backtop

Blog: Science Study Finds Health Problems from Wind Farms
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 14, 2008 10:36 AM
Print 189 comment(s) - last by jcl4726.. on Aug 17 at 12:59 PM

California's Palm Springs Wind Farm
Sleep and learning disorders, migraines, dizziness, and other problems possible.

Many recent DailyTech stories have focused on the world's growing reliance on wind power, along with efforts to reduce the noise pollution resulting from the large farms.

However, a new study suggests that living near a wind farm can cause serious health problems; including causes sleep disorders, difficulty with equilibrium, migraine headaches, panic attacks, and other issues.

The research was conducted by Dr. Nina Pierpont, who says the culprit is the effect on the inner ear by low energy noise from the turbines.  Learning disorders and child behavioral problems were also noted in her results.

Pierpont graduated from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and also holds a doctorate in population biology from Princeton. She surveyed ten families from five different nations, all which had lived close to a large wind turbine for at least four years.

Of the families in her study, eight moved out of their homes, unable to cope. According to Pierpont, all eight soon recovered their health.

A prior study last year by British physician Amanda Harry entitled "Wind Turbines, Noise and Health" studied 39 families. It found similar results, with stress, anxiety, depression, tinnitus, migraines, and other problems resulting from living near a wind energy farm.

Pierpoint calls the effects "wind turbine syndrome". She is currently writing a book entitled, "Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on the Natural Experiment." It is scheduled for publication next month

Windmills have long been criticized for destroying pristine views of nature. Denny Wade, who lives a quarter-mile from Oregon's Willow Creek wind farm, says he moved there for the view of Mount Hood. "Now, the view that it had is all windmills".

Wade is more concerned though about the effects on his health. He's vulnerable to migraine headaches; a class of people Pierpont says is particularly susceptible to windmills.

The existing 72 MW Willow Creek farm is soon expected to be joined by a 909 MW farm in the neighboring county of Gilliam. "Man, this whole country is going to be windmills," Wade opines.

The Wades dropped their plans to build a new retirement home in the area, and are now trying to sell their property.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, wind farms are the nation's fastest growing source of energy, with 20% of the nation's power expected from wind by the year 2030.

Sherry Eaton, who also lives near the Willow Creek project, says she "started to cry" when she saw the first turbine being built.

Eaton commutes 90 miles a day so her family can live in a quiet desert setting.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Sample size
By ADDAvenger on 8/14/2008 10:42:22 AM , Rating: 4
Err, ten families is an awfully small sample to be drawing conclusions from, and 39 is hardly better.




RE: Sample size
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/14/2008 10:47:08 AM , Rating: 5
Michael do you have information on who funded this study? Seems like either an attempt to attack wind power or a ploy for attention on the part of the doctor.

Besides even if this was true this only applies to big turbines. Small turbine designs are far more practical for urban use.

To me this smacks of unproven and warrantless criticism. Similar biased attacks could be leveled against the nuclear industry, but both nuclear and wind, for the most part, are safe and effective technologies, which should be expanded.


RE: Sample size
By gyranthir on 8/14/2008 10:54:36 AM , Rating: 1
And yet the liberals are all for wind, but hold back nuclear power at every turn.


RE: Sample size
By grenableu on 8/14/2008 11:33:01 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
And yet the liberals are all for wind, but hold back nuclear power at every turn.
Of course, because expensive wind power means forced deindustrialization. That's the ultimate goal all along.


RE: Sample size
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/14/2008 1:49:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Of course, because expensive wind power means forced deindustrialization


You, my friend, need a good tin hat.

First off all, a person of extreme conservative persuasions such as yourself likely views everyone from moderates to radicals "liberals".

To believe even a majority of the people in this class want "forced deindustrialization" is utterly ridiculous. Its about as ridiculous as saying that conservatives want us all to be corporate slaves to some rich oligarch.

Its pretty sad when people make such ridiculous statements.

Just because you don't support wind or nuclear power doesn't mean that you're trying to force deindustrialization.

If you think that, your resources might be well applied to making a nice foil hat. Better hurry before the invisible "liberals" deindustrialize the boxite mining facilities and take away your precious foil!!


RE: Sample size
By TomZ on 8/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sample size
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/14/2008 2:20:02 PM , Rating: 4
Lay off the antinuclear/antiwind rhetoric.

No organization can force deindustrialization.

It's just not happening. We live in a capitalist society. People and companies are not going to give up their cars and jets and electricity.

Not happening.

Your criticism of nuclear and wind power is entirely unjustified.

Both nuclear and wind power are viable energy sources. Both do require initial investments, but in the long run both pay off.

To say that supporting nuclear and supporting wind is the equivalent of trying to "deindustrialize" the country is ridiculous.

Apparently suggesting people lay off the paranoia leads to downrating.


RE: Sample size
By TomZ on 8/14/2008 2:42:05 PM , Rating: 3
Jason, your response is way off-base. Did you reply to the right post?

I didn't criticize either nuclear nor wind power. Ironically, environmentalist groups lead the charge against both nuclear and wind power.

If I am anti-anything, I am anti-environmentalist because environmentalists constantly put human needs last on their priority list. Hence the "forced deindustrialization" talk.

And I'll say it again - the problem with most liberals is that they blindly follow their environmental comrades. You're not one of them, are you Jason?


RE: Sample size
By kc77 on 8/15/2008 8:04:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the problem with most liberals is that they blindly follow their environmental comrades


Based on what study?? What numbers can you provide to back up your statement? I'm a liberal, I'm an environmentalist, but to say that I want deindustrialization would be the furthest from the truth. You can't have wind mills or anything for that matter without modern techniques that industrialization brings. No computers, no assembly lines, it's just crazy to think that.


RE: Sample size
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 3:07:53 PM , Rating: 3
> "To say that supporting nuclear and supporting wind is the equivalent of trying to "deindustrialize" the country is ridiculous"

Jason, a number of prominent environmentalists are on record as opposing cheap energy, because it leads to extra industrialization. This is plain, simple fact.

You can rightly say not all "environmentalists" believe this, but the fact is that the people leading the movement believe that industrialization is bad, and they desire higher energy costs as a method to lower our impact on the planet.


RE: Sample size
By Polynikes on 8/14/2008 7:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No organization can force deindustrialization.

Of course they can't force anything. I think his problem with them is that they have such an agenda at all.


RE: Sample size
By DFranch on 8/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sample size
By ADDAvenger on 8/14/2008 12:48:37 PM , Rating: 5
Oh for God's sake, why does this get mentioned every time? If you had any idea what the heck you were talking about.. well you wouldn't have said that. Chernobyl happened because they turned off and ignored a whole mess of safety measures, dumbass.

And do you seriously think nuclear plant designs have stagnated for the past forty years? We now have reactors in operation that slow the reaction when there's a problem with the coolant loop, they're effectively self-regulating.

Oh and another thing, I like how people always point to Chernobyl and TMI, accidents from before a lot of said people were born. You know why they point way back to those? It's because we haven't had any accidents even remotely so severe in the last forty some years. And severity is relative, no radiation was released at TMI, despite it being a partial meltdown.


RE: Sample size
By foolsgambit11 on 8/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sample size
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 3:20:48 PM , Rating: 5
> "And of course, human errors like [Chernobyl] could never happen today"

They cannot, no. Not in the Western World. Chernobyl was a reactor with a positive-void coefficient. If the cooling system fails, it continues to heat up. No such reactor was ever built in outside the former Soviet Union.

> "After all, the designs of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island seemed fine until the defects were found "

The design of Chernobyl did *not* seem fine until the accident. As I alluded to above, such reactors were considered by the Western World to be far too dangerous to ever build.

As for TMI, the accident validated the design. The worst-case scenario happened, and the containment dome prevented any serious accident.

> "And radiation was released at TMI"

Yes, less than you get from eating bananas, naturally radioactive from the potassium found within them. Do you consider that significant?


RE: Sample size
By foolsgambit11 on 8/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sample size
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 4:15:12 PM , Rating: 4
> "To argue that a disaster 'cannot' happen is terribly unscientific of you"

A Chernobyl-style disaster cannot happen with a Western reactor. This is simple fact.

> "To call what happened at TMI the worst-case scenario for that reactor design ignores the possibility that things could have been worse"

How? There is nothing worse than a core meltdown. The reactor can't "blow up" and, unless the containment dome is hit by a large meteor or a Richter-10 earthquake, no major radiation release can occur.

> " And we haven't even considered the risks of deliberate tampering "

Vague issues of "tampering" are a red herring. A containment dome is strong enough to withstand the direct impact of a jet at 500 mph. Unless a terrorist already has a nuclear bomb themselves, they're not going to breach it.

> "the worst exposures were on the order of a dozen chest x-rays. "

You shouldn't read Wikipedia. The average dose was on the order of 1 millirem:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact...

That's about 1/200 of what the average person receives each year from natural sources. If you live in a Rocky Mountain or New England state, you can receive 2 or even 3 times that. The exposure you receive from naturally radioactive foods (primarily bananas) is about 25 mrems a year:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/nucene/...


RE: Sample size
By lco45 on 8/15/2008 12:25:58 AM , Rating: 2
Nah masher, you're running a bit dry on this one.

He's not saying a Chernobyl-style distaster can't happen, he's saying that you can't ever completely rule out disasters, because history shows that we've often been certain (at the time) that something was safe, right until that something hits the iceberg.

There is one thing worse than a reactor meltdown, which is someone sub-machining-gunning their way past security then taping 400kg of semtex inside the thing.

Mind you, I'm just arguing for the fun of it, I personally think nuclear fission is a great solution: no trouble finding the fuel, not much real-estate needed, base-load power.

As for the half-life of the waste, people always think we have to store it for thousands of years. Incorrect. We have to store it until our technology can make it safe. Surely 2 or 3 hundred years will be long enough?


RE: Sample size
By roastmules on 8/15/2008 2:41:53 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, a Chernobyl-style disaster cannot happen - there aren't any reactors with that design (they've been fixed).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Co...
http://www.iaea.or.at/NewsCenter/Features/Chernoby...

Also, 400kg is a lot of explosives to carry - past guards with their own machine guns, locked doors, blast-proof walls and doors, etc. (www.nrc.gov) and, even so, that's not enough to penetrate the bunker, so no problem.

Also, fission reactors use Uranium, which really isn't all that bad anyway, not like Plutonium.

Also, we take spend fuel rods and recycle them, to reduce the amount of radioactive materials.

Nuclear is FAR, FAR safer than fossil fuels like coal...


RE: Sample size
By foolsgambit11 on 8/15/2008 5:54:25 PM , Rating: 1
>> "To argue that a disaster 'cannot' happen is terribly unscientific of you"
>A Chernobyl-style disaster cannot happen with a Western reactor. This is simple fact.

I love how you feel a partial contradiction, stated as fact, without backing, suffices. Still, I say 'disaster', you come back with 'Chernobyl-style disaster'. Partial contradiction. What about another style of disaster? As for the 'simple fact', stated without supporting evidence, I don't expect you to be able to explain why no one will ever possibly be injured by a nuclear reactor. I know, it's unfair of me to try to make you prove a negative.

>> "To call what happened at TMI the worst-case scenario for that reactor design ignores the possibility that things could have been worse"
> How? There is nothing worse than a core meltdown. The reactor can't "blow up" and, unless the containment dome is hit by a large meteor or a Richter-10 earthquake, no major radiation release can occur.

There you go. You just listed two ways it could have been worse. Thanks for doing my job for me. Possible? Yes. Likely? Probably not. But my concern from the beginning wasn't to prove a nuclear disaster was imminent, only that people should be informed of the risks, whatever they may be.

>> "the worst exposures were on the order of a dozen chest x-rays. "
>You shouldn't read Wikipedia. The average dose was on the order of 1 millirem:

You should learn to read. See? Now you've got me going all ad hominem on you. I talk about the worst exposures, you talk about the average exposures. I say the biggest tomato on record is, let's say, 8 pounds, and you say the average tomato only weighs 6 ounces. Two different things, entirely, and we could both be right. Both facts are useful in determining the risks of nuclear power. But as for the average dose, it depends on how many people you include in the group of 'affected people' to determine the actual amount. We could make the group the entire population of the planet, and then you'd be exaggerating the average dose by orders of magnitude.

If you read the rest of the paragraph you pulled your 1 millirem number from, you'd see that the maximum dose was "under 100 millirems" and that a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirems. So about a dozen chest x-rays is an accurate estimate of the max dosage.

And yes, I freely admit to reading Wikipedia. And I trust Wikipedia on matters of fact, where it agreed with your link, which in fact was a cited source for the article.

As for tampering, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on exploiting design shortfalls of containment domes. I will point out, however, that there are at least 2 holes - coolant in and coolant out. You're a smart guy, I'll let you consider whether the safeguards that will prevent radiation from escaping are 100% absolutely fool-proof (remember that there are a lot of fools in the world, including me, according to DailyTech forum readers), as well as tamper-proof.


RE: Sample size
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 4:03:03 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
After all, the designs of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island seemed fine until the defects were found by, essentially, trial and error.
Chernobyl wasn't "trial and error". Safety measures were deliberately bypassed and others ignored. That's not "trial and error".


RE: Sample size
By foolsgambit11 on 8/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sample size
By daveinternets on 8/14/2008 4:34:34 PM , Rating: 1
Look, I am for Nuclear power as it is a very green and safe source of energy.

But, there is a long, long list of accidents at nuclear facilities, even involving the death of two workers from radiation exposure as late as 1999. Now, the vast majority is caused by human error.

So while the design of nuclear plants has proven to be safe, we will never stop human error.


RE: Sample size
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 4:48:18 PM , Rating: 3
> "there is a long, long list of accidents at nuclear facilities"

The number of civilians being killed from a nuclear accident in the Western World is zero. While nothing in life is utterly risk free, nuclear safety trumps coal, hydroelectric, and even wind and solar.

> " even involving the death of two workers from radiation exposure as late as 1999"

Two workers dying in a reprocessing facility (not a power plant) is hardly the same thing. You might as well blame the wind industry for the death of a steel worker, because the support beams were destined for a turbine.


RE: Sample size
By foolsgambit11 on 8/15/2008 8:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you could use that reasoning. The difference is that steel manufacturing goes on whether or not we make wind turbines. Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel has to be considered part of the sum total of concerns about nuclear power because it's

a) part and parcel of the total life cycle cost of nuclear power
b) an industry whose exclusive use is in nuclear power generation.

In other words, you can say that the steel plant just happened to be working on steel for turbine towers when an accident occurred, but you can't say that a reprocessing facility 'just happened' to be working on spent nuclear fuel from a reactor when an accident occurred.

Any discussion of nuclear power must consider the total life cycle of the plant and its fuel - you don't ignore the cost of scrubbers at a coal plant, and you don't ignore the cost of the polluting byproducts of nuclear plants either. The report you have linked to yourself at http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ makes a point to acknowledge that we need to make improvements to reprocessing and storage of spent fuel, or else be prepared to open a facility the size of the planned Yucca Mountain complex every 3 to 4 years to store the unprocessed spent fuel.


RE: Sample size
By Hoser McMoose on 8/17/2008 1:10:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While nothing in life is utterly risk free, nuclear safety trumps coal, hydroelectric, and even wind and solar.

As a bit of an FYI to go along with this, there have been roughly 40 fatalities directly attributed to wind power around the world. Most of these have been construction or maintenance workers that fell off the turbines.

As for nuclear power, probably the most dangerous (and most polluting) part of the whole industry is uranium mining. Mining anything is dangerous and uranium is no different.

When you add it all up, on a per TWh of electricity produced, wind and nuclear power end up being pretty similar in terms of total fatalities, and both are head and shoulders above just about any other method of power production. Certainly when compared to coal power either one is several orders of magnitude better.


RE: Sample size
By Solandri on 8/14/2008 5:27:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But, there is a long, long list of accidents at nuclear facilities, even involving the death of two workers from radiation exposure as late as 1999. Now, the vast majority is caused by human error.

So while the design of nuclear plants has proven to be safe, we will never stop human error.

There's a Swiss database of all severe power generation accidents around the world from 1969-1996 ("severe" defined as 5+ fatalities, 10+ injuries, or 200+ evacuees, or a variety of other criteria).

http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/PSI_Report/ENSAD98.pdf

The relevant portion starts on page 235, but the most relevant graphs are on page 240 onwards (normalized to the amount of power generated). Remember, these are worldwide figures spanning almost 3 decades of random happenstance and human error. Yes it includes Chernobyl.

If those graphs don't convince you that nuclear is just about the safest source of power we have, I don't know what can. The fear of nuclear power is completely irrational, like how parents obsess over their child being abducted by a stranger, but don't give a whit about their kids playing in the bathtub or pool. The fatality rate for kids drowning is 12x greater than the rate of abductions by strangers.


RE: Sample size
By Myg on 8/15/2008 9:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
"The fear of nuclear power is completely irrational, like how parents obsess over their child being abducted by a stranger, but don't give a whit about their kids playing in the bathtub or pool"

Possibly, but is it a not a worse fate to condemn people to a horribly tortured existance after being abused by that said stranger?

Why do you think people feel so strongly against pedophiles?

Atleast in death, people have peace.

The effect of radiation on the human body is a horrible thing, and as long as we react that way to it; it is too risky to endorse.


RE: Sample size
By Guttersnipe on 8/14/2008 7:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
because environmental obstructionists like to have it both ways. always standing in the way of hydro projects because of this or that. they dont seem to understand costs and benefits and that the costs are real and have to be paid. so they stand in the way of wind turbines, nuclear, pretending the alternative is to not use power. it is a fantasy. of course these are the same people who are soft on illegals pretending that population doesnt have environmental impact, let alone when bringing them up to an american lifestyle and causing even more urban sprawl. and yea you'll see these enviro obstructionists even get in the way of higher density housing projects that would make public transport more viable.


RE: Sample size
By andrinoaa on 8/14/2008 11:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
Stop chanting Bulltish mantras. If it wasn't for environmental awareness you would be eating DDT infested food and polychlorides in your water and defecating in your soup! What fucking drugs are you on? If you can't stand the fact that every win you have is a loss for someone else, maybe its time you checked out.
Everything has to stand on its own arguements, thats the reality of the modern world. It was made so by your stupid neocon mates who chose profit over humans over the last hundred years . Remember it wasn't an environmentally aware person who created toxic sludge or nuclear waste. Have another coffee!


RE: Sample size
By Guttersnipe on 8/15/2008 4:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
its no mantra, its the reality. and the enviro lobby is mostly about blocking progress of any kind. and not acknowledging real needs and what is actually required to address them. so they oppose reasonable solutions by pretending their fantasy extremist solution that will never happen is the way forward. basically they throw it all away because they won't accept half a loaf..no compromise for reality and so we all suffer. this has nothing to do with neocons, but i guess you have to pull that out because you know you have nothing..

with such people its head in the sand. and what do you expect. they don't acknowledge basic reality. nothing done about population or immigration which basically wipes out any progress they are fighting for. how can you trust such people with anything when they can't even see that.


RE: Sample size
By Ringold on 8/15/2008 4:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you can't stand the fact that every win you have is a loss for someone else, maybe its time you checked out. [...] It was made so by your stupid neocon mates who chose profit over humans over the last hundred years .


The Marxist (or just ignorant) zero-sum world view comes to the fore again. Do you understand the concept of "gains from trade?" Division of labor, and the resulting productivity gains? Ever heard of Adam Smith or David Ricardo? Comparative and absolute advantage? You whine about the last hundred years, and would probably complain about the pollution in China, but if your zero-sum theory holds true how is it that China reduced absolute poverty from around 60% to around 8%, a reduction of about 500 million, in the generation since they dropped the Marxism and the zero-sum game view and picked up the capitalism? I don't see the Chinese "defecating in their soup," I see them eating decent quantities of meat for the first time in their lives. The last hundred years saw the greatest increase in human prosperity in the history of man, and it did so largely on the back of Anglo-Saxon capitalism.

In fact, the only place on Earth that has really been left behind is Africa, and no one would really say it's a capitalist haven. A haven for corruption, war, crime, and a lack of property rights, but no capitalism. I have no idea where you people get this extreme ideology from, but it's not from history and not even from any accredited university, as you even make the liberal Paul Krugman (economist) sound like a "neocon."


RE: Sample size
By HsiKai on 8/14/2008 12:55:18 PM , Rating: 3
Western nuclear power plants don't work the way the Russian reactors do. There is absolutely no potential for a Chernobyl-like occurrence. As well, we could have better solutions for storing and reusing our nuclear waste but simply don't, either due to increase financial costs or sheer lack of caring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster


RE: Sample size
By Myg on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sample size
By TomZ on 8/14/2008 3:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
That's irrational FUD. There are risks associated with all forms of power generation, and in the end, we need power, so it is necessary for us as a society to take on and work to minimize those risks.

In addition, the risks of a serious problem with nuclear power generation are pretty small, when you look at the history of that industry. Far more people have been killed and injured in accidents in other related industries compared to nuclear power.


RE: Sample size
By Myg on 8/15/2008 9:37:16 AM , Rating: 1
Its called having a "wise" outlook; you balance things up and take the less risky one...

You dont take unnessesary chances on things; nuclear unfortunatly will always have the highest risk, and nothing anyone says or thinks will change that.


RE: Sample size
By blaster5k on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sample size
By Amiga500 on 8/14/2008 11:07:59 AM , Rating: 1
If by "practical", you mean generate noise, litter the view, and output little power, I suppose.

Now I am no advocate of wind technology as a realistic solution... but...

generate noise - in a city?
litter the view - in a city?

C'mon, are you for real?


RE: Sample size
By grenableu on 8/14/2008 11:27:30 AM , Rating: 2
I live in a city, and I have a very nice view, and (except for a couple hours a day) its pretty peaceful and quiet too.

A large windmill whining outside would drive me crazy.


RE: Sample size
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 11:31:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A large windmill whining outside would drive me crazy.
You wouldn't hear it inside your house and, IMO, it's quieter than a house fan.


RE: Sample size
By grenableu on 8/14/2008 11:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
The smaller turbines for city use Jason is talking about are very noisy. Their blades spin faster than the big wind mills and generate a lot more turbulence.


RE: Sample size
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 4:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just talking about residential windmills not windfarms. I have two neighbors with them and even on 50 mph wind days they're not that loud. But, now that you got me thinking about it, one on every house would be pretty loud.


RE: Sample size
By johnadams on 8/14/2008 1:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
I live in a city and the noise is unbearable. There's always noise from cars, trucks and damn bikes on the road 24/7. There's also noisy neighbors and their pet dogs. The view is horrible as well with projects and abandoned construction. And I hadn't mentioned about the air and water pollution.

I'd choose living near the wind farm any day.


RE: Sample size
By blaster5k on 8/14/2008 11:53:14 AM , Rating: 2
I take it you have no appreciation for cities or their aesthetics.

Noise is definitely a legitimate concern -- particularly in the city. If it's installed at a residence, the noise will likely be heard by many more people due close proximity.

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/noiseswt.html


RE: Sample size
By GaryJohnson on 8/14/2008 3:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
So that link basically says that these things can be between 45 and 100 dba... is that really any louder than roof top HVAC units?


RE: Sample size
By Solandri on 8/14/2008 3:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, most people measuring noise levels don't know what they're doing. You can compare their measurements among themselves, but you can't compare them with other people's measurements.

To properly compare sound levels, you need to measure at a fixed distance from the source, and relative to a predetermined pressure level. Saying something is 100 dba is meaningless for comparison purposes. A decibel itself is just a ratio relative to some reference, so you have to specify the reference if you want to compare. It needs to be something like 100 db re 1 meter re 1 W, meaning 100 decibels louder at 1 meter than a 1 Watt source at the same distance.


RE: Sample size
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 3:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "Saying something is 100 dba is meaningless for comparison purposes. A decibel itself is just a ratio relative to some reference, so you have to specify the reference "

True in general, but a db rating relating to sound pressure is almost always takin in reference to the faintest sound the human ear can hear, making it an absolute value.


RE: Sample size
By blaster5k on 8/14/2008 4:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
I can tell you that volume levels over 50dB at night constitute a noise violation in my city. I find it unlikely that any rooftop HVAC unit would go over that, but those also aren't typically found on residences here in the northeast.

Most people would have quite a bit of difficulty sleeping with even 45dB of noise -- at least those not adjusted to passing traffic at night. 85dB is point where you need to be concerned about hearing damage and I couldn't imagine sleeping through that without ear plugs.


RE: Sample size
By GaryJohnson on 8/14/2008 8:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have any trouble sleeping with a lawnmower running outside, and I haven't noticed any hearing loss. Aren't they 90-95db?

If they're 90-95db outside, how loud are they when you hear them inside?


RE: Sample size
By rudy on 8/14/2008 11:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
Wait till it sorts out there have been cases of long wave sound which probably would result from a large slow rotating windmill causing health problems.


RE: Sample size
By porkpie on 8/14/2008 11:14:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Small turbine designs are far more practical for urban use.
Every study I've seen says small turbines are very UNpractical. They spin faster, make more noise, and cost much more per kW than the big towers.


RE: Sample size
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 11:22:44 AM , Rating: 2
> "Michael do you have information on who funded this study?"

According to Pierpont, she received no outside funding for her study.


RE: Sample size
By clovell on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sample size
By Proteusza on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sample size
By Solandri on 8/14/2008 2:20:13 PM , Rating: 3
In Jason's defense, he just asked who funded the study. He didn't make any speculation about it being the oil industry.

Given the increase in corporate-funded studies the past few decades, I think it's a valid question to ask. Those corporate-funded studies usually aren't bad in terms of their methodology. Where they falter is that the funding corporation simply withholds the study from publication if they don't like the findings. That creates a bias which you have to watch out for. That's in marked contrast to studies by educational and research institutions which usually get published regardless of the findings (though there's probably some pre-selection bias present in those).


RE: Sample size
By clovell on 8/14/2008 3:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
Studies that don't show results are not published as often as those that do - regardless of funding. Not sure what journals you're reading...


RE: Sample size
By marsbound2024 on 8/14/2008 3:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, so are you telling me that every time there is a bigger than normal gust of wind these same people will suffer panic attacks and migraines? This study is ridiculous in my opinion. Somebody is doing a "correlation means causation" thing again.


RE: Sample size
By clovell on 8/14/2008 3:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
Not really; there wasn't even correlation proven here. Honestly, there's nothing to see here but plausibility and the need for further study. These studies really say nothing on their own.


RE: Sample size
By Myg on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sample size
By TomZ on 8/14/2008 3:37:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yea, cause nuclear power doesnt kill you with poisioning when something goes wrong nor does it make you sterile and your unborn children deformed...

Yes, thanks for the FUD. How many people have nuclear power plants made sterile or children deformed?

Even Chernobly only killed a little more than 50 people - and that was a complete meltdown. Compare that to other man-made disasters like the Bhopal Disaster that killed 18,000.

Nuclear power is not the big, scary, invisible monster people like you make it out to be.


RE: Sample size
By kc77 on 8/15/2008 8:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
Official estimates from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are that around 25,000 people died by 2005 due to Chernobyl. There are higher numbers out there but I don't consider Green Peace a viable source.


RE: Sample size
By blaster5k on 8/14/2008 3:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
Wind power can kill you too. There have been something like 50 deaths already caused by those giant blades.

Coal can also kill you. The emissions are estimated to cause thousands of premature deaths every year. Miners die every year.

Even not building power stations can kill you. Without the quality of life improvements generated indirectly via electricity, life expectancy would be much lower and it would be impossible to support a population of the current size.

There are risks associated with doing anything. It all comes down to the numbers, and statistically, nuclear power is one of the safer power generation methods for each kWh -- even if you include Chernobyl, which isn't really fair, since it was an inherently unsafe plant that never could have been built in a western country.


RE: Sample size
By Myg on 8/15/2008 9:48:08 AM , Rating: 2
Why must everything exist to serve power generation?

Humans have survived much longer without then with it, we dont need it, its just something that makes life easier, it doesnt make life...


RE: Sample size
By akugami on 8/14/2008 9:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
New study shows breathing is hazardous to your health! You could breathe in harmful bacterias and viruses! Find out the details on News at 11!

Seriously, unless it is some major health hazard, most of these "XYZ is harmful to you!" studies smack of sensationalism. It seems almost every day there is a new study showing something is harmful to you. Heck, I could do a study showing drinking too much water is bad for you and can cause death, but it would be sensationalism even if true (and it is true).


RE: Sample size
By Connoisseur on 8/14/2008 10:49:18 AM , Rating: 4
Agreed... This is a terrible sample. They should query at least hundreds to thousands of families who live near wind farms and should also have statistics by geographical region in order to negate other health issues.


RE: Sample size
By spuddyt on 8/14/2008 10:51:13 AM , Rating: 2
still, if it was only a test study, then it prooves that further investigation ought to be done, just to double check.


RE: Sample size
By clovell on 8/14/2008 11:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what it was.


RE: Sample size
By gyranthir on 8/14/2008 10:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
I assume this is a proof of concept Study, to get funding to do a larger blind study of the families.

In general, there has been suspicion that low energy emissions caused by turbines are unhealthy for humans.


RE: Sample size
By clovell on 8/14/2008 3:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm.... how exactly would you blind an observational study?


RE: Sample size
By nekobawt on 8/15/2008 11:42:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The blind method is a part of the scientific method, used to prevent research outcomes from being influenced by either the placebo effect or the observer bias.


Courtesy of wikipedia.


RE: Sample size
By clovell on 8/15/2008 12:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
Right, I know that - I help design clinical studies. But, that doesn't answer my question. There's no feasible way to blind such a study - most people tend to realize whether they live in close proximity to a wind generator - they're hard to miss.


RE: Sample size
By MrBungle123 on 8/14/2008 10:58:38 AM , Rating: 1
I'm going to call bullshit on this story, it sounds like group of people looking for a new way to start frivolous law suits for a quick buck.


RE: Sample size
By porkpie on 8/14/2008 11:13:16 AM , Rating: 3
A large sample is only needed if the signal to noise ratio is low. In this case, it appears that 80% (8 out of 10) families had health problems. That's a very high ratio compared to the normal percentage of families suffering these sorts of problems. That means a small sample size can be very relevent.


RE: Sample size
By clovell on 8/14/2008 11:46:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but you assume that the design is optimal with that statement. Plus, no statistical tests were performed.

I think one or two thousand families in an epidemiological study would be quite sufficient. This should allow for the researchers to control for confounding factors in their models - depending on how fancy they want to get.


RE: Sample size
By jRaskell on 8/14/2008 12:05:52 PM , Rating: 3
Nothing was said about HOW those ten families were chosen. If it was a completely random selection, then your statement has some validity. If there was selection criteria, then that criteria could significantly bias the results of the study.


RE: Sample size
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 12:18:28 PM , Rating: 4
You're missing a critical point here. Statistical methodology is only important if you're attempting to use a statistical correlation to imply a causal effect. That's not what was done here.

In this particular study, 10 familes were *chosen* who all had problems; most had multiple problems per family. Of the eight families who stopped being exposed to low-frequency nose, 100% of them recovered fully.

The causal effect here is implied not because these 10 familes developed problems, but because of how many recovered when removed from the source of the problem.


RE: Sample size
By clovell on 8/14/2008 3:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
> Statistical methodology is only important if you're attempting to use a statistical correlation to imply a causal effect

No, that's not quite right. Statistical methodology is quite important in showing both association and causation. The methodologies used in a study dictate the design.

I see what you're driving at, though, and it makes sense overall, but the above claim reaches too far.


RE: Sample size
By foolsgambit11 on 8/14/2008 3:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
So you could say it suggests that there is a high probability that those who are sensitive to this will suffer no long term ill effects once the aggravating stimulus is removed. It makes no suggestion of what percentage of people would be sensitive to this.

But it would take a bigger sample even to show that the results this study implies are true. For instance, look at drug testing methodologies - they *choose* people who have problems, then give them a possible cure. And they like more than, say, 40 people to be in the study. Because that's not a statistically significant number, even for this kind of study.


RE: Sample size
By KernD on 8/14/2008 12:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
Your wrong, a random sample needs to be bigger than a well chosen one, of course a badly chosen one is even worst.
Just look-up how they make survey for elections for example.

This sample is just too small to be significant, it's like if I trow a dice 10 times and get no 3 out of all the rolls and conclude the probability of a 3 are smaller than the rest.

They could have just stumbled on people who just happen to have allot of sleep disorder, or more likely they just ask question about that subject in particular. Its insanely easy to influence a subject.

Now I do think they should look into this further, but then again they should look at all the audio pollution and it's effects.

Wind farms are improving an are becoming more silent and even the small faster spinning one could be more quiet, just look at high end computer fan.

Wind power is an important part of our future energy production and we should let no hippie get in our way.
We get the same type of BS against our dams here up north, but it still beats coal, oil and nuclear energy plant.
Dams don't pollute, yet they keep complaining.

I'm certain they will find something against solar power soon enough.


RE: Sample size
By Hiawa23 on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sample size
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 11:20:17 AM , Rating: 5
Wind power is certainly not going to reduce the "ringing in your pocket book". It's a substantially more expensive form of energy than conventional sources.

As for reliance on foreign oil, wind isn't going to much about that either. Nuclear and clean coal technology (the US has the largest coal reserves in the world) are a much better bet for generating electricity.


RE: Sample size
By 67STANG on 8/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sample size
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 11:47:11 AM , Rating: 4
> "It's not more expensive than your beloved nuclear"

According to every study done by a utility or government body, it is. I've posted the statistics many times.

Worse, wind costs rise even further if one attempts to supply more than about 10-15% of the grid's power needs with it, due to the difficulty of matching demand to the innately variable nature of wind.

Denmark, which currently generates less than 19% of its energy with wind (the highest in the world) is only able to operate by selling power to the European grid when wind generating is high, and buying it back when wind is low.


RE: Sample size
By blaster5k on 8/14/2008 12:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you can't neglect the difficulties associated with variable power sources. People don't seem to realize that providing just enough power to the grid to meet demand is a constant balancing act. There are no batteries sitting around that can magically level things off. Storage technologies simply don't exist to handle regulation on this kind of scale.


RE: Sample size
By 67STANG on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sample size
By Icelight on 8/14/2008 2:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Of course it isn't a balanced solution! It's not 100% nuclear with no reliance whatsoever on any way, shape or form of renewable resource!


RE: Sample size
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 2:20:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
but we all know that the folks at MIT are usually a bit more intelligent than them anyhow... And they've found the following:
Oops, you really should read reports before you reference them. The study you're referring to is the MIT "The Future of Nuclear Energy", which gave a cost of 6.7c/Kw-h for nuclear. That's substantially better than any wind farm currently in existence.

Furthermore, that cost is based on an 85% availability factor and a 40-year lifetime for nuclear plants. The current industry average is 90%...and many plants are operating up to 60 years now.

Finally, those costs are with the current crop of nuclear reactors, which are based on 1970s-era technology. We have much more efficient, cheaper designs on the books...but little interest in building them, thanks to public ignorance.

Here's the study itself. Turn to page 6 for the cost figures:

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

> "For every 1,500MW of windpower, you need 8MW of conventional power generation to deal with variability"

I don't know where you get this figure, but its simply wrong. If you have 1500MW of wind capacity, and the wind stops blowing, you have a 1500MW wind shortfall. If the wind slows, you have a 500-1000MW shortfall.

This is why supplying more than a small fraction of the total grid's needs with wind power is infeasible. It's been confirmed by countless studies and more importantly, the real world. Here's a study by the Irish Government with actual figures:

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/uploads/Publi...

> "They are able to SELL their excess power to others. And then use those monies to purchase back when they need to. Sounds like an awfully balanced solution to me. Eh? "

I realize you work in the wind power industry, but please try to think about this logically. The only reason Denmark is able to sell that excess wind power is because a) it only generates 19% from wind, and b) it's neighbors generate much less than that. If all Europe were attempting to generate 25% or more from wind power, such a scenario would be utterly impossible.


RE: Sample size
By 67STANG on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sample size
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 4:23:10 PM , Rating: 3
> " actually have read the study... what I'm quoting is a further analysis located here:"

In other words, you're passing off someone else's numbers as the result of an MIT study? Quite shady of you...especially when those figures come directly from a pro-wind power blog.

> Further, how are we to draw an accurate comparison of "newer" reactors, when then majority of what we are using are 1970's-era reactors? "

It's quite simple. If we're comparing costs for new sources of energy, we should look at the best technology available now. We're not going to build windmills based on 30-year old designs, nor will we do the same with new nuclear plants.

> "So the newer reactors last another 20 years and have 5% more availability?"

No, the *existing* reactors do that. The 2003 study used numbers below what the industry averages today.

> "no one wants to do over 25% [from Wind]"

So why argue the point that its possible, when you clearly understand that it isn't? Point in fact, from the Irish study, supply values above 10-15% start bearing a rapidly escalating cost penalty.


RE: Sample size
By 67STANG on 8/14/2008 5:10:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In other words, you're passing off someone else's numbers as the result of an MIT study? Quite shady of you...especially when those figures come directly from a pro-wind power blog.

Shady? The figures are derived directly from the MIT study.... By all means, if they are incorrect, please tell me how you've come to the conclusion. Just because they are from a pro-windpower blog doesn't mean it is inaccurate-- especially since it includes commentary from an employee of the Nuclear Engergy Institute.... Did you even read through?

quote:
So why argue the point that its possible, when you clearly understand that it isn't? Point in fact, from the Irish study, supply values above 10-15% start bearing a rapidly escalating cost penalty.

You just don't get it, even though I've said it explicitly over and over... I'm not arguing that it's possible... YOU are...Please read the posts


RE: Sample size
By foolsgambit11 on 8/15/2008 8:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
Aaaah! I see what happened. The page he cites quotes $67/MWh as the figure from the MIT report. Which is true, yes? $67/MWh = 6.7 cents/kWh? The problem is, in his post, he mistakenly(?) used the wrong units, quoting that as kWhs.

The page goes on to quote a study by the Nuclear Energy Agency, http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf, that gives the levelized cost of nuclear as anywhere from $21 to $31/MWh at the 5% discount rate, and the levelized cost of wind as $35 to $95/MWh, with most sites coming in below $60/MWh at the same 5% discount rate.


RE: Sample size
By Eris23007 on 8/14/2008 2:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
$63/kW vs. $27/kW nuclear vs. wind does not track with studies I've seen. That doesn't make it untrue, but it would be appreciated if you could please provide a link to verify this assertion.


RE: Sample size
By Solandri on 8/14/2008 3:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
Took me a while to track down your sources. Please include a link next time if you're able to.

The MIT paper focused only on nuclear, it does not mention wind. It's also US-centric, taking into account licensing, regulation, construction, and lawsuit costs in the U.S.
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

The wind figures come from the IEA.
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/ElecCo...
Interestingly, this paper also includes nuclear's cost, at a range from $30-$45/MWh for the U.S. Overall for the world it ranged from $30-$50/MWh. Your source chose to overlook this, and instead went for the higher MIT figure.

More interestingly, it lists wind's costs at $30-$45/MWh for the U.S. (might be $27 at the low end, tough to eyeball the graph). But the figures for the rest of the world range from $30 (US) to over $140 (Czech) /MWh. Eyeballing the graphs, the average seems to be around $50-$70/MWh.

This is pretty much in-line with what I've been saying - that wind in certain select locations (as the U.S. seems to have done thus far) is a very viable power source, but it doesn't work everywhere. If you follow the misguided belief that wind is a panacea, it's very easy to build yourself a wind farm where the costs are exorbitant relative to other sources. The U.S. has been building wind farms when it's economically viable. Other countries have been building wind farms because they're green, not because they're economically viable, and the cost difference shows pretty clearly in the IEA paper.

Basically your source cherry picked different figures from different sources that made nuclear look worst and wind look best. He's taken one paper which showed nuclear as cheaper than wind, taken another paper which looked only at nuclear, and combined them to conclude that wind is cheaper than nuclear.


RE: Sample size
By LordanSS on 8/14/2008 5:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
Wind powerplants require massive areas to harness any significant amount of energy. It might be "green", as people say, but the area used to build them is much, much larger than a nuclear reactor would need, to generate the same amount of power.

As far as power density goes, I'd guess that nuclear has the best ratio of them all. Most of Brazil's power comes from hydroelectric plants... in theory, it would be "green" as itself doesn't burn any fossil fuels, but area usage is enormous, with massive alagated regions. Not to mention the need to rely on rainfall... dry seasons can be problematic.

And about putting wind farms on deserted areas, etc... well, you would be amazed at what people can do there, agriculturally. Israel arid areas come to mind, as some of our own semi-arid regions in Brazil.

In a time when people complain about rising of crops price, due to biofuels production demand, waste of area that could be used for something else should come to mind.

Just wish our dumbass politics would allow investment on several more nuclear power plants... electric energy prices in Brazil are no joke (more expensive than the US, mind you).


RE: Sample size
By 67STANG on 8/14/2008 6:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
The base of wind turbine is about the size of a 2-car garage. Crops are easily planted and tended to between turbine installations...


RE: Sample size
By 67STANG on 8/14/2008 6:31:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
He's taken one paper which showed nuclear as cheaper than wind, taken another paper which looked only at nuclear, and combined them to conclude that wind is cheaper than nuclear.
Right, because you said it your self... each study didn't do a comparison. Obviously one way to get a fair comparison is to take specialized studies which calculate like figures, and combine them for a conclusion...


RE: Sample size
By Solandri on 8/14/2008 7:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
No, the IEA paper compared the worldwide costs for nuclear and wind (and coal, gas, hydro, etc). And it found that worldwide, nuclear was cheaper than wind; and in the U.S. nuclear cost the same as wind. Your source disregarded that, found another paper which calculated the cost of nuclear a totally different way, and improperly used that figure to compare.

Thanks for tipping me off about that paper BTW, it's a really nice reference for global energy production costs.


RE: Sample size
By 67STANG on 8/15/2008 12:14:51 AM , Rating: 1
Please explain how his figures were improperly used. I'd be glad to entertain your answer.


RE: Sample size
By foolsgambit11 on 8/15/2008 8:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the costs were higher in the Czech Republic. Common knowledge that offshore wind farms fare better than onshore ones for % utilization. I'm betting that's why the higher cost.


RE: Sample size
By Amiga500 on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sample size
By FITCamaro on 8/14/2008 12:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
How do you figure that solar is predictable? Weathermen are the only people who can constantly be wrong and still keep their job. And irregardless of how predictable it is, its extremely costly to have a backup when you power the majority of your country with solar. You can't just tell people that they can't have power.

The same goes with wind.


RE: Sample size
By frobizzle on 8/14/2008 12:28:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Weathermen are the only people who can constantly be wrong and still keep their job.

That's not true. Economists, sociologists and politicians are usually wrong and remain employed!


RE: Sample size
By kickwormjoe on 8/14/2008 12:36:22 PM , Rating: 5
That's not true, either. Politicians aren't constantly wrong. They're constantly lying.


RE: Sample size
By 306maxi on 8/14/2008 1:34:47 PM , Rating: 3
Everyone knows that wind and solar are merely there to lessen our need for fossil fuels. They're not a complete solution in themselves but on a windy or sunny day they reduce your reliance on fossil fuels which can only be a good thing. It's energy for free. Where I live we will soon have 3 offshore windfarms and although the wind isn't always there it's there for quite a lot of the time and there is enough energy coming from them to power the towns along the coast here. You just can't keep on burning coal, oil and gas and expect life to continue like that without costs going up. I agree that nuclear power should be part of the solution but I think renewables are a big part too.


RE: Sample size
By 67STANG on 8/14/2008 1:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, finally someone with some sense.


RE: Sample size
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 5:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's energy for free.
So, solar cells are free and wind turbines are free. If I would've known this before, I would've had both installed!!! Since they're both free. What are we arguing about?


RE: Sample size
By 306maxi on 8/14/2008 5:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
Wow! Until today I hadn't realised that I live in a capitalist society and we have to pay for stuff. Please excuse my ignorance.....

Of course it's not free.... but once the turbines or panels are up the energy is free. As in you don't need to keep on pumping fossil fuels in to generate electricity. Here in North Wales we have a hydro electric station called Electric Mountain which operates on the potential energy of the water in the lake at the top. So at non-peak times power generated by other means is used to pump water into the lake and then at times when more electricity is required the water is fed down through the turbines and you have clean power which is available almost instantaneously rather than the hours or minutes it can take for other types of power stations to come online from not generating any power at all.

Yes, hydro, wind and solar power require maintenance but then again what source of power doesn't? But the difference is you don't need to pay for the fossil fuel you're going to need to burn.

As shown above with my Electric Mountain example there is a clear and easy way to store electricity and then be able to drawn on it in a very quick manner.

I live in the UK but I come from Australia and ever since I can remember my parents had a solar hot water system on the roof of our house. It cost a couple of thousand australian dollars but it kept our family of 5 in hot water for an average of 9-10 months a year. Now add that up over the 15 year life of the system and there's a hefty saving over the AU$3000 my parents paid for their last system.


RE: Sample size
By Solandri on 8/14/2008 7:05:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Of course it's not free.... but once the turbines or panels are up the energy is free.

Right. Normally, construction costs are amortized over the expected lifetime of the power generation facility, and shows up in the cost of the power that way. When you do that and add maintenance costs (see below), wind ends up costing slightly to significantly more than nuclear and coal, and solar ends up costing a lot more than anything else.

That's what we keep trying to tell people who keep saying "but the energy is free!" No it's not once you factor in all the costs involved in collecting it. When you're doing a straight cost comparison for power facilities without an infinite lifespan, there is no point distinguishing between construction, operational, and fuel costs. Just because one source has a zero for one of those costs does not automatically make it better than anything else. You have to compare the sum of all those costs across the expected lifespan.

The two cheapest renewables are hydro and geothermal, and they are basically on-par with or moderately cheaper than coal and nuclear. (Nuclear suffers from artificial costs described elsewhere.)
quote:
Yes, hydro, wind and solar power require maintenance but then again what source of power doesn't? But the difference is you don't need to pay for the fossil fuel you're going to need to burn.

Unfortunately, wind, solar, and to a lesser extent hydro end up being very low density power sources. That is, they require a lot of land area per MW generated. That drives up their maintenance costs relative to coal, gas, and nuclear. In comparison to nuclear in particular, the additional maintenance cost of wind exceeds the cost of nuclear fuel by several times.
quote:
I live in the UK but I come from Australia and ever since I can remember my parents had a solar hot water system on the roof of our house. It cost a couple of thousand australian dollars but it kept our family of 5 in hot water for an average of 9-10 months a year.

Solar hot water heaters are trivial to make. You can do it with a tub painted black. Where solar becomes exorbitantly expensive is when you try to convert that sunlight into electricity. Sometimes I wonder if just hooking up a Stirling engine to one of those solar hot water heaters might not be better.


RE: Sample size
By andrinoaa on 8/15/2008 12:17:35 AM , Rating: 2
This bullshirt monetary arguement always comes up. What I want to know is, is the true cost of nuclear or burning of fossil fuels ever factored into the cost analysis? My experience tells me it isn't because no one is prepared to tell it like it really is. Its much cheaper if we all pretend there is no hidden cost and the government helps to cover it all up.
For one, I am not convinced that the NUCLAR cycle costs what the glowboys insist. Storeage projections are best case projections hundreds of years into the future and "new style" plants are vapourware.
Coal burning doesn't even have a cost for the pollution it spews forth.
In my eyes, I haven't been convinced.
Please guys, before you keep canning an alternative ie wind, clean up your backyard, then you may have credebility.
So wind mills cause illness?!?!? What does living in Bombay do to your health? lol
Seriously, I think the survey is terminal. Pick any 10 families with an illness and come up with a common denominator. Not that there isn't a problem. There may very well be an issue to investigate further. Another more thorough survey may be required. Haven't the europeans been living with this for a long time? Surely they would a better grip on this issue?


RE: Sample size
By Ringold on 8/15/2008 4:38:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This bullshirt monetary arguement always comes up. [...] In my eyes, I haven't been convinced.


Engineers give me a bullshit gravity argument about getting in to space. I haven't been convinced either! /sarcasm

Can bring a horse to water, but I suppose you can't make one drink. You also, I think, have said you're an engineer. Reminds me of another saying. All the college in the world would still be wasted on fools.

quote:
and "new style" plants are vapourware.


Vaporware? How is it vaporware if the Chinese and others are already building them?

quote:
Haven't the europeans been living with this for a long time?


You apparently have a hard on for Europe; the French have been living with nuclear for an even longer time and have none of your problems.


RE: Sample size
By 306maxi on 8/15/2008 5:25:23 AM , Rating: 1
All of which is moot when you consider that wind and solar are limitless resources (yes one day the sun will swallow us up but that's millions of years away) whereas one day we WILL run out of coal, oil, gas and nuclear fuel. Perhaps coal will last quite a while but the pollution element is simply not acceptable.

As someone who has asthma I can tell you straight away when I wake up whether it's a smoggy day outside without looking out the window. Thankfully my condition is very mild but for others respiratory problems often lead to death. Now I don't subscribe to this global warming nonsense but air pollution is a serious issue.

Yes I know it's low density power but there's a lot of empty space on the planet. Obviously this won't solve the power needs of places like London, New York, Tokyo and other densely populated cities but it can go towards helping.

The Solar hot water heaters in Australia are a little bit more fancy than just a tub painted black. There is a panel at the bottom which hard a glycol type fluid which had been dyed black so as to absorb heat better which circulates up into the tank and heats up another tank inside which contains the water in it.

Thing is coal, oil, gas and nuclear fuels will ALL run out at one point. If you have a better solution than renewables then tell me about it. But costs mean nothing when you're comparing wind @ $x/Mw to gas at half that but there is no gas to burn....


RE: Sample size
By FITCamaro on 8/14/2008 12:00:10 PM , Rating: 4
You'd change your mind if you were sleep deprived and constantly having migraines. Which is what happens when exposed to constant high frequency sound.


RE: Sample size
By andrinoaa on 8/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sample size
By clovell on 8/14/2008 11:37:42 AM , Rating: 2
True. These were moreso pilot studies. I found Amanda Harry's study to be pretty interesting. However, the amount of evidence currently amassed by these two studies is meager, and in no way found a significant association between wind farms and health problems (because neither tested for it). There were no statistical tests performed and the questionnaires seem subject to a reporting bias based on how the questions are asked.

Someone mentioned a large-scale study should be done that includes hundreds of thousands of people, but honestly, if you can find even two thousand people, with a well-designed observational study - possibly even something prosepective rather than retrospective, as Dr. Harry's study was - that would most likely be sufficient.

Understand though, that this is how science tends to work - you start with an idea and test it with increasing rigor until the community can be reasonably assured of its validity. I think Dr. Harry makes a solid case that this phenomenon should be explored more.


RE: Sample size
By Nik00117 on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sample size
By rudolphna on 8/14/2008 5:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
I was actually thinking the exact same thing.


RE: Sample size
By CSMR on 8/15/2008 11:08:25 AM , Rating: 2
Your point (sample size) is understandable but inaccurate, and understandably but wrongly given a high rating. You can learn from every piece of information. You can learn from a sample of 10. A result of 8 out of ten is actually very strong information either from a Bayesian point of view or from the point of view of statistical testing when the null hypothesis is that there is no effect. The important thing is that the sample is random/unbiased . (Another potential issue is that placebo effects may be included in the results because you cannot test against a placebo, hard to factor out in such cases so you just have to look at results including placebo.)


RE: Sample size
By Parhel on 8/15/2008 3:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't a sample, these were case studies.


Who sponsored this study?
By SeeManRun on 8/14/2008 10:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
Whenever I see a sensational article like this, I have to ask who is footing the bill for the study... the coal/oil companies? maybe nuclear companies...?




RE: Who sponsored this study?
By MrBungle123 on 8/14/2008 10:56:45 AM , Rating: 2
Whenever I see someone assuming that large corporations are out to get them, I have to ask who is this guy working for?... Greenpeace? PETA? Moveon.org? maybe Rosie O'Donnell...?


RE: Who sponsored this study?
By nyfd432 on 8/14/2008 11:07:02 AM , Rating: 2
Right, must be some crazy liberal commie because obviously corporations are not concerned about competition that could cost them billions and they have peoples best interests at heart.

Screw checking sources, go with what sounds right to you.


RE: Who sponsored this study?
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 11:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Screw checking sources, go with what sounds right to you.
He didn't say that. Checking the sources is smart but to assume that a company is behind everything that doesn't agree with want you want to believe is immature.

Besides, even the oil companies are investing in alternate energy. Why shouldn't they do it? When it becomes cost effective and efficient, they want to be around to corner that market too. Why not? They'll make even more money on these technologies than oil.


RE: Who sponsored this study?
By TheDoc9 on 8/14/2008 11:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
No, they aren't concerned. You'll know they are when they start buying wind turbine companies.


RE: Who sponsored this study?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 12:06:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You'll know they are when they start buying wind turbine companies.
GE, Siemens, Mitsubishi, and other large corporations already own wind turbine companies.


RE: Who sponsored this study?
By HinderedHindsight on 8/14/2008 12:00:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Whenever I see someone assuming that large corporations are out to get them,


Wow, is this way off base. Most do not assume corporations are out to get them (only the paranoid believe this). Modern corporations, by definition, are measured and driven by profit. When stockholders come together to invest in a corporation, it is their expectation that there will be a (positive) return on that investment. It is the job of the management of any corporation to maximize that return.

With that it mind, a corporation engages in many activities to maximize said return. Including finding, creating, and publicizing negative PR on anything that might prevent them from maximizing their returns. Maximizing revenue can take many forms, including limiting service to customers, using cheaper (and potentially substandard/dangerous) materials to produce products, etc.

When you say something like "corporations are out to get them" you make people sound paranoid and unreasonable. The truth is that people do not believe corporations are out to get them, but rather, get money . It is an unfortunate truth that many (but not all) corporations will seek the shortest, easiest route to maximize revenue, which may, in turn, can hurt customers. That's what people are concerned with, and it is not an invalid assumption given that corporations will tend to seek profit in what they consider the most efficient manner.


RE: Who sponsored this study?
By wempa on 8/14/2008 12:39:39 PM , Rating: 3
True, corporations are out to get money. However, they'd certainly rather milk their current sources of money. Change requires effort and money. Just look at how resistant the recording industry is to change. They are trying to hold so tight onto physical media (CDs) when it's very apparent that physical formats are dying and digital distribution is the way of the future. So, it's not so off base to think that some company might have been a sponsor of this.


RE: Who sponsored this study?
By Solandri on 8/14/2008 3:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
Change represents great opportunity. Sony had a pretty solid grip on the portable music player market (the Walkman). When MP3 players started to appear, Sony ignored that market because their Music division vetoed any attempt by their Electronics division to sell an MP3 player. As a result, Apple and Creative snapped up most of the market, and Sony is now a bit player.

Corporations would certainly rather milk their current sources of money if no clearly superior alternative exists. But it's economic suicide to ignore a superior alternative source of money. That's where the "holding back the electric car and green energy" conspiracy theories fail.


RE: Who sponsored this study?
By clovell on 8/14/2008 11:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
Dude. If oil companies paid for it, don't you think they'd use more than 39 or 10 people?

Think, dammit.


OMG - Another strange story ...
By greylica on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: OMG - Another strange story ...
By porkpie on 8/14/2008 11:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People placed far, far, far away from wind generators seems to have the same symptoms, please, explain to me what is happening to them...
People who have never smoked get cancer too. I guess that means smoking doesn't cause cancer?

Congrats on the worst logical fallacy I've seen all month.


RE: OMG - Another strange story ...
By Hiawa23 on 8/14/2008 11:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
didn't someone report Cell phones may be the cause of ills that face us also?


By greylica on 8/14/2008 2:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
It´s something completely different, we are hearing much more noise than wind farms each day, and people don´t get crazy about this, nor any suicidal is getting itself ouside of a window because of the noise in the streets.
Course, people who never smoke get cancer too, but the exposition to the poison inside smoke will make the chances of a cancer very high .
But, a Windfarm, they are normally placed far from populated cities, if the book is about the maintenance persons, (10 families) or then people living inside the farm, ( the guards )ok, I admit, but this conclusion cannot be extended far from the farms.

Outside of this, there are much more than 10 families of cientists trying to solve the noise and vibration problems in order to expand Wind farms.

The vibration and noise, is a major cause of maintenance inside generators, they broke bearings, axes, and curtains the lifespan of the generator. A generator is made to work about 20~25 years, but depending of the approach used, it´s lifespan doesn´t surpass 10 years, even with a good maintenance.
Avoiding noise and vibration, they will avoid to fix generators too. It´s only a question of time.

Noctua Fans are a good design to start from, but seems Netherlands have the most quiet Wind Farm in the world. Then why not import their design as a suggestion ?


RE: OMG - Another strange story ...
By JohnnyCNote on 8/14/2008 3:04:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
quote:
People placed far, far, far away from wind generators seems to have the same symptoms, please, explain to me what is happening to them...
People who have never smoked get cancer too. I guess that means smoking doesn't cause cancer?

Congrats on the worst logical fallacy I've seen all month.


How are pancreatic, thyroid, colon, cervical (to name a few) cancers the direct results of smoking? Talk about a "logical fallacy" . . .


RE: OMG - Another strange story ...
By porkpie on 8/14/2008 3:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How are pancreatic, thyroid, colon, cervical (to name a few) cancers the direct results of smoking? Talk about a "logical fallacy" . . .
Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? Some people get lung cancer without smoking. That doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

Get it now?


Wind Power
By 3kliksphilip on 8/14/2008 10:40:14 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Sleep and learning disorders, migraines, dizziness, and other problems possible.


I think you're talking about another form of wind.




RE: Wind Power
By maverick85wd on 8/14/2008 11:55:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think you're talking about another form of wind.


I think not so much another form of wind as much as the breaking thereof.


Anger Illness
By rickon66 on 8/14/2008 11:40:04 AM , Rating: 5
<Sherry Eaton, who also lives near the Willow Creek project, says she "started to cry" when she say the first turbine being built. >

See-it must be true, Sherry's health(mental) was affected before the first one was even built. These people just didn't want the project in their back yard and 80% came up with an appropriate illness to match their anger.




RE: Anger Illness
By TheDoc9 on 8/14/2008 12:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
I actually agree with this. But that doesn't necessarily make their problems any less real.

It also speaks about what the majority REALLY want. We come to these forums and see discussions about alternative energies like this, and see people like T. Boone Pickens determining our nations future energy.

This is someone who's rich, not a public official, in the minority, and he's deciding something for the majority - typical for these projects.

I guarantee you that the people who develop these projects don't have windmills in their backyard, but they'll be quick to point out all of benefits of a windmill and put down anyone who has issues when one is forcedly built in their back yard.


oink oink!
By koomo on 8/14/2008 11:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eaton commutes 90 miles a day so her family can live in a quiet desert setting.


LOL

btw, the wind farms here in West Texas are quite nice. It's good to see a lot of the oilfield operators I used to work with when I was in "Big Oil" getting some work in the energy field again. (A lot of our fields were shut-in in the late '90s, and those old waterfloods aren't economical to get going again in almost any oil price scenario.)

Meanwhile, to all of you who continue to drive 5000 lb vehicles to move your overweight body and complain about your lost right to buy gasoline at a price cheaper than your Dasani... Thank you.




RE: oink oink!
By porkpie on 8/14/2008 11:58:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
btw, the wind farms here in West Texas are quite nice
Didn't you guys recently have a blackout there because the wind stopped blowing?


RE: oink oink!
By koomo on 8/14/2008 12:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
Not in my area, but it's very possible. One of the biggest hurdles for wind power is in addressing the aspects of reliablity. Spreading out the footprint is the best answer.

West Texas has long been a producer of energy, but not power. A major upgrade of the power transmission systems here is a key to utilizing the windpower generation planned for the future. The legislature just passed a plan to invest millions for that purpose.

It'll become a nice component of our overall energy picture, but I think it's unlikely to spread to other areas that aren't already friendly to the ideas of oil and gas development.


mmm wind
By Lavacon on 8/14/2008 11:59:19 AM , Rating: 1
I wonder how the studies of families living next to coal burning and nuclear power plants went? I would like to see those results. Hypocrites




RE: mmm wind
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 12:10:31 PM , Rating: 5
There have been hundreds of large, well-funded studies of the effects of living near a coal or nuclear plant. Such studies are ongoing. In the case of nuclear, there are no negative effects whatsoever.

Coal has negative effects, but these aren't constrained to the area around the plants; a single plant can generate respiratory problems hundreds of miles away. These problems could be mitigated or eliminated with clean coal technology, but opposition to new plant construction keeps the old ones in operation.


I lived near some
By v1001 on 8/14/2008 12:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to say something here about this study.

The new turbines that go up are HUGE. And they are so high that you can stand from the road and look out at all them and not hear a thing. They seem to be silent. I could see them in the distance from my house. I enjoyed watching them spin from my backyard. No way you can hear a peep from them from the distance that they keep them on their own land and neighboring land.

Another thing. They must have put these people in houses that are RIGHT under these things. There is NO way you'd be aloud to build that close let alone even get that close to them (without trespassing).

Last summer I lived out in Oregon where all these are being built. It's actually quite majestic seeing them spin out there through sun or storm. Something soothing in a way even. Each time I saw another one go up I was proud to see it happen. It is healthier way of making electricity and it's nice to see it happening.

Also this wade guy is crap. Hey man sorry but you can't have the entire country side just be devoted to your view of the mountain. It's not your right unless you bought it. You hear this same thing in the city even. Some neighbor gets pissed because someone builds a house on the lot they bought next to them or in front of them. Tough! You didn't buy it! I'd personally would rather look at the wind turbines than a huge subdivision of houses. And it could have very well be a subdivision instead. Or maybe some ugly business. Then you would have really heard this wade guy B****.

Honestly these people are just trying to start trouble where there is non.




RE: I lived near some
By Eris23007 on 8/14/2008 2:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the theory here is that the turbines produce high-amplitude pressure waves at Very Low or Extremely Low Frequencies (well below 20Hz, which is considered the bottom range of human hearing capability). As it happens, low-frequency energy tends to be extremely persistent and will travel very far. This is why the Navy uses VLF and ELF radio waves to communicate with submarines while they are submerged: normal RF wavelengths are quickly absorbed by water and other dense materials, while the enormous wavelengths of VLF and ELF waves are not so easily disrupted. The US Navy's transmitters are in the Continental US and are able to reach submerged vessels in much of the world's oceans.

As I understand the post, the claim under consideration is that the low-frequency acoustic energy causes inner ear disruption, leading to the described health problems. This is not out of the question; the fact that your brain is unable to convert these low frequency signals into audible sounds does not mean the pressure waves aren't affecting your ear. Furthermore there is ample evidence that people with inner ear problems exibit many seemingly unrelated symptoms; witness the behavior of people with severe ear infections - dizziness, instability, emotional problems, etc.

I am not expressing an opinion either way as to the veracity of the health claims. I'm simply pointing out that nothing in the post is contradicted by the fact that you couldn't hear the wind turbines - the frequencies at issue are below the human ability to hear, and travel considerably further than the frequencies which humans can hear due to pressure wave physics.


RE: I lived near some
By Solandri on 8/14/2008 3:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe the theory here is that the turbines produce high-amplitude pressure waves at Very Low or Extremely Low Frequencies (well below 20Hz, which is considered the bottom range of human hearing capability). As it happens, low-frequency energy tends to be extremely persistent and will travel very far. This is why the Navy uses VLF and ELF radio waves to communicate with submarines while they are submerged
Well, the Navy's ELF and VLF is radio, not acoustic. A better example is a foghorn. When there's a lot of moisture in the air, higher frequencies get absorbed relatively quickly and the only sound which carries for a great distance are the low frequencies.

The phenomenon of infrasound and its disturbing effects on people is pretty widely known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound


Take your pick...
By Jeff7181 on 8/14/2008 11:39:19 AM , Rating: 2
Noise pollution or carbon emissions. The grass is always greener, huh?




RE: Take your pick...
By grenableu on 8/14/2008 11:54:41 AM , Rating: 3
Or we could simply build nuke plants like France and not have to deal with either.


well....
By chromal on 8/14/2008 12:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, so we have a small-sample individual study. By itself, it may be a call for more research, but scientifically speaking, doesn't really add up to anything. They would need to isolate factory, like wind patterns, turbine and tower design and operational considerations, proximity factors, and of course, other potential environmental basis sources. All this study sounds like it suggests is a possible correlation in a very limited sample.

As other have observed, one wonders if the study was funded by big energy corporations, but it may honestly just be an academic project? Either way, I'm not sure it's really newsworthy until there's duplication of research and scientific consensus. Even then, establishing public policy will definitely need to weigh other factors, like air pollution from fossil fuel alternatives, whose impacts are far less localized than wind turbines.




By wempa on 8/14/2008 12:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, a new study suggests that living near a wind farm can cause serious health problems; including causes sleep disorders , difficulty with equilibrium, migraine headaches, panic attacks, and other issues.


quote:
Sherry Eaton, who also lives near the Willow Creek project, says she "started to cry" when she say the first turbine being built.




low energy noise
By emoser96 on 8/14/2008 12:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
If the low energy sound noise is causing the health effects, a great way to test it would be to put the noise suppression devices on it ( http://www.dailytech.com/New+Anti+Noise+Addons+Sil... )and see if those people got better. Too bad several of them moved away.

If this really does turn out to be a problem, turbine noise suppression companies will rake in the big bucks.




I don't think so
By tech329 on 8/14/2008 2:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
We have a huge wind farm about thirty miles from where I live and I have gone to see them on multiple occasions. They are probably four hundred yards off the road and you simply can't hear them from that distance. You can see them far off in the distance (10 miles?) from a lake where I fish. I haven't really heard anyone complain about them. Not scientific I know, but my individual experience and observation is different from this study.




Not the only danger
By AmishElvis on 8/14/2008 3:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, a new study suggests that living near a wind farm can cause serious health problems; including causes sleep disorders, difficulty with equilibrium, migraine headaches, panic attacks, and other issues.
This reminds me of the research showing a correlation between power lines and miscarriage, except miscarriage is a legitimate "serious health problem," whereas "sleep disorders, difficulty with equilibrium, migraine headaches, panic attacks" sounds a lot like trouble sleeping, dizziness, headaches, and anxiety, which sound like the kind of symptoms reported by people taking placebos, i.e. bullsh*t.
quote:
Sherry Eaton, who also lives near the Willow Creek project, says she "started to cry" when she saw* the first turbine being built.

Poor Sherry. It turns out that there are other people in the world with their own needs and desires. How sad that Sherry's personal preferences don't hold sway as far as her eye can see. My soul weeps. Let me see if I can find my tiny violin.

*fixed that for you.




tree hugging crybabies
By Soulkeeper on 8/14/2008 4:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
ok if rats can survive on islands where we've conducted nuclear tests, then humans can survive a little wind ....

a headache ?
c'mon stop crying




Nothing new in the turbine world!
By mcmilljb on 8/14/2008 5:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly how many people want to live near any power plants? I know I don't. Every power plant has d*mn turbines! How do you think fossil fuel power plants work??? They use heat to form pressured steam which is then used to turn the turbines. Hydro plants use water, and wind plants use the wind. It still remains the same: a turbine is turned to generate mechanical energy for the electrical generator. Nobody wants to live near one so they need to determine how close is safe. Besides it's not like they decided they want to put them on tops of buildings in Chicago! This researcher needs to return any money used to fund this research because people already knew turbines made noise!




Nevermind all this
By Runiteshark on 8/14/2008 5:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
What in the world? Who cares about people who have problems, nevermind all the land it takes up, nevermind how expensive and uneconomical it is, its still better then burning coal!

I bet the greenies deny all this happens anyway, just like they ignore how much space all this crap takes up




Ugly Windmills?
By kevinkreiser on 8/14/2008 7:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah because retirement homes are way less of an eye sore than a wind farm. I hate to say it, but old people have been known to cause migraines in many people.




Sound resistant walls?
By rupaniii on 8/15/2008 12:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well, they should be offered the option of installing soundproofing wall in their houses. At least goto 5/8 inch thick board and sound proofing windows.




Not another study...
By Andy35W on 8/15/2008 1:05:13 AM , Rating: 2
I'm getting rather tired of all these studies where people make a livelyhood out of just asking people questions and then doing a paper. Gravy train springs to mind.

I seem to recall electricity pylons and mobile phone masts are also problems according to "studies". They will be studying the effects on people of traffic lights next...




By James Wood Carter on 8/15/2008 10:28:32 AM , Rating: 2
As mentioned before its interesting to know the source of funding, sample sizes, and much more, this surmise in non-conclusive and symptoms described are vague and can be caused by a wide range of sources




By Integral9 on 8/15/2008 11:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
The problems experienced by people who live near these things are the exact same problems people experience living near bridges and busy train tracks and in cities. Low Energy Noise (or Extremely Low Frequency Noise, ELF) have been found to disturb the inner ear of people causing sleeplessness, headaches, panic attacks, and ADD like sypmtoms such as learning deficiencies. Low Energy Noise is normally caused by heavy industrial machinary, but can also be caused by bridges moving under stress, buildings swaying or even just a s--- ton of traffic; in general almost any large man-made object will cause it. In most cases the symptoms will subside as the person adapts.

This is not a new problem, just a new source of it being experienced by people who have not previously been exposed to LEN.




By blwest on 8/15/2008 9:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think every house should be outfitted with either a treadmill or exercise bike that is connected to the grid. This will solve our weight problem and our energy problem. Although I'm sure some fat American will argue that exercising is bad for your health too.




By jcl4726 on 8/17/2008 12:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
There are newer forms of Wind farms that look like a barn silo, do not obstruct the view, and are safe for birds and stuff. Today's wind farms are not designed well. The silo type uses a corkscrew like turbine.

For Nuclear power-today's reactors do have the capacity for meltdown. Any water cooled reactor can, but a few in Japan are using liquid metal, which has no steam problem. Also, the problem of disposal and mining for the radioactive isotopes adds to the cost of nuclear. France is mostly nuclear power, but they pay 3 separate taxes on it. Per watt, it doesn't make sense right now, and the risks are higher.

A lot of energy is lost through power lines. Having power right at the source of the home is best. The latest thinking is design for the climate/landscape. In Arizona, solar on homes make sense. Wave power (small piston buoys) out from shore on the coasts makes sense. Degrading natural beauty/landscapes either with smog or large power grids, like wind, is not good.

Generatng power from small sources (personal energy production) is latest idea-think small. ie soles of shoes to keep cell phone, solar panels on laptop computers for battery. Electronics that go to sleep. Lastly, if electronics and HVAC were 50% more efficient, we'd only need half the power plants.

Every problem these days has become a political noose to use to hang the other party. I'm not convinced anyone in power is really interested in finding solutions. It's less work and better for their careers to point fingers while maintaining the status quo.




It worked out well for her.
By KeithP on 8/14/2008 12:15:10 PM , Rating: 1
If her findings were any different, her book sales would probably have been much less.




By HueyD on 8/14/2008 12:21:38 PM , Rating: 1
You can probably find a study that shows breathing causes health problems... give me a break.




By JohnnyCNote on 8/14/2008 1:29:39 PM , Rating: 1
ok
By poundsmack on 8/14/08, Rating: 0
What is more hazardous to our health?
By wingless on 8/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is more hazardous to our health?
By sirokket16 on 8/14/2008 11:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2) Climate change causing global catastrophe


Yeah, didn't you guys see what happened in The Day After Tomorrow?


RE: What is more hazardous to our health?
By porkpie on 8/14/2008 11:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Hollywood told us, it must be true!


RE: What is more hazardous to our health?
By michal1980 on 8/14/2008 11:29:04 AM , Rating: 2
it must be, didn't the Prophet Al gore use Hollywood day after tommorow footage in his 'documentary'?!


RE: What is more hazardous to our health?
By 67STANG on 8/14/2008 11:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not too worried about climate change, we all know that this is the earth's natural cycle and has little or nothing to do with what we're doing here...

What I'm worried about, as I live in the SJ Valley in California, is air quality... I live exactly 15 minutes from the mountains, and most days I can only see the faint outline of them because of the smog.


By drebo on 8/14/2008 1:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know...I live in Stanislaus County and we're very clear here. Earlier in the summer, when half the state was on fire, we had some pretty bad air days...but over all, the summer has been well below recent years' temperatures and the air has been very clear.


By superkdogg on 8/14/2008 2:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not too worried about climate change, we all know that this is the earth's natural cycle and has little or nothing to do with what we're doing here...

Are you serious?

Earth has geological cycles. That's correct. Geological cycles that show significant change in 50 years? Nope, earth doesn't have those. You have to know that 50 years in geology is an instant in the common world, and any appreciable change in that short of time relatively speaking is of concern.

I'm pro-nuclear power. How many lives and dollars have we thrown into the middle east? Answer: Probably more than if we expanded nuclear power, switched to electric cars and suffered some casualties on the way.


RE: What is more hazardous to our health?
By Amiga500 on 8/14/2008 12:00:39 PM , Rating: 1
For the down-raters.

You happy taking the risk that humans are not driving climate change?

Considering the consequences if we are wrong?

I don't know the answer to whether we are a big influence on or it not, but since it is that damn big - I'd play it safe until I knew for sure.


By TomZ on 8/14/2008 12:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
If you are happy to make your life decisions based on fear, uncertainty, and doubt, then go for it.

In the meantime, the earth is going to do what it is going to do, and people and other species will adapt to living in whatever changing conditions exist. I don't really see there is a problem to solve, or a situation that can be avoided. Even if we are the main cause of global warming, something which I do not personally believe, I don't see any evidence that it would even be a problem for us.


RE: What is more hazardous to our health?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 12:29:57 PM , Rating: 3
> "Considering the consequences if we are wrong?"

The average temperature of the planet is 54F. Mankind - and most of the plants and animals upon which we depend, prefer a temperature closer to 70F.

If we're wrong, then the planet warms a couple degrees, making it more hospitable to life in general. The sea rises 39 centimeters. A few areas receive a little more rain; a few a little less. Hurricanes and storms don't increase in the slightest (see the latest research for a verification of this).

All in all, the effects range anywhere from a mild annoyance to a possible net benefit for humanity. Hardly any reason to risk our entire economic health and well being.


RE: What is more hazardous to our health?
By gamerk2 on 8/14/2008 4:02:13 PM , Rating: 2
Your forgetting that the rate of heating is EXPONENTIAL, not linear.

As the tempearture warms, the ice caps melt. This causes the water temps to rise, warming the water farther and causing more melting (This is proven fact.)

Next, white reflects light. As a result, as the icecaps melt, less heat gets reflected back into space. As a result, the rate of warming increases.

Also, crops tend to not like heat (true). Further more, insects the eat crops like the heat (also true). And one of the most vunerable crops happens to be corn, which produces ethonal (true and true). So global warming = greater gas prices.

As for the "latest data" you talk about, that was on study, and you fail to mention the hundreds of others which point to the opposite effect. And before you point out the lack of hurricans that have hit the US lately, I should point out the pacific islands have been slaughtered by hurricans over the past 5 or so years; While the US has had a major drop in storms the past few years, the rest of the world has had more, and usually more powerful.

And as for the sea rising ONLY 39 centimeters, that puts long Island (Population 3.5 Million) underwater. Same with Manhattan. And a "little more rain" put the midwest under water earlier this year.

Nope, none of these potential consequences is worth guarding against. You my friend, are the poster boy for ignorance. Did you come up with your thoughts yourself, or are you just repeating what conservatives have already said?


RE: What is more hazardous to our health?
By gamerk2 on 8/14/2008 4:55:45 PM , Rating: 3
Forgot to mention: Uranium is NOT a renewable resource. Most of it is mined from Africa, which is only slightly more stable than the middle east.

Besides, with our poor power infrastructure, I doubt the power lines themselves could carry any more juice without blowing out the entire system (btw, today is the anniversary of the 2003 blackout...silly falling trees :D)

Solar power is uasable right now though (its powered my house for over 10 years now...). If 10% of the population would install solar panels, power wouldn't be that big an issue. Electric and Hydrogen cars are only about 5 years away from being usable, plus another 5 till mass production.

And yet some people want to invest in a potentially dangerous technology, which will face the same supply issues oil does. Great idea :D


By blaster5k on 8/14/2008 5:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
Uranium is as good as well renewable. Nuclear reactors use so little of it that the estimated supply is longer than the years left on the sun. Granted, you have to go to the slightly more expensive stuff, but that cost is still nothing compared to the plant itself.

Also, Canada is the top uranium producer -- not Africa. The US gets most uranium from there as I recall, though we do get some here.


By Spuke on 8/14/2008 5:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If 10% of the population would install solar panels, power wouldn't be that big an issue.
All we need is about $20-$30K USD. No big deal.


By Hoser McMoose on 8/17/2008 1:54:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Forgot to mention: Uranium is NOT a renewable resource. Most of it is mined from Africa, which is only slightly more stable than the middle east.

Approximately 16% of the worlds uranium comes from Africa (Niger, Namibia and South Africa).

The top 3 producers of Uranium in the world are Canada (23%), Australia (21%) and Kazakhstan (16%). Most new development is in the areas in and around Kazakhstan (parts of Russian as well as some of the other 'stans). A while back I invested in a company opening a new mine in Mongolia (I did very well on the investment, though the mine is now in danger due to political stupidity), while there is also significant prospecting going on in some new areas of Canada.


By blaster5k on 8/14/2008 5:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
On the hurricanes, it's not one study. The evidence for increased storm intensity was never that great, though the media did make a big deal out of it. Most climate researchers don't seem to buy into it -- especially with the latest research.

The real question is -- assuming the theory is right, how far would really have to go to prevent havoc? Do you realize that people will die if we pursue extensive global warming mitigation measures too? They'll probably be the poor. They're the ones who will no longer be able to get food/shelter/medical care due to increased energy costs.

As we saw recently, the rise in oil prices resulted in people in some parts of the world facing hunger.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 7:29:28 PM , Rating: 3
> "Your forgetting that the rate of heating is EXPONENTIAL, not linear."

Eh? This couldn't possibly be more wrong. Even if global climate models are correct, increasing amounts of CO2 show a decreasing level of forcing. The more infrared absorbed, the less there is for further gases to absorb.

The only way one gets even a linear increase in temperature is to assume an exponential increase in GHG emissions. And even then, the models are falling severely out of line with reality. Warming predictions made 20 years ago had the globe 2-3C warmer by now (some even higher). Instead, temperatures have barely budged.

> "Also, crops tend to not like heat (true). "

Again, this is utterly incorrect. Nearly all predicted warming is expected in the coldest regions of the planet. The tropics are expected to be unaffected -- they may even cool slightly. Unless one assumes unsupported ideas of droughts or floods, global warming will be the biggest boon for food production since the agricultural revolution.

Also, let us not forget that plants grow faster under increased levels of CO2. This is why commercial greenhouses artificially add more of the gas to the air inside (a level of 1000-12000 ppm is normal). Several scientific studies have already confirmed we're seeing elevated plant growth from the CO2 spike of the past century.

> "And as for the sea rising ONLY 39 centimeters, that puts long Island (Population 3.5 Million) underwater."

Don't spread disinformation. Long Island's average elevation is 59 feet above sea level. Some areas are as high as 400 feet above. A 10 inch rise isn't going to make any difference....especially not with the technology we'll have by the year 2100:

http://people.hofstra.edu/J_B_Bennington/research/...


By Solandri on 8/14/2008 7:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your forgetting that the rate of heating is EXPONENTIAL, not linear.

As the tempearture warms, the ice caps melt. This causes the water temps to rise, warming the water farther and causing more melting (This is proven fact.)

Next, white reflects light. As a result, as the icecaps melt, less heat gets reflected back into space. As a result, the rate of warming increases.

The Earth has been habitable for a long time. The current and projected levels of CO2 are well within historical ranges. The temperature has ranged from much colder to much warmer than present during that time. The fact that we're living here now, and the Earth isn't a burnt cinder or a frozen block is pretty good evidence that there won't be a runaway heating or cooling effect, that the Earth's biosphere as a system is sufficiently stable that we won't suffer from any runaway effect. Certainly it's a matter of concern, discussion, and simple/cheap precautionary action. But the data hardly support dismantling our technological lifestyle to return to an agrarian society.

quote:
And before you point out the lack of hurricans that have hit the US lately, I should point out the pacific islands have been slaughtered by hurricans over the past 5 or so years; While the US has had a major drop in storms the past few years, the rest of the world has had more, and usually more powerful.

Then let's look at Atlantic hurricanes overall (not just the ones which have hit the U.S.):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7178/fi...

You'll notice the graph looks suspiciously like a cycle with a 40-year period between peaks? The real problem is our data only extends back about 50 years, when the first weather satellites were put into space. Before that we only knew about the hurricanes which hit land or were recorded at sea by ships. If we had more data, perhaps we could tell for sure if it was cyclical or if this was something to be more concerned about.

If you've got a similar chart for Pacific hurricanes, I'd love to see it. I wasn't able to find one.


RE: What is more hazardous to our health?
By andrinoaa on 8/15/2008 1:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
Your such a humanitarian masher2. I am glad you left a little for others not so fortunate as to live in gods own country.
On the contrary, a few degrees could be a disaster for more people than your simple little country holds. Don't think you will be immune to any possible disaters, because you don't really know. Your smugness will not protect you.
Have you missed the big picture the scientists are telling us? Would you be willing to kill millions of boat people trying to find higher ground in your patch, in cold blood ?
Or are you just another bucket seat coward? Christian in name but more coldblooded than Osama!
Stick to nitpicking, you sound more intelligent when you do.


RE: What is more hazardous to our health?
By blaster5k on 8/15/2008 10:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
As I mentioned in other posts here, people will also die if we pursue extensive mitigation measures. The cost estimates for total avoidance of this "catastrophe" are quite astronomical.

High energy costs are a big drag on the economy and result in higher prices for everything including basic needs like food, shelter, and medical care. This will lead to premature deaths, particularly in undeveloped and developing countries, but the lower income folks will be in trouble everywhere.


By andrinoaa on 8/16/2008 10:05:24 PM , Rating: 1
Are you saying , some people will die so what the fuck?
Are you truly so cold blooded? Maybe, you do deserve Osama!


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini













botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki