Wind turbine syndrome: Farm hosts tell a very different story

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

People who host wind turbines on their properties and derive rental income from wind energy have important stories to tell, but is anyone listening?

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Conversation

People who host wind turbines on their properties and derive rental income from wind energy companies have important stories to tell about living alongside turbines, but they’ve largely been absent from the debate on wind farms and health. Australian filmmaker and researcher Neil Barrett is finally giving this critical group a voice in his new short film, The way the wind blows, released today.

In Barrett’s short film, 15 hosts and some of their neighbours from the central Victorian district near the town of Waubra tell what it’s like to live surrounded by large turbines.

Turbine hosts at Waubra earn A$8,000 a year for each turbine on their land. In the bush, the expression that wind farms can “drought-proof a farm” is common: a land owner with ten turbines can wake up each morning comfortable in the thought that a tough year with poor rain or bad frosts can be ridden out, thanks to income from wind generation.

All of Barrett’s interviewees say they can hear the turbines but none say they are bothered by them or suffer from any health problems they attribute to the turbines. If there is such a phenomenon as “wind turbine syndrome” it would seem it is a condition that, remarkably, can be prevented by the wonder drug called money.

Significantly, too, none of those interviewed say their contracts prevent them from speaking publicly about their experiences with hosting turbines, repudiating the mantra of wind farm opponents that suffering hosts are gagged from speaking out by evil wind companies.

In 2010, a small group comprising mostly wealthy landowners established the Waubra Foundation, which opposes wind farms being established near their country estates. None of the directors of the foundation nor its chief executive, an unregistered former GP Sarah Laurie, live within 125km of Waubra, yet took on the name of the town to highlight what they believe are serious health problems associated with living near wind turbines.

Barrett’s film reveals the deep resentment that Waubra residents feel about these out-of-towners hijacking their town’s good name. None say that Laurie has ever contacted them, with one commenting, “I wouldn’t give them the time of day if they turned up here.”

Laurie and the Waubra Foundation have done all they can to spread concern about the harms they allege are caused by living near wind farms. One former Waubra resident has been particularly prominent, speaking emotionally at anti-wind farm meetings about how wind farms have ruined his health and caused his family to move to Ballarat, at great personal expense.

In a statement that would be of immense interest to Apple, Samsung and Nokia, he recently told a meeting in Barringhup that electricity generated by wind turbines started charging his cell phone without it being plugged in:

I’ve had my … mobile phone go into charge mode in the middle of the paddock, away from everywhere.

In 2012, he wrote a public submission to a parliamentary inquiry where he revealed he had suffered a serious head injury some eight years before the wind farm opened in 2010:

I have been in brain training care and rehabilitation for about ten years because of an unfortunate, unrelated accident.

Indeed, the most common health complaints voiced by complainants are problems such as disturbed sleep, anxiety, hypertension and normal problems of ageing that are very prevalent in all communities, regardless of whether they have wind farms.

In a 2012 Ontario legal case, complainants were asked to provide their medical records going back a decade before the local wind farm commenced operation. This would have provided relevant information about any pre-existing health problems. When they failed to so, their case failed.

In a peer-reviewed paper of mine to be published shortly, I conducted an historical audit of all known health and noise complaints made about Australia’s 51 wind farms from 1993 to 2012. Using four sources (wind company records, submissions made to three parliamentary enquiries, local media monitoring records and court affidavits) I calculated the number of complainants around Australia.

More than two-thirds of Australian wind farms including more than half of those with large turbines have never received a single complaint. Two whole states – Western Australia and Tasmania – have seen no complaints.

Of the 129 individuals across Australia who have ever complained, 94 (73%) are residents near just six wind farms which have been targeted by anti wind farm groups.

Almost all (98%) of complainants made their first complaint after 2009 when anti wind farm groups began to add health concerns to their wider opposition. In the preceding years, health or noise complaints were rare despite large and small-turbine wind farms having operated for many years.

In late 2012, anti-wind farm campaigners launched an anonymous website, Stop These Things. The apparently well-funded site specialises in emotive videos of wind farm victims, but in nine months has only run profiles of 18 mostly aged complainants. Barrett’s film profiles nearly that number of people telling a very different story.

Anti-wind farm activists have promoted a bizarre and ever-growing number of health problems associated with turbine exposure. My favourite is the alarming problem of disoriented echidnas.

Among Laurie’s more interesting claims is that wind turbines cause lips to vibrate at up 10 kilometres, and that within 1km to 2km of wind turbines, air pressure changes occur “sufficient to knock them off their feet or bring some men to their knees when out working in their paddock” and “have been reported by farmers to perceptibly rock stationary cars”.

Laurie has repeatedly claimed that “a large number” or “over twenty families” and most recently “more than forty” families are “wind farm refugees” who have had to abandon their homes. But Laurie has declined requests to make her list public.

Another prominent activist George Papadopolous, claims to be able to sense a wind turbine at 100km away: from Sydney’s CBD to Lithgow, as the crow flies.

Barrett’s film brings a fresh and important perspective to a debate that has so far been dominated by a small number of complainants and those oxygenating their fears.

Fifteen years ago, Australian news media ran countless stories on community fears about mobile phone towers. Those still worrying about health risks from the towers are rare today. Wind turbine syndrome is likely to go the same way.

Simon Chapman AO is Professor of Public Health at University of Sydney. He receives no financial or other material support from any company or person in the wind energy industry or agents acting on their behalf.The Conversation

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

161 Comments
  1. Chris Fraser 6 years ago

    I think it should be possible to charge a mobile phone in the middle of a paddock if you have a magnetic personality. Moving a conductor (or phone) through a magnetic field generates a current from one end of it to the other. Even so, it has nothing to do with wind turbines.

    • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

      Chris, I suggest that if the claim is true it might have a little to do with stray voltage.

      • Tom 6 years ago

        I think you mean stray current. Voltage alone cannot charge a phone. Anyway your point is redundant because there are detectors on the lines to look for such currents. If a difference is detected between phases or ground the turbines are tripped offline. This safety feature is common to all power lines which is why “stray voltage” doesn’t affect anyone, anywhere near electricity infrastructure.

        • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

          Notice how George doesn’t like to read information which corrects and highlights his ignorance?

          • Will Robertson 6 years ago

            That was a painful string of comments to read in one go. I was impressed by George’s tenacity but it reminds me heavily of the Identity-protective cognition thesis where there is a disabling ofvyhe faculties to make sense of decision relevant science. Can I recommend people read the article “Motivated numeracy and enlightened self government” by the Cultural Cognition Project.

        • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

          Tom, yes perhaps stray current.
          Are you referring however to stray current presenting from the wind farm installation or from harmonics in the primary neutral?

          • Tom 6 years ago

            Neither exist. I think you may have gotten overexcited when you saw people lighting fluorescent tubes under HV lines. The same can’t happen with phones. I would highly recommend that you do first year physics. It may make you a lot less worried about modern technology.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Tom, neither exist? That’s what you think!

          • Tom 6 years ago

            Go get some measurements. Or look for an AEMO report outlining why the grid collapsed due to “stray voltage”. Come back with some evidence to educate us with, rather than science fiction stories.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago
          • Tom 6 years ago

            That could be a risk for SWER lines but not transmission. Ground currents would be instantly detected and trip the line, as mentioned above.

          • Tom 6 years ago

            I should have mentioned, SWER lines are ‘single wire earth return’. Common in rural, residential areas because it foregoes the need for an earth wire = cheaper but dodgier.

      • Catprog 6 years ago

        I can generate high voltage myself. Rub two bits of fur together and static electricity is generated. Static electricity is very high voltage compared with grid electricity.

  2. George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

    Can the sociologist “public health expert” about his “research” and interpretation of it:

    1) In the reference provided, where do I claim to hear ONE wind turbine 100km away?

    2) Chapman says: “Turbine hosts at Waubra earn A$8,000 a year for each turbine on their land” BUT “they can hear the turbines but none say they are bothered by them or suffer from any health problems they attribute to the turbines.”
    Placebo effect perhaps, maybe denial, much like smokers who don’t attribute their health to smoking? But strangely NO mention of whether hosts actually live on the property and are able to sleep their 365 days of the year without being kept awake some nights…

    3) Chapman again won’t investigate the claims of electromagnetic radiation around Waubra, or ask others to do so, because he is aware the man who made the claims has “brain damage”. What about the published research on electromagnetic radiation around wind farms? Why does Chapman feel the man’s “brain damage” had anything to do with these claims?

    • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

      George, why not watch the videos and see what the hosts and neighbours say for themselves?

      • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

        Mike, have you watched any of the videos presenting the stories of wind turbine victims? I can supply you with a list if you haven’t.

        • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

          Yes, and you are changing the topic.

          I take it based on your response and comments that you have not watched the videos and do not intend to. Please confirm. Silence on this point is, of course, confirmation.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Mike, my apologies, but can someone get me a copy of one of those Waubra contracts? There is no mention about gag clauses – just people stating that Acciona hasn’t stopped them from speaking to others.
            Oops I’ve changed topic. Now back to my original questions Chapman.

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            George, you have an absurdly high regard for your centrality and importance, do you know that? Why in hell would anyone share a commercial contract of any sort with you? Why would you even think anyone would? You — like me frankly — are a random gadfly. I wouldn’t presume that anyone at Waubra would show me their mortgage, their car loan papers or their wedding license, and I wouldn’t assume that they would show me a contract on a commercial venture that they entered into. They appeared to have showed them to Neil Barrett. He videotaped them. Presumably he read them. The documentaries say no gag clauses and the people who signed them say that they can say what they want.

            So lets see. More people and households are interviewed than all of the registered complaints at Waubra. They say that they like the wind turbines, they can hear them occasionally and that they don’t bother them. They live well under — what was it again? 70 km? 100 km? — Oh yes, they live 800 m or less from some and are surrounded by up to 27 of them that they can see. They say that they and people that they know have no health problems. They say that they are allowed to say whatever they want.

            Surely George, since you don’t believe statistical evidence, but only anecdotal evidence on wind energy, surely this must be adequate? Surely the plainspun honesty of these people living with wind turbines with… um… no issues whatsoever must press upon you?

            Instead, you are second-guessing the words of local farmers as if you are a lawyer instead of a pharmacist with a sideline in EMF ghost hunting, looking for silly loopholes. And requesting that people in Singapore get you copies of contracts with people in Waubra?

            Nutty. And deeply egotistical.

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            Here is an excerpt from a wind turbine lease in my area. Would you sign this contract?
            “Lessor grants to lessee a non-exclusive license for audio, visual, view, light, flicker, noise, shadow, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, electrical and radio frequency interference, and any other effects attributable to the wind power facilities or activity located on the leased lands or on adjacent properties (“effects of license”).The burden of the effects of license shall run with and bind the lands and every part thereof and benefit the lessee’s interest in the leased lands and such other lands that the lessee may have a real property interest in the leased lands and such other lands that the lessee may have a real property interest in from time to time and which form part of the project. If requested by the lesssee, the lessor shall execute and deliver to the lessee such separate and registerable transfer of easements which reproduce the terms of the effects license.”

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            Here is another wind turbine lease from a different wind corporation in Ontario. Again it doesn’t look good on the wind industry:
            “free and unencumbered easement…over, along, and upon the Transferor’s Lands for the right and privilege to permit heat, sound, vibration, shadow, flickering of light, noise (including grey noise) or any other adverse effect or combination thereof resulting directly or indirectly from the operation of the Transferee’s wind turbine facilities situated…within the Townships of Melancthon and Amaranth, in the County of Dufferin…”.

            “…The Transferor further acknowledges and agrees that the operation of the Transferee’s wind turbine facilities located on the Leasehold Lands may affect the living environment of the Transferor and that the Transferee will not be responsible or liable for, of and from any of the Transferor’s complaints, claims, demands, suits, actions, or causes of action of every kind known or unknown which may arise directly or indirectly from the Transferee’s wind turbine facilities on the Leasehold Lands to the extent permitted by this Easement”.

            “In addition, the Transferor hereby covenants and agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Transferee from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, costs and expenses arising from any direct, indirect or consequential damages arising out of a complaint, claim, action or cause of action initiated by the Transferor as against the Transferee for anything permitted by this Easement in relation to the Transferee’s wind turbine facilities located on the Leasehold Lands”.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            So Dan, a contract that condemns the host. Thank you very much for your postings.

          • Sarah D 6 years ago

            Condemns the host? Your (and Dan’s) interpretation of these contracts (which are anyway not relative to the Waubra ones under discussion) seems very much a reflection of what’s in your mind, rather than what’s actually written there.

            As has already been stated elsewhere, the real issue could be that we are, perhaps, seeing publicly for the first time, ordinary folk in Australia telling us there’s no gag clauses.

            You’ll both, I’m sure, understand that this means that there’s yet another myth that wind farm opponents will no longer be able to sustain.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Sarah, if there are no “gag” clauses, then there might be “commercial in confidence” clauses. There might also be other fancy buzz words in the contract which slip away from the “gag” clause definition.
            Why do you think then that Acciona doesn’t permit a copy of its contract go public, and why do you think Sarah Laurie originally claimed that people were “gagged” about speaking out? Has it ever passed your mind that maybe Acciona uses different contracts for different people?

          • Sarah D 6 years ago

            Indeed, I’d say it can make a lot of sense to use different contracts for different people, but not for any reasons you imply. I’ve negotiated different terms to standard contracts myself. Contracts are typically a 2 way process; not a conspiracy theory.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Sarah, maybe you need to speak to a solicitor. They should do a good job at warning about how well the 2 way process works sometimes…

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            The wind corporation’s contracts are almost always a one way street. The salesman push very hard to get the landowner to sign the contract without getting an ILA (Independent Legal Advice).

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            Gag clauses are signed when the wind corproation buys out the wind victims unliveable property. This has happened in Ontario many times already.

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            By the way Sarah would you sign a lease with any of the clauses I have excerpted?

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Dan, I have always suspected that there are “articles of faith” that must be adhered to or else one is excommunicated from the wind turbine religion.

          • Sarah D 6 years ago

            Actually, I’ve just signed a contract for international travel insurance, whose conditions are far more terrifying than anything I see here.

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            That’s silly, I’m not asking about travel insurance. Now answer the question. Would you sign a lease on your property with any of the above conditions

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Mike, the video was another anecdotal report against the anecdotes of others. The studies of Nissenbaum 2013 and Shepherd 2012 are based on statistics that reached significance.
            I didn’t hear one host in that video state that they are not restricted in any way by the contract to get Acciona’s permission to speak to the public about their experience. Does that explain why it took two-three years since the “Waubra disease” reports started to finally get some, but not all hosts to make their testimonies?

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            How reliable are individual wind and health studies as evidence? Assessing five factors — quality of publication, hierarchy of evidence, full declaration of any biases, inclusions and exclusions of references and methodology and structure of the evidence — can assist in rapidly getting a sense of how much weight to put on individual wind and health pieces of evidence. http://barnardonwind.com/2013/06/27/how-should-you-assess-the-quality-of-a-wind-health-study/

            Analysis of the 50 most commonly cited studies, reviews and governmental reports used by both sides finds that the literature used by anti-wind campaigners to claim health impacts is much, much less reliable than the evidence showing no health impacts outside of limited noise annoyance to some. http://barnardonwind.com/2013/08/06/health-studies-reliability/

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            It hardly boosts your credibility when you constantly self reference your little vanity project/blog.

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            And it hardly boosts your credibility when you never provide any references and are consistently and solely negative.

            Do try telling us what you are actually for sometime, instead of spreading defamation and smears in your path like a toxic snail.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Mike, here is what others think your analysis:

            http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/9/921.full

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            How amusing! I hadn’t realized that they’d bothered to respond to my Rapid Response. No one had bothered to point it out.

            For those wondering what George is muttering about, three folks with irrelevant or at best tangential credentials — a chartered management accountant, a retired pharmacist and a rural GP — managed to slip by peer review in Canadian Family Physician with a deeply biased article that basically ignored a bunch of stuff and tried to elevate a bunch of very weak references into something more.

            I put together a quick Rapid Response ripping it to the shreds it deserved to be in. See this for the full version I put on my blog.
            http://barnardonwind.com/2013/05/22/when-medical-practitioners-mislead-trio-targets-family-doctors-with-bad-information/

            Of course, I wasn’t the only one who tore the Commentary to shreds. Here’s a sample from the Rapid Responses. Oddly, Krogh et al didn’t respond to the thrashing they received from these fine fellows, but picked on the blogger. How odd.

            Kieran Moore, Associate Medical Officer of Health at KFL&A Public Health, W. David Colby, Chatham-Kent Medical Off
            In this article, the authors’ statement that “owing to the lack of adequately protective siting guidelines, people exposed to IWTs can be expected to present to their family physicians in increasing numbers” is both alarmist and inappropriate.

            W. David Colby, Chatham-Kent Medical Officer of Health
            Professor, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University
            From the use of the inflammatory qualifier “industrial” in the title to the declaration of “Competing Interests” at the end, this article is anti-wind turbine propaganda. Although designated as “Commentary”, the peer reviewed status implies some level of endorsement. I asked almost every physician with expertise about wind turbines and health in Canada if they had been asked to review this article and none had.

            The article is replete with unreferenced and often alarmist statements, selective citations (e.g. quoting the WHO definition of health to support the concept that annoyance itself is a health effect, without mentioning that the WHO does not use annoyance as a measured health end point) (1) and statements relying on unscientific references. If these were edited from the article, little would remain.

            Dr. Rosana Pellizzari, Medical Officer of Health Dr. Farhan Asrar
            Peterborough County-City Health Unit
            We agree with the observations that individuals that are angry or annoyed are bound to experience symptoms such as stress or sleep disturbance. Empathy from their primary care provider is always a good approach. However, the commentary, as a whole, was hyperbolic and not something that family physicians should rely upon for advice or as a reference.

            Gideon Forman , Executive Director
            Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
            Virtually absent from this article is any discussion of the hazards posed by other forms of energy generation.

            Coal-fired facilities, for instance, are a significant source of chromium and arsenic (carcinogens), sulphur dioxide (acid rain), dioxin, and of course greenhouse gases. Ontario’s coal plants, for example, were once the single largest source of GHGs in the province.

            Dr. Jeffrey and his colleagues conclude in their article that “industrial wind turbines can harm human health”. Unfortunately the remainder of their commentary provides no evidence that this is so.

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            Thanks for pointing this out George. I’ve updated my blog post on their shlocky Commentary based on this interaction.

            Won’t it be fun the next time you try this weird tactic and get shot down in flames at embarrassing length quickly?

            I do love a couple of their remarks by the way.

            First, they deny that the Society for Wind Vigilance is an anti-wind organization. That’s downright hilarious, as virtually every member of the board of advisors is fighting wind farms near their homes, or like Carl Phillips has a history of taking the most convenient money to testify on the wrong side of evidence and science (for those not in the know, he took a lot of money from the tobacco industry and then kept saying that chewing tobacco was pretty damned healthy for people).

            Second, they cherry-pick a quote from Geoff Leventhall to support their , when Mr. Leventhall’s expert opinions on wind energy and health are widely available and clearly stated. This, of course, despite his efforts to stamp out misuse of his name.

            Hey, George, did you hear that Krogh was at the Denver wind energy and health conference a couple of weeks ago presenting this BS by the way? And she was shot down publicly, humiliatingly and massively by Dr. Colby for misuse of references, cherry picking and misstating?

            Gotta love antis like Krogh and her hubby and coauthor Horner (the CMA). They move to a small town for their retirement, then get pissed off when the small town wants to have a better economy and start fighting against it tooth and nail, against the better interests of the people who are trying to make a living and raise their children there.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Mike, the accusations against Krogh were patently baseless. Colby and others just had a chance to howl their lungs out but didn’t mention specifically what was wrong with Krogh’s interpretation of references.

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            You misspelled something there. Not sure how, but “completely and utterly destroyed her base premises” was misspelled as “had a chance to howl their lungs out”.

            You might want to upgrade your computer to something that catches obvious typos like that.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Mike, I really struggle to follow your logic. There are no other studies like those performed by Nissenbaum et al and Shepherd et al – the rest are all opinions, reviews (which missed these two studies) and reports.

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            I know you fail to follow the logic George, because you keep saying so. We understand the difficulty.

            Let me try spelling it out for you as you refuse, apparently, to read the referenced material.

            Evidence-based medicine is the basis of modern diagnosis and treatment. It has a hierarchy of evidence.

            The literature reviews of all available evidence are of greater evidentiary value than any individual study, regardless of quality.

            The two studies are very weak regardless and don’t pass muster.

            The Nissenbaum study has very significant failings and fundamentally does not show what it purports to show. Two separate critiques were published April 2013 in Noise and Health: asserted correlation to data which was not supportable, average person in study and control groups was poor sleeper by Epworth and PQSI scales, assertion of health impacts that were not supported by the data.
            http://barnardonwind.com/2013/02/25/a-study-in-noise-and-health-shows-that-wind-farms-cause-people-to-lose-sleep-how-reliable-is-this-study/

            The Shepherd study – by which I assume you mean the NZ study — has been rejected for poor quality by every tribunal it’s been brought forward for due to it’s failings. Study of quality of life via surveys of people living near wind farms vs control group distant from wind farms by independent researchers. Study ignored TV coverage promoting wind health impacts and recency of wind farm startup as factors, as well as historical literature which indicates importance of these factors. Accepts Pierpont, Salt and Harry very weak papers without qualification. Small study size of 39 and non-equivalent control group, but very strong conclusion of > 2km setbacks in hilly terrain. Study found no self-reported variance in health or current illness, but ignored that finding in conclusions. Found reduced quality of life scores. This paper rejected as evidence at Australian Environmental Court due to quality concerns.
            http://barnardonwind.com/2013/08/06/health-studies-reliability/

            That you hold onto anecdotal evidence — at the very bottom of the hierarchy of evidence — and these two studies — very weak and in the middle of the hierarchy of evidence, over literature reviews of all of the available literature on noise, health and wind farms merely shows that you don’t understand evidence based medicine.

            Of course, this is obvious from your sideline of EMF ghost busting, but I thought I’d spell it out for you.

    • Neville Bott 6 years ago

      As coal fired power plants have about 10x the electromagnetic radiation (ie around 1GW vs 100MW ) of a large wind farm, how is it that we don’t have coal power station syndrome?

      If you can explain how the power produced by a coal power station is somehow different to a wind turbine then your contribution to physics would be as great as say Maxwell or Faraday.

      • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

        Neville, unlike magnet generators, inverters produce harmonics:

        Walling RPE, Mueller D, 2011, Harmonics and Resonance Issues in Wind Power, IEEE PES General
        Meeting July 26th, 2011 Detroit, MI. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/td/wind/Harmonics_and%20Resonance_Issues_in_Wind_Power%20.pdf

        • Paul 6 years ago

          George, harmonics on a power networks are caused by everything from fluoro lights to welders. Grid power has always had harmonics. Inverters used in PV systems actually produce a sine wave that is a lot lower in THD than the average grid…not sure about wind turbines but I doubt they would be much different. But even if they did produce a high level of THD then so what …there had never been any indication that harmonics in a power network cause any health issues.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Paul, harmonics above the range of 1500 hertz dissipate into the human body. Inverters typically produce harmonics in the range.
            Harmonics in three phase systems don’t cancel out in the neutral and stray out through earthing points once the impedance in the neutral becomes significant.

          • Paul 6 years ago

            George. A couple of key points I want to re emphasize:
            : Wind turbines do not create significant harmonics in the power network. It even says this in the article you linked to (see conclusion part 2 page 35)
            : severe THD in power networks can impact the “health” of sensitive electrical equipment. Harmonics in power networks are not related to health issues in humans…high frequency, low frequency, mid frequency…what ever …it doesnt matter. If you have evidence to the contrary please share it with us.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            “in general” says the conclusion, but sometimes, a significant source of harmonic distortion:

            http://elforsk.se/Rapporter/?download=report&rid=12_51_

            I hope this clarifies the matter.

          • Paul 6 years ago

            Not really no. Again the article says that the impact of wind turbines on harmonics on power networks is low…in fact I quote from the article “…at harmonic frequencies their emission is much smaller than the emission from industrial, commercial or domestic installations”…but as I said before it doesnt matter if they were worse…as harmonics in power networks are not known to have any health impacts in humans. Surely before this discussion goes further what should first be established is do harmonics in power networks have negative health impacts. If you can first prove this is a problem then we can talk about the cause.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Paul, I will say it again, harmonic of more than 1500 hertz dissipate into the human body.

            Here is one paper that elaborates on this:

            Milham S, Morgan L, 2008, ‘A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric: High Frequency Voltage Transients Associated With Increased Cancer Incidence in Teachers in a California School’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine vol. 51, pp579–586.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Posted in error

          • Tom 6 years ago

            Wow. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that you don’t know crap about power systems. “magnet generators” which ones? Coal power certainly doesn’t use ’em. “1500 Hz” -is often a signal carrier. Did you even read the link you posted? I guess you didn’t understand the physics huh?
            Like Paul said harmonics from wind farms are small. Pretty much in line with regular generation and certainly much cleaner than some appliances.
            If you can prove a link between wind generators and health you’d get the Nobel prize for physics and medicine. Why don’t you start with some evidence instead of throwing around jargon like you actually understand it?

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Paul and Tom, did you read the references I posted? I think they clarify the issue that under some circumstances wind farms do become significant emitters of harmonics, and the paper by Milham goes into further detail about harmonics and human health.

          • Paul 6 years ago

            George. I read two of the three links as previously noted and quoted. The third link is not a link but a journal article. I can find the abstrct for the article but not the article itself. The abstract suggests the issue is about the impacts of HV transmission line on health….not wind turbines. So if the article is correct and HV transmission lines cause cancer then you should be attacking them and not wind turbines…or at least be balnced and attack all forms of electrcity generation.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Paul, I suggest you try your hands on the original article. It discusses high voltage TRANSIENTS, not high voltage powerlines. That is frequencies measurable by a Graham-Stetzer metre 5-100 khertz.

          • Paul 6 years ago

            George. Given how the other two article you provided were so poorly interpreted by you then I can only believe that this third article is also taken out of context. Given you have access to the article then provide a link.
            .
            If these wind turbines are as dangerous as you say then there must loads of evidence of this ?? surely?? but I see nothing like this in any of the information you are providing.
            .
            Have you considered another hypothesis. i.e.wind turbines,are no more harmful than any other electrical generation technology and in many cases alot less harmful (i.e. Coal and Nuclear generation)

            Just a thought

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Paul, before we continue our discussion can I ask you about your background? Maybe I need to be a bit more explicit and give you more reading material so you understand where I come from.

            I do strongly suggest that you familiarise your self with the research Magda Havas has done with regards to dirty electricity: http://www.magdahavas.com/

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            And by the way, from the first reference that you place your trust in: “Wind plants tend to have resonances – Attract and amplify ambient grid distortion”

          • Tom 6 years ago

            Not the farms themselves but the cap banks. Cap banks are present throughout the entire transmission and distribution system for voltage and VAR support. The author clearly spells that out. Oh I forgot, you aren’t an energy specialist in any way.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            No I’m not an energy specialist Tom, much like you aren’t a health professional. But peculiarities of EMR and how they relate to human health is an area of great interest to me..

          • Tom 6 years ago

            That’s great, but if this is a hobby you should stop inciting fear with your nonsense fairy tales.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            so Tom, when I assess according to the Austrian Medical Association guidelines I am inciting fears with fairy tales?

            http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/EMF-Guideline.pdf

          • Tom 6 years ago

            They mentioned everything electrical as a source of EMF. What makes wind turbines different to cordless phones or wifi in your opinion?

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Tom, this a question that needs no answer – particularly when posed by someone who is “electronically” literate.

          • Tom 6 years ago

            Enlighten me. For anyone else who is interested why one very particular electrical device is so vastly different to all the others.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Tom, its a hard act to follow, but Chapman in recent times suggested that I walk in people’s home with a meter and warn them of “evil” radiation. Can you see me doing that?

          • Tom 6 years ago

            Paul’s original question was why other generators are not sources of the nefarious EMF. We have both stated that the electrical characteristics of wind farms are unremarkable. Please explain why EMF from wind farms is a threat but EMF from other generators is acceptable.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Tom, I haven’t seen so many bizarre health problems elsewhere, so other forms of electricity generation haven’t attracted my attention.

          • Tom 6 years ago

            I’m an engineer currently working for a renewable energy company.
            Please explain why EMF from wind farms is a threat but EMF from other generators is acceptable.
            Also please state your qualifications and how they are relevant to this issue.
            If you do not answer these questions directly, I and all other readers will have to assume 1. you have no idea what the difference in EMF between generators is, and 2. you have no qualifications relevant to the topic of health.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Tom, it sounds as though you’re a little coy to mention with company you work for…

            But you want me to answer all the question in the world…

            Does your company use inverters in its set up? If yes, which wind farms?

          • Tom 6 years ago

            I don’t want to play into your diversions. Too late. Explain to me why wind farm EMF is different to coal power EMF and I will endeavour to get information on all the wind farms regarding inverters.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Tom, answer my questions first, or you can wait for my response.

          • Tom 6 years ago

            OK I will wait for your response.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Tom, pardon me but do coal plant generators use inverters or rotating magnets?

          • Tom 6 years ago

            Neither. They use induction generators. So do ALL of the large wind turbines in Australia. Many farms do not even use inverters and the ones that do invert only a small portion of their output. You are railing against technology standard across the entire electrical industry. If you are so afraid of harmonics affecting your chi you will have to give up electricity entirely.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Tom, so which wind farm don’t use inverters? And which use induction generators?

          • Tom 6 years ago

            ALL large wind turbines in Australia use induction generators. The tiny ones use permanent magnet generators and the Chinese are keen on PMGs too. Sorry I don’t have an exhaustive list of balance of plant for all power plants in the NEM.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Tom, so which wind farm do you work for?
            And how do you synchronise the waveforms from multiple variable speed generators (wind turbines) into one wave form?

          • Tom 6 years ago

            They are synchronous generators…. induction generators…. I’m not going to teach you 3 phase in a comments section. Just google it.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Tom, I guess in the ideal world that are synchronous generators, but some of the waveforms that are quoted on Havas’s site show that in the real world, the generators are sort of synchronous…

          • Tom 6 years ago

            Could you please link me? I don’t know what you are referring to.

        • Neville Bott 6 years ago

          Inverters in Wind Turbines are no different to the thousands of inverters used in industry, and if you do have an issue to raise it’s with HV transmission.

          I see you absolutely don’t have a clue what you are talking about or worse are simply trying to spread Fear Uncertainty and Deception, nothing will be gained from continuing this discussion

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Oh yes, fear and uncertainty. I’m just waving my wand and casting spells… I’ll be as humane as possible – trust me!

  3. Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

    In the interests of informed discussion, people need to know that George Papadopoulos is a proponent of pseudoscience and makes money selling products of doubtful value to uninformed and gullible people.

    http://geovital.com.au/geovital_george_papadopoulos_nsw.html

    It should also be noted that George’s dismal understanding of wind energy technology and basic physics leads him to confuse infrasound with electromagnetic radiation. Essentially he promotes nonsense and non-science while ignoring evidence-based science.

    • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

      Giles, could you please remove all the BS from Blair.

      • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

        What BS are you referring to to George? I have only posted the link to your website so others can verify what I have said and highlighted your confusion regarding infrasound and EMR which you have refused to acknowledge on a number of occasions. I can understand your embarrassment, you promote pseudoscience, you lack any genuine understanding of basic physics but claim to be a member of a so-called “Academy” that isn’t highly regarded due to its dubious claims, and, you play on the fears of uninformed people to flog dodgy products to the sick and worried.

        Everything I have stated is true and easily checked.

        • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

          Blair, does your little mind have a reference to prove this allegation:
          It should also be noted that George’s dismal understanding of wind energy technology and basic physics leads him to confuse infrasound with electromagnetic radiation. Essentially he promotes nonsense and non-science while ignoring evidence-based science.

          • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

            I have provided a reference several times, your website. Also, people only need to search for your name and references to EMR to see you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. You don’t seem to realise that your frequent inane posts all over the Internet have left a fairly damaging source of convenient evidence…

            Example:
            http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/6/11/wind-power/no-answer-question-anti-wind-farm-groups-ethics

            [George Papadopoulos, Tue, 2013-06-11 18:48

            Keith, I set out two years ago to understand why people around wind farms were getting ill because I didn’t understand or agree that noise could make people so sick – I thought it was all electro-magnetic radiation.

            It was at this point that I could not explain why myself or my companions were feeling so sick at up to several kilometres distance from the smaller Crookwell I wind turbines, away from cables, that could certainly not be explained by EMR but by something else – perhaps low frequency noise. I ended up writing an open letter to add my voice to the shambolic situation: http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2011/we-were-compelled-to-leave-the-s

            I think that your choice to believe Chapman’s “research” that Sarah Laurie is simply a scaremongering witch is a fairly poor one.]

            Your problem is George that you’re not very good at remembering your assorted fictions or that you post them all over the place. On the plus side, it makes it easy for the rest of us to see you are less than honest, or, informed.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Blair, you and your favourite professor and both such perfect distorters and word flippers. Don’t you have anything better to amuse your poor mind with?
            Your reference doesn’t even suggest anything about me confusing physics of EMF and ILFN! I simply thought at one point in time that EMF explained the bizarre health problem around wind farms.

  4. Sarah 6 years ago

    Ah, “wind turbine syndrome”! I’m rather proud of the fact that I can lay claim to some 40+ symptoms from the hilarious handy wall chart of WTS symptoms from First Dog on the Moon. But then I do have a lead over some, with MS – and I now find even MS has made the list in itself. Oh well, perhaps I’m just an outlier – because my passion for
    wind farms over these past 12 months has actually **improved** my health.

    I was almost distracted from the main point of this item: I think it’s just great to hear these positive stories coming out from people living with wind farms. Clearly the tide is
    turning, and that aggressive minority voice of wind farm opponents is being displaced
    by the somewhat quieter, but more well-reasoned majority who support wind.
    Great article.

  5. Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

    “In a 2012 Ontario legal case, complainants were asked to provide their medical records going back a decade before the local wind farm commenced operation. This would have provided relevant information about any pre-existing health problems. When they failed to so, their case failed.”
    I find it queer that Chapman has brought up this particular legal case more than once. It’s not clear what conclusions Chapman is drawing from this case as he doesn’t make any other than to note that the appeal failed.
    Perhaps it would provide clarity to note that the reason why victim witnesses couldn’t provide their medical records was because the Tribunal gave an order on February 9th to make available all relevant records by February 16th, 2012. In 3 business days the Tribunal expected witnesses to gather all medical records for the previous 10 years including medical records from general practitioners, specialists, neurologists, psychiatrists, psychologist, all doctors notes, all medical referrals and opinions,all hospital records of visits treatments and surgeries.
    Obviously even someone with unlimited resources would have difficulty gathering all the relevant records required on such short notice, especially when one considers that many OHIP medical records in Ontario only go back 7 years. To expect regular lay witnesses to provide this information in such short time was just unrealistic and the appeal had to be dropped.
    However many of the same victim witnesses for the MLWAG appeal did gather their medical records for the previous 10 years and testified at the later ERT hearing for Ostrander Point held in May 2013.

    • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

      Dan again thank you for your clarification over the matter.
      Chapman is good at mocking and deriding others, but he isn’t at all efficient in organising for a Cohort study around wind farms much like Nissenbaum et al did.

    • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

      It’s not hard to understand why Simon Chapman raises the Ontario legal case. The case fell over when it was revealed the people complaining of symptoms from wind turbines actually had pre-existing medical conditions, most of which appear to be indistinguishable from the ill effects allegedly caused by wind turbines.

      • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

        No you are confused, that’s not what happened in the ERT appeal. The victim witnesses never had the chance to testify due to time extreme time conditions imposed upon them by a tribunal ruling and the appeal was withdrawn.

        • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

          You have already revealed you have a low regard for the facts. I have read about the case from third parties commenting on the legalese rather than the merits of the case. You are wrong.

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            The fact is you are wrong. You wrote and I quote “The case fell over when it was revealed the people complaining of symptoms from wind turbines actually had pre-existing medical conditions” Obviously this is wrong because no victim witnesses testified at this ERT. Do you want to tell the rest of this how this was “revealed” to the ERT? Were the Tribunal panelists telepathic or something?

          • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

            As I said earlier, I read commentary about the legalese of the case concerned where it was pointed out that calls for the medical records of the complainants resulted in the case falling over when the opponents realised their medical records could be used against them. Are you telling us the complainants represent themselves? I wasn’t at the hearing and neither were you so stop pretending you have all the facts.

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            Why do you presume I wasn’t at the hearing? The Zephyr wind factory is within 10 km of my home. I am related to the directors of the appellant and have more background access to the facts than your reliance on third party commentaries from a continent away.

          • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

            Probably for the same reason you presume Simon Chapman is being disingenuous

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            All I can say is when once one starts rambling on about a “wonder drug called money” credibility is hard to regain.

          • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

            Have you never used a euphemism when trying to make a point?

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            Do you think use of euphemism is good science?

          • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

            If a euphemism was employed in the writing of a research paper, it might detract from the message but Simon’s article appeared in The Conversation, intended for all readers. A distinction you appear to have missed.

      • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

        Two separate cases.

        Dan is actually correct in one sense about the preceeding case. The people didn’t want to make the effort to gather their medical histories, so the case fell apart.

        Of course, the Ostrander Pt tribunal is the one Blair is talking about. There, after a couple of years passed and a bunch of money and persuasion was poured into them, some complainants did gather and present their medical histories.

        And Blair is very accurate in his description of what happened. They all had pre-existing conditions, in most cases very serious, that they were ignoring in favour of blaming wind turbines for their symptoms.

        Personally, I’m disgusted at the abuse of these sick people by anti-wind campaigners and lawyers. They are being prevented from dealing appropriately with their ailments because they are being supported in their delusions.

        • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

          Mike, thanks for the clarification. Dan, my apologies for not being more specific initially.

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            Isn’t it fascinating that a comment with an apology and a thank you is downvoted three times so far?

            It kind of tells you how anti-wind campaigners think, doesn’t it?

          • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

            Mike, I wasn’t holding my breath waiting for any magnanimous reply from Dan. He didn’t disappoint.

    • Simon_Chapman 6 years ago

      Dan, I just spoke to my GP & asked how long it would take him to get a copy of my medical records going back 10 years. He said he could give me the last 8 years which are electronic within seconds, and could photocopy the other 2 years within a day. He of course has copies of any specialist reports where he was the referring doctor. I’d be amazed if the situation wasn’t any different in Canada

      • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

        You would think so but apparently things are a little backwards here in Ontario. One third of patients in Ontario right now do not have electronic records. Google eHealth Ontario’ s government website and see for yourself.

        • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

          Here is the link on electronic health records Simon http://www.ehealthontario.on.ca/en/progress-report

        • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

          Dan, since I worked on aspects of Ontario’s and Canada’s eHealth initiatives and helped build the most sophisticated public health surveillance solution in the world, I actually know what I’m talking about.

          There is no complete and unified e-health record accessible to multiple practitioners and offices. That part is true.

          Virtually every medical practice has a computerized system for a subset of medical records supplemented by a large filing cabinet with a single file for each patient.

          Any patient who has maintained the same doctor for any length of time can walk in and walk out with their complete medical history for the duration of their treatment with that doctor, including referrals to specialists, most test results and prior medical history as captured by the doctor.

          If they see specialists, they may need to request the same of the specialists, but this at best would be an additional visit or two for someone in reasonable health.

          People like me who move around a lot and between countries are out of luck, but rural dwellers on average have much more stable relationships with their GPs than I do, and even rural doctors have computers.

          It is trivial for the vast majority of moderately healthy Canadians in rural areas to get their medical histories. If it is difficult and time consuming for them to assemble a medical history, it’s because they have an enormous history of pre-existing conditions which have required significant visits to a large number of specialists and likely urban hospital stays and treatments.

          Sorry, Dan, but I read the Ostrander testimony and cross-examination. I have a great deal of sympathy for the deluded complainants who are all suffering real medical problems that have nothing to do with wind farms near them, virtually all of which pre-dated — per their medical records — the wind farms even being approved.

          I do have not sympathy for people like you and Gillespie who are encouraging these sick people in their delusion that their serious medical issues are due to wind turbines and preventing them from getting the treatment that they require for root causes.

          One person, as a single example, was obese, had hypertension and Type A Diabetes several years before wind turbines were approved and installed. In his testimony, he blamed all of these conditions on wind turbines. Cross-examination was painful for him, as you can imagine.

          It was painful for me to read it. I was livid. Frankly, a few months later I still am.

          You should be livid too. And you are, but at the wrong target.

          Once again: look in a mirror. And think how you will feel in a few years about spreading stress and fear that causes people to become sick and misattribute serious issues to the wrong cause.

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            In Ontario eHealth has become synonymous with scandal and highly paid consultants that contracted for $2,750 a day and than billed the taxpayers for cookies and tea.. According to the Ontario auditor http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ehealth-scandal-a-1b-waste-auditor-1.808640 1 billion dollars has been wasted on ehealth and still according to the Ontario government website link here http://www.ehealthontario.on.ca/en/progress-report only 2 out of every 3 patients have electronic records and only 6 out of 10 medical doctors use an electronic medical record in their practice. Tell me Mike. are you saying that the percentages posted on the the Ministry of Health’s website are wrong?

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            Dan, once again: big file cabinets full of files for each patient.

            You are arguing an immaterial point.

            The majority have electronic records. All of them have files. All of this is easily and quickly accessible for anybody in reasonable health who has lived in the same place for a while.

            Which part of this do you think is false?

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            According to Simon’s GP it takes I day of photocopying for every 2 years of files. So if there are no electronic health records it would take 5 business days. These victim witnesses’ needed to do it in 3 business days. Now I know you’ve lived in Ontario recently so you would understand that unless it is an pressing medical matter you can’t just get an immediate appointment with your family doctor to ask for your medical records. It was an impossibility for the victim witness’s to get there records together in 3 business days. It’s irrelevant anyways because many of these witness’s testified with their 10 year medical records at the Ostrander Point ERT. Why does Chapman bring this appeal up at all beyond me? Like I said in my first comment he doesn’t seem to draw any conclusions from the Zephyr appeal other than it was dropped.

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            Also remember that the percentages without electronic records is for the present time. In February 2012 far fewer patients had access to electronic medical records.

      • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

        Simon, I asked my retired doctor to give me copies of my medical record. Took him a few months…
        But as always, our darling professors demands lots of objective evidence from others, and provides plenty of subjective experience in return.

  6. Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

    Come on Chapman is this really what you call scientific research or fact? I’m sure the tobacco industry could put together video testimonials from some tobacco farmers that smoke and have no health issues. Would that prove that tobacco related illnesses can be prevented by the wonder drug called money?

    • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

      Your conspiracy theories are pathetic. Comparing the intake of tobacco with wind turbines some distance from a person is asinine. Tobacco companies have known the dangers of smoking since at least 1957 according to the authors of “Merchants of Doubt”. There is no credible evidence that wind turbines cause ill health but there is plenty of evidence that ill informed and gullible people can be misled by wind farm opponents who have no regard for honesty or facts. You provide an object example.

      • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

        It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s an exercise in logic. Obviously the wind industry proponents including Chapman seem to believe that their is a “wonder drug called money” that cures illness. I’m using the same theory applied to tobacco farmers. Obviously this “money drug” is a failure and is bad science. Why are professionals like Chapman promoting it.

        • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

          You are conflating and confusing two arguments by comparing an ingested toxin with a physical object some distance away from humans. It’s a measure of the nonsense thinking employed by yourself and other wind farm opponents that you can’t (or choose not to) see the fallacies in your argument. In any case it does nothing for your credibility but it says heaps about your contempt for objectivity and honesty.

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            Look I didn’t come up with phrase “wonder drug called money”. Chapman did. If you take issue with it than take it up with Chapman. Do you agree with him that money cures illnesses? Do you think its possible that money might cause people to clam up about any ill health effects?

          • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

            Stop being cute Dan. You know damn well what Simon Chapman is inferring with that comment. You’re also denying the fact that the majority of wind farm hosts and neighbours have no issues with wind turbines, or, that one-time supporters of projects suddenly turn against them after realising they would not derive any financial benefit.

            I know it’s possible the promise of money has caused some people to claim ill-health effects because that happened with one of the neighbours of the wind farm near where I live. The person concerned purchased the land only months before the project was given the green light, apparently in the belief it would host a number of turbines. At the first information session, he supported the project. Later when the project design was publicly announced and he discovered he would not be hosting turbines, he became a vocal opponent and demanded compensation, later he mysteriously developed hearing issues after the project was commissioned – draw your own conclusions.

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            Wow, sounds like you only have some anecdotal stories with no peer reviewed field research to back it up.

          • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

            When somebody like George consistently demonstrates ignorance of physical properties and terminologies despite being corrected by many people, I can infer he either doesn’t want to know, is a little dull or is perhaps being intentionally reckless with the truth. His website suggests it’s probably all three.

            I submit that if you dropped a 10 kg rock on your foot several times (for experimental reasons) it would be reasonable to infer that subsequent trials would result in the same outcomes, i.e. the rock would always fall down, you would likely feel intense pain and that it’s probably not advisable to repeat the experiment to often. I hope that answers your question.

            In any case, this reneweconomy article and associated YouTube videos highlights the very serious anomalies in the arguments put forward by wind farm opponents. You have no problems with George completely misrepresenting the facts but when I cite an example of the behaviour of a wind farm opponent, you get all precious. Telling.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Blair, I think that after your flawed claim that I confuse the physics of EMF and ILFN, I think no one could take your comments seriously.

          • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

            Knock yourself out George, I posted just one example of your confusion, the majority of readers are I’m sure, quite capable of finding many others, it’s not like there aren’t heaps of examples. You go on dreaming and ripping off the desperate and uninformed with your pseudoscience.

          • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

            George, please tell us all what the acronym ILFN stands for? No changing the subject or fudging now. What international units of measurement does it relate to? If as you claim you are knowledgeable about this matter, answering my questions should be a doddle for you.

            By the way, here is another thread which clearly demonstrates your inability to recognise infrasound and EMR as separate physical phenomena.

            https://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/why-new-technology-often-attracts-bad-science-74527#comment-1031713947

            Your memory is worse than your failure to understand basic terminology.

          • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

            George, remind me again please, what does ILFN stand for and can you name the science disciplines that use that acronym on a regular basis?

      • Valewood 6 years ago

        Google the Darmstadt Manifesto. The wind industry has been apprised and aware of the harm done by their turbines for years. The amount of money spent to cover up this fact is staggering and probably unprecedented.

        • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

          OMG, not the dreaded Darmstadt Manifesto.… the game is up

    • Simon_Chapman 6 years ago

      Dan, the web is awash with claims of acute effects from wind turbine exposure. People feeling ill within minutes of turning up at a house etc. The diseases caused by smoking are chronic diseases that take often decades to manifest, so your analogy is inept and quite ignorant. I edited the world’s leading specialist research journal in tobacco control for 17 years, so please don’t push your luck. Your crowd run this “only susceptibles get sick” line. A little problem with that one is that is hardly explains why the great majority of wind farms have a history of zero complaints — indeed 2 whole states in Australia have not a single reported case of anyone complaining despite having wind farms established for many years. Have all the susceptibles somehow migrated?

      • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

        Oh yes, ZERO complaints??? What about Cullerin and Gunning? Your study suggest zero complaints but:
        A survey done by Patina Schneider reveals many complaints against
        it starting in 2009: http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/schneider-p-cullerin-range-wind-farm-survey-follow-up-july-august-2013/

        Furthermore in February 2012, a media release by NSW Planning Minister Brad Hazzard reveals that he was aware of complaints.

        My complaint against Gunning, in October 2011, went to the council, developer, local MP, and Brad Hazzards office. YOU leaked my private e-mail on Crikey, yet didn’t list my complaint in your study.
        Simon, all cardinal signs that your study’s design was flawed.

      • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

        Patina Scneider sent out a survey http://windfarmrealities.org/wfr-docs/chapman-complaints-study.pdf located 0-10km from the Cullerin Range Wind Farm. 68.5% of the residences returned the survey.
        Here is an excerpt from this survey:
        “68.5% of residents who lived between 0-10km returned the survey with 83% of respondents being impacted by noise and/or vibration. The 83% impacted all have lodged complaints with various authorities and health care providers.
        91% of those that responded out to 8km are impacted by noise and/or vibration which is impacting on their sleep and health and those very same residents have all made complaints. In the 20 households there are 50 residents with a total of 49 being impacted by sleep deprivation and other health impacts.
        20 respondents have lodged an estimated 322 complaints, 3 respondents had complained to various departments but had not estimated how many complaints they had made. The bulk of the complaints were directed to the Wind Developer, the Department of Planning, the Local Council, their local MP and their health care provider, while other complaints were raised with the NSW Health Department, the EPA, other politicians, friends and council committees.”

        The survey results are highlighted because in Table 1 of Chapman’s article
        “Spatio-temporal differences in the history of health and noise complaints about Australian wind farms: evidence for the psychogenic, “communicated disease” hypothesis.” he lists Cullerin Range as having no complaints.

        Will there be a revision of Table 1 with this new information?

        Will there be an investigate as to how numerous health complaints to the wind developer and the NSW Health Department were missed?

        • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

          Care to provide an actual link Dan?

          Be careful, pretty much every anti-wind campaigner who actually provides references gets their fingers burned.

        • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

          Patina Scneider’s survey blows another hole into Chapman’s paper in other ways. In table 1 Cullerin is listed as having had no local or visiting opposition group activity and yet there were many complaints. Why were there complaints if there was no anti wind activism? This appears to be another strike against the nocebo theory.

  7. Alan Baird 6 years ago

    I think this comment stream needs to comment on the article, and only comment with a “Yes, we know, George, you are possibly in the state you are because of wind turbines” and then go on with your commentary relating to the actual article. Otherwise this commentary becomes a tedious game of email tennis except all eyes are straight ahead, not even bothering to follow George’s “yes-but” replies (from the far right end of the court, no doubt) that have all the reasoning of the bovines grazing peacefully below the turbines. The poor creatures are blissfully unaware that “mad cow disease” will be their fate, the Waubra Foundation already in the final throes of the condition. A reply “addressing” his “concerns” only encourages him. On a personal note, I have been hearing things for years but the coal industry won’t let me tell my story. Please send money.

    • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

      Alan, so you must think that Chapman’s poor interpretation that I hear ONE wind turbine 100km should go unchallenged? I am quite clear in my article that I refer to a LFN load from hundreds of wind turbines in the region
      You also must think that Chapman’s strange study design should also go unchallenged? I have asked him the same question over and over and he never responds. Maybe an admission of fishy dealings…

  8. George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

    An interesting insight into the “independence” of the film maker of the Waubra video: http://www.eavonline.biz/ABOUT.html

    • Simon_Chapman 6 years ago

      An interesting insight into the independence of our bionic eared correspondent http://geovital.com.au/geovital_george_papadopoulos_nsw.html Tell me George, have you ever “assessed” anyone’s house for radiation & not recommended that they shell out for the hocus-pocus magic tricks your corn flakes pack “Academy” flogs? What sort of commission are you on. Do you give discounts for pensioners or those with disabilities?

    • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

      You know, I like to actually click on links and follow them to see what they say.

      And I see a film maker with experience dealing with these issues with a good body of work behind him.

      GeoPap, of course, sees something sinister. Paranoid conspiracy thinking at work.

      • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

        And did you see who the “independent film maker” associates with?

        • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

          George, if you have an accusation to make, you could actually make the accusation instead of making slimy innuendoes.

          But maybe you like slimy innuendoes?

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            So Mike, what associations does Barrett have with Taryn Lane from Hepburn, Jarra Hicks Community
            Wind Project Coordinator at Mount Alexander Sustainability Group MacWind
            Project – Baringhup, Deane
            Belfield (set up ECO2Sys in 2003 and since then several other related
            businesses in the advisory and renewable energy sectors). He was thankful to them all

            And why couldn’t Barrett make sense of any of the “anti-wind” people around Waubra… Sounds like an “independently biased” individual on a selective fact finding mission. If gossip has it, the residents around Waubra claim he compelled them to accept that their symptoms were in their head, or else he wouldn’t deal with them.

            And by the way are these Barrett’s photos or some other Barrett: http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=367069 I can’t be sure they are his but certainly note his admiration of wind mills and wind turbines and nudes.

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            So a film maker who focuses on sustainability knows other people focused on sustainability? And thanks people who have assisted him in the past? Have I got your argument right?

            And Mr. Barrett interviewed more people on camera than all of the complainants in total from Waubra from all time, and all of those people are living among the wind turbines. They’re stories are somehow invalid and Neil Barrett is actually a Svengalian hypnotizer of rock solid farmers instead of an apparently very nice, harmless independent documentary maker? Have I got your argument right?

            And like the majority of people world wide he takes pictures of things he likes the looks of, and like the vast majority of people world wide that includes wind turbines and attractive human beings. And this somehow makes him incapable of interviewing people living among wind turbines so that they can tell their side of the story? Have I got your argument right?

            To summarize, I think what you are trying to say is that the vast, vast majority of people — those who like wind farms, think sustainability is important and think wind farms and nudes are neat to look at — are all incompetent idiots and can’t be trusted with a camera.

            And as a corollary, the only people who could possibly be trusted are people who realize that tinfoil hats and aprons are necessary to protect themselves from electromagnetic currents and geopathic stress.

            Have I got all of that right?

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Mike, I am simply applying your and Chapman’s own standards of “conflicting” interests to your own fraternity.

            Because Peter Mitchell has connection to mining, then the Waubra Foundation becomes a “coal miners” proxy.

            Because Nissenbaum and others who see the carnage of wind turbines, they become “anti-wind activists”.

            Because people around wind farms speak out against developments, they belong to “anti-wind groups”

            But you and the darling professor are objective tools of the wind industry…

            Barrett created strong suspicion when he stated he was an “independent” film maker. But his independence is compromised by his existing bias and contacts…

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            Yet again you miss the point utterly, while actually managing to write complete sentences. Your ability to do so is quite astounding.

            Astroturfing by the fossil fuel industry is incredibly well documented. Mitchell’s connections and machinations likewise.

            People who actively create or vastly overstate issues regularly and through virtually every mechanism available to them are anti-wind activists. Nissenbaum is one. Krogh is one. Etc. Not rocket science, it’s accurate.

            Many people near wind farms who speak out against developments are part of anti-wind groups. They proudly declare so. They have FaceBook pages and Twitter accounts.

            A working documentarist in sustainable energy knows other working people without much money or influence working in sustainable energy. This is a smoking gun? Yet another empty water pistol actually.

            I go back to slimy innuendo.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Yep, Neil Barrett’s own words in his Senate submission:

            “I have had a strong interest in wind energy since the 1970s. In recent years I have worked in a voluntary capacity with the Windpower Subcommittee of MASG. The group is hoping to instal a 12MW community – owned windfarm along the lines of the Hepburn Community Windfarm near Daylesford.”
            Hardly an objective filmmaker, especially by the standards that you apply to others.

            https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsenate.aph.gov.au%2Fsubmissions%2Fcomittees%2Fviewdocument.aspx%3Fid%3Dc4a43695-52a7-40ca-ac48-d8e501e6336f&ei=KBk8UvuiF8PNiAei6oAo&usg=AFQjCNEqMXjOo6mDSUyp2d8uq-LCe0X3pQ&bvm=bv.52434380,d.aGc

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            I’m curious George. How exactly does this make the words of the people George spoke to invalid?

            Try to rationalize it. We’ll warch.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Mike, are you real serious – is that how far your critical thinking extends to? We might as well invite Rhinehart and Palmer to run the Waubra Foundation, replace Sarah Laurie (a former Green party voter) as CEO, and claim that their personal interests/investments don’t affect their objectivity…
            Maybe we should invite some hard-line representative from the nuclear/coal industry and let them claim they are making an “independent video” on wind industry atrocities.
            It was your darling professor that stuffed his snout into the personal details of the WF board looking for every vulnerability possible. Conspiracy theorist number one! Chapman caught Peter Mitchell with few coal beads in his pocket, my my! And the others all wealthy landowners, Liberals of gosh – my my! And Sarah Laurie, oops… didn’t succeed in saying anything about her. But yeah, Peter Mitchell’s coal beads left a few carbon stains on Sarah’s dinner table, so enough carbon traces to vilify Sarah as vicious witch who is scaring and terrorising rural Australia and making the even the most hardened men shave their legs and puff like hypochondriacs…
            So Chapman’s conspiracy theories that all these wealth landowners, and their gullible rural peasantry are running a social counter-revolution aimed at deranging the planet and polluting it with coal – climate denialists, liberals, coal miners!
            But the same hypocrite quotes some other hypocrite that makes it out that he is “an independent” film maker. Any guess why he couldn’t make sense of any Waubra people who felt the wind turbines were harming their health?
            Sorry Mike but I think I’ve said enough – the facts speak for themselves. If you still don’t get it, I can’t help you.

          • Mike Barnard 6 years ago

            I suspected that once started you’d froth meaninglessly. And froth you did! And without coherence or content!

            Thanks for being predictable, GeoPap.

          • George Papadopoulos 6 years ago

            Its what you call reflecting behaviour – nothing any worse than you, Chapman and Blair display.

          • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

            Would you trust the independence of a filmmaker who made a documentary with testimonials on the harmlessness of coal if he had pictures of coal plants on his website?

          • Blair Donaldson 6 years ago

            Problem is Dan, there are heaps of credible studies highlighting the problems and dangers of coal and burning coal but there are no credible studies supporting the claim that wind turbines are detrimental to health. But if you can find a filmmaker who has done everything you have mentioned regarding testimonials and supposed harmlessness of coal, I’d love to see the film or relevant bits from it. Please post the links.

  9. MFehrens 6 years ago

    I’m new to this whole debate and don’t have any turbines near my home. As such, I’m not affected one way or the other. Having said that, this topic has piqued my interest and I read up on it when I have time. From a non-invested party point of view this article is nonsense as is Chapman’s nocebo study. Neither would stand up to any sort of serious independent review.

    • Simon_Chapman 6 years ago

      Sorry to disappoint you, but my study has stood up to independent peer review and will be published in the next few weeks in a leading journal

      • Dan Wrightman 6 years ago

        Are you going to correct the errors on Table 1 for the Cullerin Range wind plant?

  10. Sam Hopes 5 years ago

    wind energy describe the process by which the wind is used to generate mechanical power or electricity. Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy in the wind into mechanical power. This mechanical power can be used for specific tasks (such as grinding grain or pumping water) or a generator can convert this mechanical power into electricity to power homes, businesses, schools, and the like.

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.