Sunday, June 23, 2013

Wind Turbines and Health: a reading list

Read the literature, evaluate its credibility and then decide
By Will Collette

In my earlier article, I shared an insight I gained by sitting through three goddawful Zoning Board of Review (ZBR) hearings on the Whalerock wind farm proposal. That insight was that trying to have a rational discussion about the alleged health effects of wind turbines – an article of faith for most of the Whalerock opposition – was like getting into an argument about religion.

It seems that most of our anti-Whalerock neighbors now hold a deep and abiding faith that developer Larry LeBlanc’s proposed wind turbines will turn their brains into strawberry-flavored Jello®. They believe it and anyone who says differently should be burned as a heretic.

At the June 19 ZBR hearing, I saw Dr. Jay Singer of URI try to explain the difference between real science and fake science and get hooted down. I think there was even a row of spectators who were knitting caps and muttering, “la guillotine! La guillotine” as Dr. Singer tried to speak.
URI faculty member Dr. Jay Singer answers questions from Whalerock
lawyer Nick Gorham
Singer said that true science begins not with the conclusion, but with a question. Then a scientist applies the scientific method of data collection, observation, analysis, testing, postulating a hypothesis, testing it some more, replicating it, and sharing the data and conclusions with peers. Those peers then subject the scientist’s work to a rigorous critique that often sends the scientist back to do more work until she or he can demonstrate that the conclusions drawn are correct and can be duplicated by others.

ZBR member Crosson cites Nina "Pierpoint" [sp] as he gave his own
opposition testimony from behind the ZBR table. When this case hits Superior
Court, Crosson's "testimony" could become a huge problem for the town.
Junk science starts with the conclusion (examples: wind turbines make you sick, UFOs have landed in Richmond, fluoride is a communist plot, vaccines cause developmental disabilities) and then goes looking for anecdotes and support for that conclusion.

Just like Dr. Nina Pierpont, the #1 “authority” cited to support the creed that wind turbines make you sick. 

 Here, in her own words, is how she describes her method:

"I never set out to prove that wind turbines cause Wind Turbine Syndrome. This was already obvious. Instead, I chose to study and document the observations made by people who had already figured it out and proved it on their own."

And to the True Believers, that’s all they need. I was sitting in front of a couple of guys at the third hearing who kept blathering on about how any expert who says wind turbine syndrome isn’t real is “in the pocket of the industry.” They said wind power is stupid because we still have plenty of coal to burn. I'm not making this up.
Turning water into Kool-Aid

It was also pretty clear from listening to these guys for three hours that they’ve never read anything more than the pamphlets handed out by the Right Rev. Ron Areglado (right) and his Church of the Brain-Exploding Turbines.

There might still be some people out there who haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid® and want to read and judge the volumes of information that is out there. I have compiled a list of such materials – from all points of view – so you can read the materials, judge their credibility and arrive at informed conclusions.

The list is more or less random except for the first six entries that have been repeatedly cited during the course of the three ZBR hearings, such as the reports compiled by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Massachusetts Department of Environment Protection. And a link to the website where you can buy Nina Pierpont’s book.

As an added bonus, many of these links contain within them even more links to more sources.
at