Discussion in 'News from around the damp planet' started by Earth's Internet, Jun 23, 2013.
All the more reason why we need to keep fighting the good fight. Take care, M.
Another bombshell from Australia
Governments, scientists, and the wind industry knew!
They have been covering up for 25 years
Full Article Wind turbine dangers known since 87 | The Australian | July 9, 2013
The laboratory study is downloadable from: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/1166.pdf
Knew what? That a minority of people get 'annoyed' because of wind farms?
As the above, linked-to 1985 report found (final page):
This report summarizes extensive research by staff of the Solar Energy Research Institute and its subcontractors conducted to establish the origin and possible
amelioration of acoustic disturbances associated with the operation of the DOE/NASA MOD-l wind turbine installed in 1979 near Boone, North Carolina. Results have shown that the source of this acoustic annoyance was the transient, unsteady aerodynamic lift imparted to the turbine blades as they passed through the lee wakes of the large, cylindrical tower supports. Nearby residents were annoyed by the low-frequency, acoustic impulses propagated into the structures in which the complainants lived. The situation was aggravated further by a complex sound propagation process controlled by terrain and atmospheric focusing. Several techniques for reducing the abrupt, unsteady blade load transients were researched and are discussed in the report.
Again, there remains no credible, (peer-reviewed) scientific evidence to suggest wind farms cause the so-called wind turbine syndrome.
However, there is credible, (peer-reviewed) scientific evidence to suggest people - including a very small minority that live in the vicinity of wind farms - experience a range of health issues as a result of the nocebo effect.
Further reading: The Conversation articles with 'nocebo' and 'wind' as a key words.
My what a shock.
Lured from your Lurking Cave for another predatory opportunity LOL
View attachment 1676
There is research to say wind farms are detrimental to health.
You're cave must be well orientated there Markos, what after 8 years... would love to see the bookshelf you've assembled
Never underestimate the power of the Church of Industrial Science who have their long list of professional apologists in every corner of the globe. The link I gave came from an Aussie Journal and the site I reference belongs to Nina Pierpont M.D. Ph.d. who BTW has been Peer-Reviewed. This proves that when he angrily made this outrageous statement here:
, he didn't bother to actually read all the info or chose to out right lie about no peer-review which in itself is now evidence of truth. But check out the Peer-Review Dr Nina Pierpont establishes on her work. Clearly this woman is no stranger to ignorant critics and has been brutally attacked before, hence the list of reviews.
Even the other link I gave of the study was deliberately tampered with to show an error page. I have no idea what the point of that was. More and more studies will come out and the Religious Faithful pimping Industrial Science as saving Humankind will ignore and attack them anyway.
Even if this Doctor Ninia Pierpont and others were Peer-Reviewed by what he considers the acceptable clerics, it would still be rejected out right anyway.
Nice article BTW!
The good Dr's work may be a form of 'research', but as it was discredited very soon after it was published, it does not constitute credible (peer-reviewed) scientific evidence:
A recent Health and Safety Briefing from RenewableUK, formerly the British Wind Energy Association, entitled "Independent review of the state of knowledge about the alleged health condition known as Wind Turbine Syndrome," included analyses from a team of expert reviewers who were highly critical of Nina Pierpont's work. One expert states that "Pierpont makes the common mistake of taking a one-dimensional view of sound, considering only frequencies and ignoring the importance of levels ... this is a serious failing, as urban dwellers are exposed to similar levels of infrasound to that from wind turbines."
Source: McCunney, Dobie & Lipscomb (2010) There's no evidence of health impacts from wind energy
Since then, and because this one piece of discredited work (much to the delight of the Greenhouse Mafia) comes up time and time again, many - over 20 - reviews (see: links in previous posts) of all the science related to this non-issue have been completed, and each time the same conclusion is drawn:
There is no credible (peer-reviewed) scientific evidence that wind farms cause health issues.
My personal view is to question everything. I admire scientific research and am thankful for all the discoveries made and that we all benefit from. I also know that research and statistics can be twisted to suit an agenda, whether that be political or otherwise. I think that sometimes scientists get so caught inside the box, that anything outside it is dismissed. Qualitative data that is not substantiated according to the prevailing scientific belief or methodology is dismissed. You only have to look at the differences between scientists from different countries in regards to the effects of EMF to start questioning the validity of those positions.
I also find that frequently there are beliefs based on the individual political leaning. If an article is written and published by what is perceived to be right ring it is immediately dismissed by those on the left as mad ravings of the right. And vice versa. If you are green leaning you are not supposed to entertain any supposed heretical musings at all. Dismiss and denigrate is the norm or you are seen as a traitor. I prefer to investigate whatever I can. Keep an open mind.
View attachment 1678
Yep, an open mind is good. But, at that end of the day (as it is close to coming for me, particularly concerning the topic of this thread): "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Ad hominem is never a pretty sight.
The good Dr may very well have gone to her peers for a review of her self-published work, but in no way does that constitute credible, (peer-reviewed) scientific evidence of her claims.
Sorry about the broken link, here it is again (the abstract appears on both the second and last pages).
One would have to be very hard pressed to even consider the Australian Newspaper a 'journal', let alone a credible one, as it is owned by one of the world's most discredited 'journalists':
No one does more to spread dangerous disinformation about global warming than Murdoch. In a year of rec*ord heat waves in Africa, freak snowstorms in America and epic flooding in Pakistan, the Fox network continued to dismiss climate change as nothing but a conspiracy by liberal scientists and Big Government. Glenn Beck told viewers the Earth experienced no warming in the past decade — the hottest on record. Sean Hannity declared that "global warming doesn't exist" and speculated about "the true agenda of global-warming hysterics." Even Brian Kilmeade, co-host of the chatty Fox & Friends, laughed off the threat of climate change, joking that the real problem was "too many polar bears."
Murdoch's entire media empire, it would seem, is set up to deny, deny, deny. The Wall Street Journal routinely dismisses climate change as "an apocalyptic scare," and Fox News helped gin up a fake controversy by relentlessly hyping the "climategate" scandal — even though independent investigations showed that nothing in the e-mails stolen from British climate researchers undercut scientific conclusions about global warming.
Murdoch knows better. In 2007, he warned that climate change "poses clear, catastrophic threats" and promised to turn News Corp. into a model of carbon neutrality. But at his media outlets, manufacturing doubt about global warming remains official policy. During the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen, the Washington editor of Fox News ordered the network's journalists to never mention global warming "without immediately pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question." Murdoch may be striving to go green in his office buildings, but on air, the only thing he's recycling are the lies of Big Coal and Big Oil.
The strategic modern day move today by those claiming intellectual authority, is to play the peer-review card and hope like heck others fall for the bluff. As we all had this ridiculous conversation previously, Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? . That link explains how much very little time is actually spent on Peer-Review [2-3 hours on average] in which there is hardly enough time to accurately review and expertly judge whether the subject is truly correct or not. The bottom line is a lazy take as if to say, "a couple of guys looked at it for a couple of hours and didn't find anything wrong". If the particular reader of the paper prior to reading already disagrees with the subject, no amount of peer-review claim will satisfy them and way and that's what is going on here with this particular bigotry. The peer-reviews and credible sources sited by Dr Nina Pierpont are ever going to satisfy a kool-aid sucking Industrial Science defending Ideologue if it counters what they find pleasing to the eye and ear. All they need is one biased peer-review from authority to defend their position. The message becomes clear, "It's true because this authority says it's true". Your point about open mind and questioning things is almost a survival mechanism now days. It's incredible how someone will ONLY consider something trustworthy and reliable if it was peer-reviewed. This is where indoctrination has had it's best work. The sooner people abandon the comforting but childish illusion that having been through peer-review means a study is trustworthy the further their knowledge and understanding will grow. Why ? Because they prove they are actually capable of thinking for themselves. People who pimp peer-review use it as a silver-bullet to the truth, most generally inside such platforms as this or any other public forum. There are no short cuts for finding out for sure the truth of a matter and peer-review pushers use it as such, but ONLY if it agrees with their own personal bigoted bias and prejudice in a matter. No amount of counter peer-review will ever be acknowledge publicly as being correct, especially if it's in front of YOUR PEERS.
On an interesting note, the 1953 DNA paper by Crick and Watson was not originally peer-reviewed. And Einsteins papers went unreviewed, but by the new cupcake definition given here, should we be rejecting those ?
BTW, you may enjoy this, it's about conforming to the norm if you want funding. Think or pursue something outside the establishment's mandated conventiona box and your paper for grant funding is screwed: https://ethicsinhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/study-section-2012-nature-22.pdf
This is where the peer-review fails. Having been a part of writing papers for grants [and receiving some] and being advised by some experts on what to write, it's a little disheartening. For example, if someone wants funding for an area or field in which some of your research shows maybe only 40% positives and 60% negatives towards your work or field of interest, you are encouraged to omit the negatives and exaggerate and embellish upon the positives. The main message here is that you didn't technically have to lie, even though you were not totally honest. But that's a mere loophole anyway.
This is the biggest problem, political and economic bias and bigotry are tough to weed out from the supposedly infallible peer-review process. If the peer-reviewer defenders disagree with what they perceive as an another person's ideological agenda, then they default into Pitbull tactics mode to demonize and character assassinate the perceived trouble maker. In this casr, Dr Pierpont. Monsanto has done this for years and with the U.S. Government's blessing. The U.S. Government themselves come out with their own biased version of peer-review and tells everyone all is well in Mayberry North Carolina and GMOs won't harm anything or anyone. So it should be no surprise when the Australian Government[it's Politicians] should also come out and do their own peer-review as no doubt they have a vested interest in Industrial Interests they perceive as either moving the economy or hindering it. Economies get politicians elected and re-elected. Environmental and ecological issues therefore will almost always take a back seat to Industry unless there is some pressing dire issue coupled with Media attention which actually forces them to do their jobs responsibly.
Translation: "My Australian Authority Peer-Review which I just happened to have a preferential flavour for, says so, and that trumps all of Dr Nina Pierpont's pathetic irrelevant meaningless references in my biased view"
This is a good thread. There have been many good arguments and references posted. There are obviously many facets to the wind power issues as well as the peer review system.
However, I would ask that everyone keep the conversation civil. REAL civil. Know that while good discussion, references, and logic can convey mind-changing information, strident tone of voice (e-voice?) and personal attacks only generate an emotional response, usually negative. We want to operate (and post) from our clear-thinking minds, not our muddled-emotional selves. Accept that not everyone does or will think just as we think. Post your bit as clearly as possible and let your ideas sink in on their own.
Interesting piece from Live Science and reported on Yahoo News:
Got Science? Pushing Back Against Corporate 'Counterfeit Science' (Op-Ed)
Thank you, the original article appeared here:
The author of the above article is a member of the UCS.
The UCS is a credible scientific institution.
As such, it is not surprising to learn 'wind power' features at the top of their following list:
Our Energy Choices: Renewable Energy
Yes well of course it does, that's what I said in my post, it originally appeared in "Live Science".
So, I have friends and acquaintances who are actually members of this organization, but like any other well meaning but imperfect human institution they also have issues like any other group they often target for rebuke
So what ? The Sierra Club takes money from Big Oil, so what ? Nothing surprises me anymore, Seriously, nothing! :think:
So, unless there is a rational, credible, scientific reason (i.e. evidence) to abandon wind energy in favour of coal, oil and gas, the OP is irrelevant.
Separate names with a comma.