backtop

Blog: Science Study Finds Health Problems from Wind Farms
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 14, 2008 10:36 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 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/...