Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Health impacts of wind farms?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    Threat is a function not of risk but of capability and intent
    Risk is a probability of something actually happening

    …

    What Dr Bonner's letter says is that wind farms pose "no threat" - they may have capability but zero intent.
    This is really just semantics. At the end of the day, there is no evidence that living next to a wind farm will have an impact on your health.
    fclauson wrote: »
    When it comes to planning and the AIE directive an LC/AP is obliged to asses not the risk nor the threat but the IMPACT on health - and going back to my previous post - no LC or AP has sought advice on how to do this.
    How would such an assessment be conducted? There is no consensus on what “wind turbine syndrome” is (or whether it even exists), so what exactly would they be assessing?


  • Options
    #93
    fclauson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    I do not want to vote
    djpbarry wrote: »
    This is really just semantics.
    lawyers make their money out of semantics - you see the case here in Ireland - €400,000 spent arguing what "and includes" means in terms of the S.I. No. 133 of 2007
    At the end of the day, there is no evidence that living next to a wind farm will have an impact on your health.
    steady - read https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-turbine-noise-and-adverse-health-effects-summary-june-1-2014/

    you might not believe all of it - you might not believe half of it - but its a lot of noise (pun intended) about nothing if at least some of it is not true.

    There are some very serious medics let alone acousticians who have nailed their colours to the mast about what they think.

    Although I do agree some (but only some) of the views on both sides are tainted by money
    How would such an assessment be conducted? There is no consensus on what “wind turbine syndrome” is (or whether it even exists), so what exactly would they be assessing?

    back to my previous post - ask a professional medic whose remit it is to protect the countries health to lay out how you would asses the risks - and again - this was not done.


  • Options
    #94
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    steady - read https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-turbine-noise-and-adverse-health-effects-summary-june-1-2014/

    you might not believe all of it - you might not believe half of it - but its a lot of noise (pun intended) about nothing if at least some of it is not true.
    How many of the articles on that list are peer-reviewed studies linking proximity to wind turbines with illness?
    fclauson wrote: »
    There are some very serious medics let alone acousticians who have nailed their colours to the mast about what they think.
    And yet, “wind turbine syndrome” is not an accepted medical condition, nor have I read any publication from, say, The Institute of Acoustics, which supports the idea that wind turbines are a source of significant noise.
    fclauson wrote: »
    back to my previous post - ask a professional medic whose remit it is to protect the countries health to lay out how you would asses the risks - and again - this was not done.
    How can an individual’s potential susceptibility to “wind turbine syndrome” be assessed if (a) nobody has actually defined what “wind turbine syndrome” is and (b) as far as the medical community at large is concerned, it doesn’t exist?


  • Options
    #95
    fclauson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    I do not want to vote
    Conclusions: In this review, we have demonstrated the presence of reasonable evidence (Level Four and Five) that an association exists between wind turbines and distress in humans. The existence of a dose-response relationship (between distance from wind turbines and distress) and the consistency of association across studies found in the scientific literature argues for the credibility of this association. Future research in this area is warranted as to whether or not a causal relationship exists.

    http://www.cureus.com/articles/2457-systematic-review-2013-association-between-wind-turbines-and-human-distress#.U5FmIE1OWCg


  • Options
    #96
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    Conclusions: In this review, we have demonstrated the presence of reasonable evidence (Level Four and Five) that an association exists between wind turbines and distress in humans. The existence of a dose-response relationship (between distance from wind turbines and distress) and the consistency of association across studies found in the scientific literature argues for the credibility of this association. Future research in this area is warranted as to whether or not a causal relationship exists.

    http://www.cureus.com/articles/2457-systematic-review-2013-association-between-wind-turbines-and-human-distress#.U5FmIE1OWCg
    I haven't read the article just yet, but:
    Publishing your research with Cureus is a simple and enjoyable experience. From case studies to original articles, technical reports to review articles, we’ll help you publish in just a few days, complete with comprehensive peer review and editorial oversight.
    There's no way a properly peer-reviewed article gets published in "just a few days". It often takes months.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Enola Straight
    Registered Users Posts: 3 ✭Enola Straight


    the main objections to wind energy are the cost, and the unreliability. The only "alternative" energy which will eventually prove to have a contribution to make is solar energy, which gets mroe and more efficient all the time, the costs of production are falling, which will eventually make solar the most dependent and cheapest of the alternative technologies.


  • Options
    #98
    fclauson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    I do not want to vote
    Enola Straight wrote: »
    the main objections to wind energy are the cost, and the unreliability. The only "alternative" energy which will eventually prove to have a contribution to make is solar energy, which gets mroe and more efficient all the time, the costs of production are falling, which will eventually make solar the most dependent and cheapest of the alternative technologies.

    Unfortunately Solar has a bad record at night time :eek:


  • Options
    #99
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    can create debilitating symptoms
    [mod]Thread closed as two threads started by same poster on the same issue open at the same time is not necessary.[/mod]


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement