Let me start by thanking Donald Mulcare for his recent op-ed piece. It provides a great opportunity to educate people about the real dangers of industrial wind turbines (IWTs) to public health. Most people who know so little about a subject are not willing to display their ignorance in public. Perhaps the next time Mr. Mulcare takes a break from the football game, he’ll try reading a book.
Carl Phillips, Harvard Ph.D., is an independent and widely respected epidemiologist (public health expert) and he has been recognized as such by the legal system as well. He has studied the adverse health effects of IWTs extensively using the standard methods for collecting data from public health records.
In a peer reviewed article in The Bulletin of Science Technology and Society, Mr. Phillips writes, “There is overwhelming evidence that large electricity-generating wind turbines…cause serious health problems in a nontrivial fraction of residents living near them.”
Mr. Phillips estimates that the adverse health reports from people who live near IWTs number at least in the many tens of thousands. As a point of comparison, the U.S. FDA will use its regulatory authority to pull a drug from the market if only 20—30 individual adverse health reports are found, even if the drug has benefited many, many people. Apparently, the FDA recognizes that it is wrong for a drug company to profit from something that makes people sick. If the FDA regulated wind turbines, they would be shut down tomorrow and kept that way until the wind industry could show scientific evidence that they can be deployed without harming people.
One of the main reasons that this data have been so difficult to collect is that the wind industry pays large amounts of hush money to silence its victims. In the Chatham-Kent municipality in Ontario, for example, the wind industry bought many homes made toxic by turbine noise to ensure that the victims who were abandoning them would not go public. Out of desperation, other victims do not report their symptoms because they are afraid that it will destroy their property value and prevent them from selling their homes, which is their only avenue of escape from these monstrosities and the illness they cause.
When people get so ill from turbines that they are willing to abandon their homes, the adverse health data they provide takes on much greater significance to scientists who study public health. This is called revealed preference. It shows the intensity of their illness and demonstrates their conviction about the cause.
To undermine the credibility of these wind turbine refugees, the wind industry engages in character assassination, portraying them to the ignorant public as gold diggers trying to take advantage of the situation to sell their homes for more than they are worth. As you can see, wind is not a clean industry.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, M.D. and author of the extensively peer reviewed “Wind Turbine Syndrome,” conducted one of the first rigorous case studies of these adverse health effects. She noted that of the 10 families she studied closely over time, nine have abandoned their homes, some without any compensation whatever. The tenth was desperately trying to sell, but apparently nobody was buying.
One of the most powerful forms of public health data is something called cross-over data. Cross-over data is actually a simple concept. When people are exposed to operating turbines, they become ill. When the turbines stop, they immediately begin to feel better.
The importance of this type of data should be obvious. Many types of illness, such as cancer, cannot be studied in this way because the onset of illness is not known and it does not go away when the cause is removed.
Fortunately, the McPherson study, published only a month ago, conducted by two independent, certified acoustic engineers in Falmouth, provides precisely this type of cross-over data about WTS. They were able to do this because they themselves became seriously ill within 20 minutes after they began to record (inaudible) turbine infrasound indoors. One of the most compelling findings of this study is that the powerful effect on the human inner ear created by infrasound is actually worse indoors!
The gold standard for any scientific study and measurement is repeatability and there is little doubt that the rigorous methodology of the McPherson study more than meets this bar. This is not hypothetical; it is a fact. If we stop the turbines, or at least keep them far away from residents, we can keep people from getting seriously ill.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding