey was needed for WTOP to understand the health hazards of the turbines, and they expressed disbelief that some WTOP members would not acknowledge the negative impact of the turbines on the property values of their homes. One resident claimed she has abandoned her home due to its proximity to the turbines and the resulting health complications.
    Read more: Wind turbines continue to divide Falmouth community – – Falmouth Bulletin

    • MrEnergyCzar

      All the more reason to put them 6 miles off shore…


      • ytreggah

        There are plenty of people in Falmouth ,Massachusetts that would like to sell their homes but they aren’t worth anything anymore.The people that write these pro wind turbine stories never lived over night near a wind turbine when the wind is cranking up.
        For years the wind industry has been hiding the dirty little secret about gear box faiures –

  • ytreggah

    On December 14,2011 just over one year ago Stephen E. Ambrose, INCE (Brd. Cert.) and Robert W. Rand, INCE Member introduced the “smoking gun” of noise reports. The study points out and confirms the adverse health effects of large industrial wind turbines.

    Infrasound is defined in dictionaries today :

    Next is the wind turbine noise study prepared for the Town of Falmouth,Massachusetts

    The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study:

    • Zachary Shahan

      i’m sorry, but that is one of the most unscientific “studies” on the health effects of wind turbines that i could have imagined. please, look at how horrible the study methodology is there — it doesn’t even exist!

Back to Top ↑